|
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:31:31 -0400, "Don" wrote: What the **** is it with you John? What the hell difference does it make if Doug agrees with me? Don't you have a brain of your own? Don't you have a backbone? We're not talking rocket surgery here, just very simple basics. Most kids are taught these things at about age 5, how old are you? Here, I'll spell it out for you: *Treat other people as you want to be treated.* There, is that simple enough? If you abuse that one simple rule of humanity you may pay a severe consequence. Don't let your dog **** in my yard, don't paintball my house, don't fondle my daughter, etc. In turn I won't do those things to you. Does any of this make sense to you? Fair enough. If my dog ****s in your yard, you have my permission to **** in mine. If you kill my dog, then I kill you. Fair? That is fair. However, I went one step further, to insure your civility. We installed a 6' high estate fence around our new home so that your dog will not cause you to get killed. See how nice I am? You seem to have this issue with comparing apples to oranges. In no way, in any rational person's mind, should something so trivial as "dog droppings" justify lethal force as a response. Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch repeatedly? You seem to be following Johns footsteps. Not once have I advocated harming an animal, ever. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
You're full of ****.
I am under no obligation file anything with anyone, and I will do exactly as I please and you have no say about it. Our closest neighbor is over a mile away. This boy has lost his capacity to think. "John Smith" wrote in message news:UZ7ic.10371$_L6.898892@attbi_s53... Don, I am not reacting emotional, it appears that you are, based upon your experience with a bad neighbor. I hate to tell you this, but if someone damages your property, you have neither the moral or the legal justification to damage your neighbors property. You have the right to file a report with the police and to take them to court. "Don" wrote in message ... Geezis, what the hell is going on around here? I said that if you choose to use MY stuff to YOUR benefit than I have the moral equivilent to do the same. John, PLEASE think these things through before reacting emotionally. "John Smith" wrote in message news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01... Don, I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I can tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same as being a child molester. Did I miss something? "Don" wrote in message ... "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? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Don" wrote in message
... Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your couch repeatedly? Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with. He doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the law. So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"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. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Time for some you to take some anger management classes Don. Are you ever
happy? "Don" wrote in message ... You're full of ****. I am under no obligation file anything with anyone, and I will do exactly as I please and you have no say about it. Our closest neighbor is over a mile away. This boy has lost his capacity to think. "John Smith" wrote in message news:UZ7ic.10371$_L6.898892@attbi_s53... Don, I am not reacting emotional, it appears that you are, based upon your experience with a bad neighbor. I hate to tell you this, but if someone damages your property, you have neither the moral or the legal justification to damage your neighbors property. You have the right to file a report with the police and to take them to court. "Don" wrote in message ... Geezis, what the hell is going on around here? I said that if you choose to use MY stuff to YOUR benefit than I have the moral equivilent to do the same. John, PLEASE think these things through before reacting emotionally. "John Smith" wrote in message news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01... Don, I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I can tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same as being a child molester. Did I miss something? "Don" wrote in message ... "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? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Don wrote in message ... "Henry Blackmoore" wrote Wait a minute, awhile back you said: ************************************************** *** I also live in Sugar Land. And no, one cannot take firearms out into the backyard and practice with live rounds. Not even a BB gun for that matter. You have watched too many westerns on your boob tube. ************************************************** *** And now you're saying that people CAN shoot guns in their backyards: ************************************************** *** LoL, actually I have a police officer neighbor a few door away that shoots snakes in his yard. He is deathly afraid of snakes and his house backs up to a bayou. ************************************************** *** So the question is, were you lying then, or are you lying now? Please consult your boob tube if necessary. Oh oh Henry! You've 'been told' again. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:51:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The same laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple pleasure of a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care. Well, I can remember a case that I saw on one of those TV court shows (I know, not the best forum) where a neighbor had problems with a cat or dog tearing up their garden, and after finally having enough, set out some rat poison. The neighbor's pet ate it and died. The pet owner figured out what happened and sued the "killer" and was awarded damages for her loss. 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. Either way, he was rid of the problem. Second: It's highly likely that the pet owner learned to keep her next animal where it belonged. I wouldn't know. Then again, it's even more likely that the pet killer would not be so quick to murder the next pet either. