|
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54... Don, Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please? Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand and accept the consequences. Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to "take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should understand that. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53... Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed by laws to protect my family from people like you. When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is that not anarchy? Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where no one has to hear you complain again. How's that for a hypothetical? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:19:56 -0400, "Don"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:25:49 -0400, "Don" wrote: "Henry Blackmoore" wrote "Doug Kanter" wrote: Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the courts on a fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd consider "normal suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long as the method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You really ought to think before you hurl, boy. Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the "food crop" definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's pets for a damaged tomato plant? Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your beer, fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of knuckle sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door? If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open yourself up to that same behavior. Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore? Perhaps you need to measure your response to the situation. A damaged flower is not the same as a break-in, theft, sexual assault etc. Lethal force is justified in cases of imminent threat, but not for lesser infractions. Perhaps you need to surround your garden with a fence. Killing a pet is an excessive response, and shows a general irresponsibility and reckless disregard for other people's rights. There are other effective (and legal) ways of dealing with a situation like this. IMHO, people who can easily justify the killing of an animal for such petty "crimes", is only one step away from using that same mindset against humans as well. Psychological studies show that most serial killers started out torturing animals. So maybe the ticking time bomb analogy is not so far off the mark....... sigh Dave, Dave, Dave. Again, you are trying to smear me as a person that harms animals. Why? Please be specific. Thanks. Doug has outwardly stated his intention of "taking out" the offending dog. You have implied a similar mindset. If that is not your intention then I would suggest that you are being deliberately vague and possibly disingenuous with regard to your position. The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in taking matters into your own hands? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:07:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Two things: First of all, the guy who killed the pet didn't finish the job. He should wrapped it in a trash bag and taken it to a dumpster. He still ended up forking over some dough for illegally killing his neighbor's pet. That in itself would seem to validate the notion that killing a pet over yard damage is neither legal nor justified. Not necessarily. First of all, this was a TV show. Jerry Springer aside, do you seriously think a network would air a court session which informed millions of people that they could get away with executing stray dogs? So you now posit that the law is somehow "modified" in its interpretation when the legal venue is televised? I'd be interested in seeing some data that supports this. The laws you referenced were put into place to cover wild animals destroying commercial crops, not domestic pets invading a vegetable garden. The law here does not specify animals by species. Any uncontrolled animal is "wild". A good lawyer could argue that. A domestic "pet" is not considered wild. Especially if it is properly licensed, and displays them. In a town with the laws written the way they are in mine, that lawyer would be wasting his breath. Besides, what difference does it make whether crops are destroyed by a coyote or your neighbor's stray dog? Either way, the damage is done. Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your valuables away from harm. And, answer a question which I posed to one of the Patsy Twins: How large do YOU think a vegetable garden has to be before YOU consider it a food source which, if threatened, is the same as someone sticking a knife in your face and demanding your wallet? Would you kill someone who ran off with your car? Would the law consider it justified? Why then do you not extend the same logic to pets? The "value" of the item is irrelevant. That you resorted to using deadly force, when the use of such was not warranted IS the issue. If someone runs off with my car, they are no longer on my property. Even if caught them in the driveway fiddling with the ignition, the law only allows me to shoot them if they are in my dwelling. I can't even SHOW a gun legally in that situation. It's called "brandishing". I can have my hand ready on the concealed weapon, and I can tell them I have a weapon, but it can only be drawn under a narrow set of circumstances. I'm glad you understand this so