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. Your contempt for them is plainly obvious. That you would take a totally different tact when dealing with a human versus a dog, which is causing the same damage, is telling in itself. Remember a parent is responsible for a young child in much the same way as they are responsible for a pet. Whatever tact or logic you apply toward an unruly child, can also be used against an equally unruly pet. You still don't have the right to kill the pet, even if you consider them below whale dung on the evolutionary scale. Anything else you need to be taught today? Nope, you've illustrated your poor judgement just fine for one day. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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. Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to my yard and litter it with ****? 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. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:57:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Not only does the machine cost money, but the dog owner has stolen 3-4 hours of my precious time. If I apply my working rate to my weekend hours, that time is worth between $500 and $10,000.00. The dog owner has stolen that from me. An extreme exaggeration meant, no doubt, to attach some sort of inflated value to your time, Really? In the last 45 minutes, I sold 7 trucks of cereal to a large midwestern grocery chain. I have 3 more to go. The profit will amount to around $9000.00. Don't question what my time is worth, boy. Matter of fact, don't question what ANYONE'S time is worth, except your own. Irrelevant. Your time in this case is worth nothing. And even if it were, it still does not justify using excessive force to kill an animal. The way you attempt to rationalize everything in terms of dollars and cents, I'd swear you were one of those right wing radical capitalists. You know, the ones who put money ahead of all other considerations..... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Sheesh, why didn't you tell me you were talking about the law according to
one of America's most fiery anarchist. I thought we were talking about the law according to the US Penal Code. Now if we were talking about the Penal Code the law is: Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury. It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes. As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself. The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts he has aided the assailant. The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended. 1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger. 2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck. When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction. A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards. As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy. "Don" wrote in message ... You don't know what you're talking about. Go Google: Lysander Spooner and find out what real *Law* is. sheesh..... "John Smith" wrote in message news:8H7ic.9827$w96.1023873@attbi_s54... What you said was "....The *law* says that if you touch my stuff, I am required to shoot your stupid ass in the face. Get it?" What the law really says is you can not use deadly force unless a reasonable man would feel in danger of his life. If you shot someone because they touched your stuff, you would be charged with murder. "Don" wrote in message ... John, you better straighten up your act or you will be sent to the corner for contemplation. Where in my single sentence below did I mention dogs? "John Smith" wrote in message news:vr%hc.5371$YP5.524839@attbi_s02... Don, Again, I am confused, are you saying if your neighbors dog takes a crap in your lawn, you are required by law to shot him in the face? "Don" wrote in message ... "Henry Blackmoore" wrote Show me where the laws in a suburban area in this country have been interpreted to allow a homeowner to hide under the guise of growing "food crops" while killing his neighbors dog or cats? Garden be damned. The *law* says that if you touch my stuff, I am required to shoot your stupid ass in the face. Get it? |
When to shoot a falre into someone elses bilge WAS: When wouldyou board someone else's boat??
Doug Kanter wrote: "Charles" wrote in message ... Oh, I understand. You're a ticking time bomb. You are the left-wing liberal counterpart to the angry- at-society skin-head. -- Charlie Gotta separate things into categories to help you: 1) Because I agree with Harry on a few things, I'm a liberal? 2) Actually, due to a couple of letters I wrote to a local paper, the Libertarians are courting me. If you knew anything about the labels you use, you'd understand this. Thanks for the help. You're still an angry time bomb. -- Charlie |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:22:43 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote: I have no idea if it is legal to shot a dog because he comes into your garden, but I know I could never kill a dog for that reason. If a dog was running free and crapping in my garden I would call animal control and have the dog picked up. If the neighbor was being unreasonable and was not honoring my request to keep his animal off of my property, I would file a suit with small claims court. I can't believe that two people in this small group, would advocate killing a defense animal due to their neighbors neglect. Yours and Don's statements say more about who you are, than anything I or anyone else could say. That's my point as well. There are many ways to deal with this situation without becoming a knucklehead. Being a good neighbor works both ways. I would certainly cross the guy who kills my pet off of my Christmas list. It would be a damned shame if he needed help with something and I suddenly became unavailable..... Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:21:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message news:nU7ic.10331$IW1.713713@attbi_s52... I have no idea if it is legal to shot a dog because he comes into your garden, but I know I could never kill a dog for that reason. If a dog was running free and crapping in my garden I would call animal control and have the dog picked up. If the neighbor was being unreasonable and was not honoring my request to keep his animal off of my property, I would file a suit with small claims court. I can't believe that two people in this small group, would advocate killing a defense animal due to their neighbors neglect. Yours and Don's statements say more about who you are, than anything I or anyone else could say. Unlike Henry, you sound like a guy who has the mental capacity to mull over a hypothetical situation. In fact, this is based on reality. Here goes: 1) The animal control person fails to do his job after 15 phonecalls. The excuses are absurd. 2) The neighbor promises to improve the situation, but does absolutely nothing. 3) You go to court and are told that it's not a small claims issue. 4) It's the middle of May, and you've put 200 hours of work into the vegetable garden so far. It's literally being destroyed by a dog which digs there. Now what? P U T U P A F E N C E !!!!!!!! Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Don, I am so glad you have decided to participate in this NG, you will bring
more joy to this forum than anyone can imagine. "Don" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Don" wrote in message ... Doug, You don't have to go defensive over erroneous claims. Henry has no more say over your property than you do over his. Just smear his nose in his own **** and move on. I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The same laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple pleasure of a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care. sigh It's not your job to educate morons, though you may choose to do so for hobby. The *law* has nothing to do with it. We're talking about *morality* here. If Blackmoore chooses to act immorally and infringe on your *natural* rights, you just plug him and turn him into fertilizer. There are way too many Blackmoores running loose anyway. Morality, yes. But, in some cases, the law reflects basic moral issues which continue to be important to people. Associating written laws with morality does you a disservice. There is no connection. Henry has apparently created nothing worth preserving, therefore he is having extreme difficulty grasping this issue. Fortunately, the courts do NOT share this handicap. Henry should invite his lawyer to dinner and request an education. Better yet, he should head to his town/city hall and spend an afternoon browsing through his local laws. It'll be a real eye opener. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Doug,
The Penal Code says you are allowed to use any force necessary to stop the dog's attack, but once the dog is no longer a threat, you may not use any more force on the animal. It appears that you and Don believe in a high power than the US Penal Code. Peace and love, "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Don" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:nU7ic.10331$IW1.713713@attbi_s52... I have no idea if it is legal to shot a dog because he comes into your garden, but I know I could never kill a dog for that reason. If a dog was running free and crapping in my garden I would call animal control and have the dog picked up. If the neighbor was being unreasonable and was not honoring my request to keep his animal off of my property, I would file a suit with small claims court. I can't believe that two people in this small group, would advocate killing a defense animal due to their neighbors neglect. Yours and Don's statements say more about who you are, than anything I or anyone else could say. Unlike Henry, you sound like a guy who has the mental capacity to mull over a hypothetical situation. In fact, this is based on reality. Here goes: 1) The animal control person fails to do his job after 15 phonecalls. The excuses are absurd. 2) The neighbor promises to improve the situation, but does absolutely nothing. 3) You go to court and are told that it's not a small claims issue. 4) It's the middle of May, and you've put 200 hours of work into the vegetable garden so far. It's literally being destroyed by a dog which digs there. Now what? Two years ago when we lived in the more urban part of the city, while walking my 2 leashed (leashes are required here) spaniels at 10 pm, we were viciously attacked by full grown Rottweilers and German Shepherds THREE times. All three times I kicked the hell out of the attackers, while pulling my 2 leashed dogs behind me. During the last attack I killed the German Shepherd with about 5 good kicks to the ribs and head. After the first attack I called the Animal Control and was told there is nothing they can do after 5 pm. I then called the police and they told me that there was nothing they could do and that I should get a gun and a permit and shoot the attackers. I then asked if it was illegal to discharge a firearm in the city limits and they told me it was. I then asked what the penalty was for shooting a dog within the city limits and they told me that I would be charged with a felony and my gun would be confiscated. Welcome to the new Russia. Step 1: Pepper spray Step 2: Break the dog's neck Step 3: Drop dog into nearest trash can, being sure to remove its tags, if any, and drop them into the nearest storm drain. Step 4: Go home and celebrate with a beer. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Don, Have you always believe in Anarchy?
"Don" wrote in message ... There's something wrong with this boy's circuit board. If you leave me the hell alone, John, you can expect the same in return. If you **** with me, you will get ****ed over. Is that so hard to understand? And you can shove your *anger managment* right up your ass, anger has nothing to do with it, common sense does....which you seem to be lacking. "John Smith" wrote in message news:X38ic.10395$IW1.715397@attbi_s52... I was wondering if Doug was as out of control as you were. I completely agree that you should treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated. What you fail to realize is you do not have the right to break the law, by damaging or taking your neighbors property, in retaliation to his breaking the law. While many people in here disagree, you are the only person in rec.boats who scares me. I can not believe anyone would say "If you abuse that one simple rule (the Golden Rule), you must pay a severe consequence". I think you might benefit from some anger management counseling. "Don" wrote in message ... What the **** is it with you John? What the hell difference does it make if Doug agrees with me? Don't you have a brain of your own? Don't you have a backbone? We're not talking rocket surgery here, just very simple basics. Most kids are taught these things at about age 5, how old are you? Here, I'll spell it out for you: *Treat other people as you want to be treated.