well, and you are 100% correct. But tell me then, how can you extend a whole different set of circumstances to a neighbor's dog? In an earlier post, you remarked about the intrinsic "value" of crops versus that of destructive animals as some sort of justification for killing them. In the case of wild animals, the "value" of commercial crops would seem to exceed the "value" of rabbits, deer, or other indigenous wildlife. Commercial crops? Who are YOU to determine the monetary value of the food I grow? One year, I got a 20x40 area to crank out what we estimated to be over $800.00 worth of food. What is the "value" that you place on another living being? Depends on which being you're referring to. On a scale of 0 to 10, everyone in my family is worth 10. The neighbor's dog is worth 4, at most, as long as it's off my property. Its value drops to 0 the minute it breaks the rules on my property. To give you something to compare to: Earthworm: 8 Cow: 8 Cat: 9 Coyote: 6 Trout, any species: 218 Neighbors' kids: 9 I find it interesting that you'd rate fish higher than you own family....... But pets are another matter. People place a high "value" on their pets, and as such, they are not as arbitrary and subject to the same considerations WRT intrinsic value versus a wild animal. Correction: ***SOME*** people place a high value on their pets. The ones who let dogs roam the neighborhood do NOT. And you know this how? Because I'm much smarter than you, and won't fall for such a ridiculous question. For a guy who's supposedly so smart, you sure have a convoluted understanding of the law and your rights and responsibilities within it. And for the record, you not "falling" for the question is not so much a matter of your greater intelligence as it is your realization that you would be unable to honestly answer the question, since you cannot be in the position to make that statement with any degree of validity. Your answer, therefore, was little more than another feeble attempt at deflection. Those people have clearly demonstrated that they want their dogs to be hit by cars. Otherwise, they would not let them roam. An assumption. One that is not interchangeable with fact. To apply that same logic, parents who let their kids out to play, must want harm to come to them, since by doing so, they open them up to potential accidents and abductions. Surely you see the flaws in your logic. No. Kids can eventually be taught that it's dangerous to be careless around traffic. But accidents can still happen, and pedophiles are lying in wait. Dogs, on the other hand, are stupid, and will never learn this. An interesting statement coming from someone who once declared that animals are as intelligent as humans. Since this is obvious, it's safe to assume that anyone who lets their dog roam has accepted the likelihood that it will be hit by a car. You've obviously never spent much time training a dog. I've been around many dogs who were not only aware of traffic, they actually learned to look both ways before crossing a street. Any seeing-eye dog is aware of things like traffic, the life of their handler depends on it. That you would make such a blanket statement shows how little you really know about dogs. Anything which is easily prevented but which is NOT prevented, is intentional. And you have the nerve to accuse me of living in a black and white, binary world? If that statement is not an example of binary thinking on steroids, I don't know what is.... This is the logic behind laws involving negligence, i.e.: criminally negligent homicide. Which is much different from an intentional homicide, like murder. You can be legally responsible for a loss of life, but you didn't have to intend to do it. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder. You should learn the difference. Do you have a right to kill a wild rabbit who invades your garden? What if it was your neighbor's prized poodle? What if it was the neighbor's kid? Where do you draw the line? I'm curious to hear your justification. Rabbit: 99% of the time, no. Bugs and rabbits sometimes eat 10% of your crops. I plant 10% extra. It works out nicely. Rabbits may eat some lettuce, but they don't dig up a 1x1 square every time they take a crap. Most dogs don't either. Dogs dig for other reasons which have little to do with their potty habits. Doesn't matter to me why they do it. If they do it in my garden, they're headed for trouble. I begin working on food plants in the middle of January using plant lights. The hard work goes on indoors until April. Once they're in the ground, the plants are vulnerable until they reach a certain size. Any animal that destroys 4 months' worth of work can expect to be dealt with. So why not just put up a fence then? It seems that your investment is valuable enough for you to take precautions? One particularly bold rabbit became coniglio con aglio, rosmarino & pomodori, served with buckwheat polenta. Delicious. But the point here is that no one would miss a wild rabbit, so there's likely no one who would challenge your "right" to kill it. A pet is another story. You keep falling into this hole. Question: If a person cares about his dog, why does that person let it roam a suburban neighborhood full of traffic? If a person cares so much about his vegetable garden, then why does he not put a fence around it? Poodle: If it fits the necessary criteria and diplomatic efforts to stop the problem have failed, the dog is in trouble. It's not your call to make. The law says it is, as long as I've pursued legal means to put a stop to it. Show me the passage where it states that if you have exhausted (or became frustrated with) legal channels that you have the right to kill the offending pet. I won't hold my breath. Incidentally, you've chosen or pretended to miss the difference between a rabbit and a dog. The rabbit's doing what it's supposed to do. And a dog is not? Private property, Dave. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that concept? On your property, you have the right to put tacky stuffed sheep and ugly statues and there's not a thing I can do about it. On my property, I have the right to deal with dogs. No you don't. I can jump up and down naked on your property and you can call the cops to come arrest me. But you CAN'T shoot me. Nor can you shoot my dog. You seem to have no problem understanding that you can't shoot a person, but you seem to have a problem extending this to animals. Some neighborhoods have restrictions about what "tacky" things you can put out as well. The "man's home is his castle" concept is long gone in a growing number of areas.. The dog belongs to a person who is pretending not to know that you cannot destroy your neighbor's property. Like I said before, put up a fence if you can't deal with a neighbor's pet who occasionally wanders. Only if the neighbor pays for the fence. Otherwise, they're stealing from me. Nice fences don't come cheap. So you want other people to "protect" your investment? You sound just like those waterfront idiots who want all boats to pass by at no-wake speeds so you don't have to invest your own money to build a retaining wall. Neighbor's kids: Don't be stupid. That's a human being, easily dealt with via the standard laws of civil trespass. So why then, can you not exercise the same consideration for pets? I suspect that you just have some sort of mental thing for dogs. A mental thing? Yeah...it's called "hate". I don't feel this way about any other animal. I even like mosquitoes more than dogs. :-) I'm polite to the well-behaved dogs and their owners. That's as far as I go, and that's enough. I would suggest that your hatred for dogs is severely clouding your judgement in this case. As far as inadvertent damage to property, whether it is caused by a human or an animal, there are laws that address this, as well as civil court. Those options are far better than shooting something you are just itching for an excuse to do anyway. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but **** happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet. If your answer is "yes", then you must also believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS property and dump it on his porch. You are supposed to know better. A dog does not. You're a piece of work, boy. The neighbor knows that he is doing wrong by letting the dog roam. Does he? Here, when you go to get a license for your vermine, you're given a brochure which explains the law regarding leashes. Therefore, if you let the dog roam the neighborhood, you are doing so with the clear intent of ****ing off your neighbors. So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with the intent of making your life miserable. That's an unfortunate consequence. No wonder you have problems understanding such concepts as "collateral damage". One could also make the claim that since there will be a certain percentage of people who let their dogs roam, as well as stray and wild animals, that it is reasonable to expect that if you wish to have your "valuable" garden protected, that you should take preventative measures of your own, such as a fence. A fence would go a long way toward preventing animal damage from occurring rather than you waiting for it to happen, and then trying to extract restitution from either the unfortunate animal or his befuddled owner. When you are out fishing, do you make your passengers wear a PFD, or will you wait for an accident to happen so that you can sue someone for their "negligence"? You ever hear of the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: And if I found a way to somehow occupy 20% of YOUR weekend time with bull**** that annoyed you, and repeated this every weekend for the entire summer, what would YOU do? Suffer with it in silence? That would make you my wife ;-) . Oh, and I WOULD be ****ed off. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your pain. I just don't agree that you have the right to take the law into your own hands as a solution. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:11:53 -0400, "Don"
wrote: No one has the right to govern others. Anarchy is fine as long as you have the upper hand. When someone else decides that they don't like YOU, and they exercise their lawless "rights" to your detriment, then you'll cry for "justice". Except that there won't be any. Don't give yourself any rights that you wouldn't want someone else using against you. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Being a good neighbor works both ways. I would certainly cross the guy who kills my pet off of my Christmas list. Did you type that without laughing? Satire is one of my favorite comedic ironies. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
I don't have time right now to answer your longer questions, but let me ask
you one: Do YOU let YOUR dog out of the house and let it roam the neighborhood sometimes? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com