* There, is that simple enough? If you abuse that one simple rule of humanity you may pay a severe consequence. Don't let your dog **** in my yard, don't paintball my house, don't fondle my daughter, etc. In turn I won't do those things to you. Does any of this make sense to you? "John Smith" wrote in message news:Fw0ic.5465$cF6.293888@attbi_s04... Doug, So you do agree with Don that a person who allows a dog to crap on your lawn, is the same thing as your neighbor coming over to your house and sexually molesting your daughter? Do you also agree with Don, that the law requires you to shot the person in the face if their dog craps in your lawn? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01... Don, I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I can tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same as being a child molester. Did I miss something? This is simple, John. Based on actual experience: I'm working in the garden. I have 3 neighbors with little target dogs, like dachshunds. I cut my lawn correctly in the summer, which means 3-4". The target dogs' turds are small enough to fall beneath the level of the grass. I step in it. I'm preoccupied with gardening. I am entitled to focus only on the thing I enjoy, rather than having to watch every step I take. I step in the turds, and run into the house for a drink of water, and maybe to use the bathroom. Now, there's turd on my carpet. I have to stop what I'm doing and rent a rug shampooer. Not only does the machine cost money, but the dog owner has stolen 3-4 hours of my precious time. If I apply my working rate to my weekend hours, that time is worth between $500 and $10,000.00. The dog owner has stolen that from me. Get it? Stealing. Why? So the dog owner can keep his fat ass on the sofa watching football, rather than tie the dog up in his own backyard and clean the turds out of his damned lawn. Calling the dog catcher a dozen times achieved nothing. "Duh...I have to actually witness the dog running loose before I can do anything about it". This is why one dog on my street actually vanished about 15 years ago. Sort of like Jimmy Hoffa. My property, my garden, my time, my money. No different than if you did a gorgeous job of painting your house and I came along with a painball gun and redecorated it for you. Get it? Same exact thing. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Don,
Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please? "Don" wrote in message ... You're full of ****. I am under no obligation file anything with anyone, and I will do exactly as I please and you have no say about it. Our closest neighbor is over a mile away. This boy has lost his capacity to think. "John Smith" wrote in message news:UZ7ic.10371$_L6.898892@attbi_s53... Don, I am not reacting emotional, it appears that you are, based upon your experience with a bad neighbor. I hate to tell you this, but if someone damages your property, you have neither the moral or the legal justification to damage your neighbors property. You have the right to file a report with the police and to take them to court. "Don" wrote in message ... Geezis, what the hell is going on around here? I said that if you choose to use MY stuff to YOUR benefit than I have the moral equivilent to do the same. John, PLEASE think these things through before reacting emotionally. "John Smith" wrote in message news:Cd%hc.16820$GR.2456214@attbi_s01... Don, I am having a hard time following this conversation, but from what I can tell you are saying that a dog taking a crap on your lawn is the same as being a child molester. Did I miss something? "Don" wrote in message ... "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? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:51:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . I'm simply helping him understand laws he is 100% unfamiliar with. The same laws I've become 100% familiar with in order to enjoy the simple pleasure of a vegetable garden in the midst of a few neighbors who don't care. Well, I can remember a case that I saw on one of those TV court shows (I know, not the best forum) where a neighbor had problems with a cat or dog tearing up their garden, and after finally having enough, set out some rat poison. The neighbor's pet ate it and died. The pet owner figured out what happened and sued the "killer" and was awarded damages for her loss. 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? 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Dogs, on the other hand, are stupid, and will never learn this. 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. Anything which is easily prevented but which is NOT prevented, is intentional. This is the logic behind laws involving negligence, i.e.: criminally negligent homicide. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:SQcic.11849$w96.1131616@attbi_s54... Doug, The Penal Code says you are allowed to use any force necessary to stop the dog's attack, but once the dog is no longer a threat, you may not use any more force on the animal. It appears that you and Don believe in a high power than the US Penal Code. What dog? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:13:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:17:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: If you ask a neighbor to control its dog and the neighbor refuses, then yes. It is equivalent to molesting your daughter. I do NOT agree that the neighbor should be shot. However, you must realize that by refusing to cooperate, the neighbor has made a request. No he hasn't. That's YOUR choice. He's not the one with the problem, you are. Nope. By his INACTION in managing his pet correctly, he has said "I'm doing nothing, and I dare you to do something about it". That's negative logic. And since you can't prove a negative, it's not a position that would hold water in a true debate. He has asked you to bring all possible legal forces to bear on him as quickly as possible. Key word: Legal. Killing his pet is not justified, unless that pet attacks you. The food destruction legalities have already been explained to you. They will NOT be explained again. NOTHING except imminent threat is justification to kill. YOU need to learn that. As far as a dog simply crapping on your lawn: The law defines civil trespass to INCLUDE causing or negligently permitting foreign substances to enter private property. So, if neighbor's dog craps on your property, the human has trespassed, even if he's on the sofa when the dog is on your property. I'd love to see the case law which backs up your position. Even if you are right, and the neighbor assumes all liability (and he does to some degree) it still does not give you the right to circumvent the law. If your neighbor is spray painting his garage and allows it to drift onto your car, he's trespassing. Get it? No, he's not trespassing. But he will be liable for cleaning up the car, as this is actionable in small claims court. It's your job to involve the police, animal control people and courts immediately, the goal being to remove the animal from the home, extract a huge fine, and cause as much heartbreak as possible at the loss of a pet. So you like inflicting pain on other people? I believe in giving back too. If you killed my dog, lets just say that your land would soon become unable to sustain life for the next several years....... And then where would you be? Right, just where you are now, in an apartment. If you allow your dog to litter private property, YOU obviously enjoy inflicting pain. Litter = Pain? On which planet? What if a neighbor needs to take 3 hours off from work to wait at home for a carpet cleaning service. Why would he? I already told you, 5 minutes with a bottle of spray cleaner and brush. No carpet service is necessary. You really do live in a world of extremes..... You have stolen from them, Davey. Because of your dog, the neighbor may end up experiencing friction with his boss. If the boss is an asshole, the employee may not hear the end of the aggravation for quite some time, all because you were too busy on the sofa to walk your dog. Oh brother! You should be writing novels. A meteor might hit your yard tomorrow too. Living your life according to "what-if" scenario strawmen, is about as unrealistic as one could get. Remember: You are honoring the neighbor's explicit request. As a side benefit, you will help his children learn something which he was too stupid or lazy to teach them - owning a pet involves work. Yes it does. But it is not your place to teach them. Losing your dog is better than prison, don't you think? No one was ever sent to prison for having his dog crap on a neighbor's lawn. You really do need a reality check Doug. Dog owners like that really don't want to own pets. They probably get dogs because someone else in the house wanted one, but was also too lazy to care for it correctly. That much is true in many cases. But it's still not your place. Here, after 3 complaints, the dog catcher will remove the dog from the owner PERMANENTLY and arrange for a $250.00 fine. Do you think the dog catcher enjoys inflicting pain? That's his job, and his job is justified under the law. Your vigilante approach is neither. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... 4) It's the middle of May, and you've put 200 hours of work into the vegetable garden so far. It's literally being destroyed by a dog which digs there. Now what? P U T U P A F E N C E !!!!!!!! Dave M A I L M E A C H E C K, D A V E !!!!! |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Being a good neighbor works both ways. I would certainly cross the guy who kills my pet off of my Christmas list. Did you type that without laughing? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Damn, I am lost. Didn't you say you killed a dog for crapping in your lawn?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:SQcic.11849$w96.1131616@attbi_s54... Doug, The Penal Code says you are allowed to use any force necessary to stop the dog's attack, but once the dog is no longer a threat, you may not use any more force on the animal. It appears that you and Don believe in a high power than the US Penal Code. What dog? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: How about this: I'm creating a new art form. It's sort of like etchings. I use a key on the side of your car. It won't be just a scratch, mind you. It'll be an actual picture. This is identical to your allowing your dog to crap on my lawn. Is my new art form OK with you? Another strawman? You also seem to be unable to grasp the difference between deliberate and malicious intent, and incidental, consequential actions. The dog craps because that's a natural act. In some places, it's illegal to allow a dog to roam loose. In other places it's perfectly acceptable (and legal). I suggest you move to one of those uptight areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents. Dave |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:57:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Not only does the machine cost money, but the dog owner has stolen 3-4 hours of my precious time. If I apply my working rate to my weekend hours, that time is worth between $500 and $10,000.00. The dog owner has stolen that from me. An extreme exaggeration meant, no doubt, to attach some sort of inflated value to your time, Really? In the last 45 minutes, I sold 7 trucks of cereal to a large midwestern grocery chain. I have 3 more to go. The profit will amount to around $9000.00. Don't question what my time is worth, boy. Matter of fact, don't question what ANYONE'S time is worth, except your own. Irrelevant. Your time in this case is worth nothing. And even if it were, it still does not justify using excessive force to kill an animal. The way you attempt to rationalize everything in terms of dollars and cents, I'd swear you were one of those right wing radical capitalists. You know, the ones who put money ahead of all other considerations..... Dave And if I found a way to somehow occupy 20% of YOUR weekend time with bull**** that annoyed you, and repeated this every weekend for the entire summer, what would YOU do? Suffer with it in silence? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$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. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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. Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to my yard and litter it with ****? 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. 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. |
When to shoot a falre into someone elses bilge WAS: When would you board someone else's boat??
In article , Dave Hall
wrote: So you take picture of the dog crapping in your yard and show it to him. "I really can't tell if that's my dog..." Now he's pushing it.. Well, sadly, there are even people who will commit an act in front you and while denying it to your face. I think we call them politicians :^) Please believe me, I'm not abdicating ANY course of action. I merely wish to state that Doug is right in the sense that there are inconsiderate people who can't be reasoned with, and often if it not a criminal offense the police (especially in larger cities) will not respond in a timely manner. While I agree that there are idiots in the world, the fact that the police may find these little domestic squabbles to be beneath them, does not justify someone taking the law into their own hands, and then having the unmitigated gall to act surprised when that neighbor retaliates. When they do the inconsiderate SOB merely denies their fault. Wouldn't you? It's human nature to become defensive when accused of something. Provide me with proof that I did something, and I'll deal with it. Otherwise, leave me alone. In the case were discussing the incoderate neighbor was given proof, and was most likely fully aware their dog was crapping in their neighbors yard before that time. In this specific case, I honestly can't say what I would tell the cops, becuase it is unlikely they would be at my door for this matter. If I personally wasn't keeping a watchful eye EVERY time my dog was let out, and my neighbor complained, I would take them at their word, apologize, and clean up the mess no questions asked. On the days I exercise "poop patrol" I would most likely make a habit of scouring my neighers area as well. While this has not happened at my house, it happens at a marina where I visit where the manager like the dog and permits her to run free. If I turn my back and Grete poops, and someone call it to my attention, I clean it up ASAP. In addition, I tend to take a few extra minutes clean up the entire picnic area for turds, not just where i saw my dog go. This ofen leads to finding a way to tolerate it or finding a way to make them stop. I know I'm being picky (unfortunately that's who I am), but to me it's not always the action that I find offensive. Often it's the fact that someone who doesn't really know me is making an assumption that I should deal with a mess that they've chosen not to. Without getting into semantics like physical ability or age, an owner allowing their dog crap in my yard without cleaning it up, indicates that the owners time is "too important" to tend to his responsibility. Lifestyles being what they are, this is often true. All people prioritize their actions. When we judge other people, we are doing nothing more than gauging their choices against our own subjectivity. Who gives any one of us the right to make these value judgements against other people? You have a very valid point, and I completely respect the way you worded it: "Who gives any one of us the right" instead of "what gives you the right". While it's human nature for us to do so, I don't think we have the right judge the life of a person from a few inconsiderate actions. In fact, it it the very reason why I'll try to reason with someone who is doing something I take issue with. While by no means absolute, I feel what gives everyone the right to judge an act as inconsiderate is quite simple: If the act reduces the work for the responsible individual at the expense of creating additional work for someone else it is IMHO inconsiderate. If an act enhances the dimishes another persons level of comfort, it MAY be deemed inconsiderate. Once again this is by no means absolute for everything. I understand the case of disturbance is VERY subjective as there are those who will complain a stereo is blaring if they can turn off everthing in the house and hear it with their windows open. Even in cases were there is little ambiguity, such as not cleaning up after your pet, this rule of thumb I suggest is not etched in stone to me. For example, I am far less likely deem the old man who walks his dog with a cane to be inconsiderate when he doesn't clean up after the mess. I am less likely to think of the car owner as inconsiderate when he take two spaces at the far end of the parking lot to avoid dinging his car. As for the person throwing refuge ou the window, I can find no acceptable excuse. You are welcome to debate this point though. It say that even on my property, their needs come first. When I see someone flick ashes out of the window of their new car, then throws the butt out it screams: "I find a messy car offensive, here you deal with it okay?" How are you dealing with it? Ashes and butts are biodegradable. Well I guess I'm of the opinion of if its "no big deal", then let the one who smokes the cigarette deal with it. What is unreasonable about that? Also, while I'm not sure, I think cigarette filters have fiberglass in them. How biodegradable is that? When someone parks their new car in a crowded lot two spaces is says: "My car is too important to get scratched so one other person will get to walk two blocks in the rain to go shopping". No, what it says is that the car owner invested a considerable amount of money and time to get the car that he likes, and wants to take care of it.. Since there are way too many people in the world who have no consideration for other's property, and think nothing of "door dinging" other people's cars, this owner has taken additional steps to minimize this from occurring. The fact that some other people see this action and incorrectly interpret it as a pompous, inconsiderate act and then get an urge to "screw" with his car "just because", underscores the antisocial nature of these same people. Well, I too spent a considerable amount of money for my "good" car. I go through considerable lengths to keep my vehicle looking and operating "new". My car is white and shows dirt easily, so I'll drive around a puddles instead of through them, or drive through a puddle slowly, if can't drive around them. I am a fanatic about my car, and yet, my actions to keep my car at its best stop the moment they impact someone else. If someone's in the oncoming lane, I don't drive around the puddle. If someone behind me I do the speed limit through the puddle. Even in an empty lot, I won't take up two spaces. Taking your viewpoint of they took two spaces "it's no big deal" to a logical conclusion. What if every driver disregards the social norm and takes up two spaces, could you say you would not be impacted if every place you parked suddenly had only half the available parking spaces? This is perfect case where a "slightly unacceptable" behavior could add up to a major problem. Keep in mind Dave that keeping daily driver from getting scratched is a complete fallacy as cars get scratched from driving. If the car is not a daily driver, then the owner could have elected to take their beater car to public places. Either way, it ultimately comes down to other people being impactive negatively (no matter how small) by selfish people's actions for absolutely no reason at all. Since protecting ones car is acceptable, regardless of who it puts out, I guess we need to not be bothered by people who turn their car alarms up to the maximum sensitivity level then are always absent to answer the alarm, or disable it during thunderstorms, that not being inconsiderate as well. If your neighbor blast their stereo at 3am they're saying: "I don't care about your comfort: Yes it does, and that's why we have noise ordinances. Absolutely right, Dave. But the addage "where are the cops when you need 'em" often applies. As it has been pointed out there are often cases, (e.g. unmuffled cars idling at 3am, dog poop in the yard, a late night argument) where the infraction is not actively seen by the police. With regards to noise, in the area I live in, the police will often come out multiple times before a citation is issued to the offending party. Meanwhile I'll be lucky if I get a good nights sleep for one disturbance. In the case of an argument that happens once in a blue moon, okay, I'd let it slide. But is its a repeating offense? Your argument of "that's why we have noise ordinances" is based upon people working within the framework of the law, and the law handling the problem in a timely manner for those who don't. In my community it's not a far reach to speculate the law can't, or won't handle it in this manner. How many sleepless nights is acceptable? Obviously this is by no means carte blanche to take matters into your own hands however you see fit, but keep in mind taking matters DOES NOT necessarily equate to revenge. And I will concede, if Dougs hypothetical muffler situation arose and I could not resolve the situation peacefully, and made good on the my comment, then I too am guilty, and I too open myself up to retaliation. It is the reason that if I elect to get nasty at all, it is a last resort. Inconsiderate behavior in general screams a chorus of: "ME! ME! ME! **** YOU!" Yes. But which behaviors are considered "inconsiderate" are often a matter of opinion. Some things are blatant and fairly cut and dry. But is the guy who takes up two spaces to protect his shiny new car any more inconsiderate than the actions of those who would carelessly scratch it? In my opinion? Absolutely! The car owner taking two spaces engaged in a deliberate action to take two spaces when there is a well established norm for society of "one car, one space". They've elected to disregard the norm and that directly results in extra effort needing to be expended by others. In this case, one or more other person(s) may have to walk farther, perhaps in inclement weater. While you can argue it's "no big deal", it might be to the person(s) being put out from the selfish person's actions. And if the extra effort is truly "no big deal" why doesn't the person who elects to use up more spaces voluntarily park further away where there is less contention for space? In my opinion, it is a safe bet the person who parks next to you and dings your car did not planto ding your car, as there is nothing for them to gain by doing so. Careless? Perhaps. Inconsiderate? maybe not if they didn't realize it. Not at all if they left a note (unlikely though). Much of what you would consider "inconsiderate behavior" is borne from a defensive posture. Many of us become "inconsiderate" to protect ourselves from the "inconsiderate" actions of others. And your right, Charlie, I won't waste my time hoping for something "bad" to happen to these people, but I can't profess to being above smiling at irony or in worse cases having a lack of compassion when the irony is cruel. I would call it God's revenge, but guys like Doug would cringe at that. In the case of people inconsiderate with their car, sadly, it would make me chuckle if someone accidently bumped their car at the light, scratching their bumper causing them to spill their beverage over their new interior of the car that they burdened others with to keep pristine. I have a problem with this. Why would you enjoy seeing someone's pride and joy ruined? And why has his efforts to keep his car clean become a burden to others? I'm sorry if you have a "problem" with this, but that won't change anything. Whether a character flaw, or perhaps human nature (I'll leave it up to each of us to decide) to see selfish people get a taste of their behavior through irony. From my personal perspective I also hope is serves as a reminder that things change, we can't keep everthing perfect, and that people should not take a back seat to the thing in your life. Perhaps they'll even realize the irony, and say "I've been pretty selfish in my actions regarding this car, and look what it got me...". At the very least, if the interior is stained and the car is dented, there's a greater change they won't feel their selfish behavior is necessary. If you want it chalk up my view of inconsiderate irony as a character flaw, fine. You seem to be a resonable person, and on principle I'll have to take that view into consideration when assessing my actions. I still content this flaw is no worse than inconsiderate behavior. In fact, I'd rather have a world that was a little more critical of consideration, balanced by reason, than a world of better natured but self centered individuals who take additional liberties at the expense of their neighbors whenever they see fit to do so. The best neighbors are the ones who do not complain. Human nature being what it is, means that in the normal course of time, that people in close proximity will ultimately encounter some sort of activity which "bothers" them. As long as they are not being grossly negligent, then try to understand that people have the right to engage in certain activities. Should the guy who works second shift have a right to complain when his neighbor mows the lawn at 10:00 AM? When you put yourself in this situation, you have to weigh the consequences of your actions, and not expect the rest of the world to make adjustments for your unusual lifestyle. Great point, Dave! This is the basis of "majority rule". The majority of people live within a certain range of activities. Those are given priority in consideration over those who "march to a different (and sometimes incompatible) drum". Dave Good points Dave! Even if I don't agree with you, it was a good exchange of ideas! Take Care! |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Doug,
If your neighbors child was always running through your yard, leaving his toys in your yard, stepping on your flowers etc, would you shot him? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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. Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to my yard and litter it with ****? 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. 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. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
Bill, I am not certain, but I think he wanted to use the head.
wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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. Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to my yard and litter it with ****? 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. 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. I'm a little lost... How did the dog get on your boat? BB |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:8%cic.12388$_L6.984180@attbi_s53... I don't see a dead dog. Do you see a dead dog? Damn, I am lost. Didn't you say you killed a dog for crapping in your lawn? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:SQcic.11849$w96.1131616@attbi_s54... Doug, The Penal Code says you are allowed to use any force necessary to stop the dog's attack, but once the dog is no longer a threat, you may not use any more force on the animal. It appears that you and Don believe in a high power than the US Penal Code. What dog? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
OK, as long as no one see you it is alright to kill a dog. You do seem like
a very reasonable person. You and Don should get together, maybe become roommates. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:8%cic.12388$_L6.984180@attbi_s53... I don't see a dead dog. Do you see a dead dog? Damn, I am lost. Didn't you say you killed a dog for crapping in your lawn? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:SQcic.11849$w96.1131616@attbi_s54... Doug, The Penal Code says you are allowed to use any force necessary to stop the dog's attack, but once the dog is no longer a threat, you may not use any more force on the animal. It appears that you and Don believe in a high power than the US Penal Code. What dog? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:13:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:17:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: If you ask a neighbor to control its dog and the neighbor refuses, then yes. It is equivalent to molesting your daughter. I do NOT agree that the neighbor should be shot. However, you must realize that by refusing to cooperate, the neighbor has made a request. No he hasn't. That's YOUR choice. He's not the one with the problem, you are. Nope. By his INACTION in managing his pet correctly, he has said "I'm doing nothing, and I dare you to do something about it". That's negative logic. And since you can't prove a negative, it's not a position that would hold water in a true debate. He has asked you to bring all possible legal forces to bear on him as quickly as possible. Key word: Legal. Killing his pet is not justified, unless that pet attacks you. The food destruction legalities have already been explained to you. They will NOT be explained again. NOTHING except imminent threat is justification to kill. YOU need to learn that. As far as a dog simply crapping on your lawn: The law defines civil trespass to INCLUDE causing or negligently permitting foreign substances to enter private property. So, if neighbor's dog craps on your property, the human has trespassed, even if he's on the sofa when the dog is on your property. I'd love to see the case law which backs up your position. Even if you are right, and the neighbor assumes all liability (and he does to some degree) it still does not give you the right to circumvent the law. Ask any lawyer, Dave. This was explained to me by our town justice when he was my son's baseball coach. The conversation began over a problem with my immediate neighbor, who continually allowed the ChemLawn fools to let their sprays drift onto my garden. That is civil trespass. If a neighbor breaks your window with a baseball, you talk to him. The 38th time it happens, you nail him for civil trespass. Exactly the same as a person actually entering your property when you'd rather he didn't. In my case, the judge offered to provide an injunction, which would force the police to arrest (right on the spot) the neighbor and the ChemLawn fools if they continued to spray near the property line. Luckily, it never came to that point. If your neighbor is spray painting his garage and allows it to drift onto your car, he's trespassing. Get it? No, he's not trespassing. But he will be liable for cleaning up the car, as this is actionable in small claims court. You must've spoken to a different judge. It is civil trespass. If you take him to court and he agrees to pay for all damages, trespass will never come up in the discussion. But, if he mouths off at the judge, he will, indeed, have trespass tacked onto his rap sheet. So you like inflicting pain on other people? I believe in giving back too. If you killed my dog, lets just say that your land would soon become unable to sustain life for the next several years....... And then where would you be? Right, just where you are now, in an apartment. If you allow your dog to litter private property, YOU obviously enjoy inflicting pain. Litter = Pain? On which planet? In places where people enjoy beauty, not garbage. On private property, the definition of beauty is none of your business. If I say your garbage doesn't belong on my property, you have one choice: Do not speak. Clean it up and stop it from coming my way. What if a neighbor needs to take 3 hours off from work to wait at home for a carpet cleaning service. Why would he? I already told you, 5 minutes with a bottle of spray cleaner and brush. No carpet service is necessary. You really do live in a world of extremes..... No. I own a high-functioning nose. And, on my property, you do not determine maintenance methods. You have stolen from them, Davey. Because of your dog, the neighbor may end up experiencing friction with his boss. If the boss is an asshole, the employee may not hear the end of the aggravation for quite some time, all because you were too busy on the sofa to walk your dog. Oh brother! You should be writing novels. A meteor might hit your yard tomorrow too. Living your life according to "what-if" scenario strawmen, is about as unrealistic as one could get. This "what if" scenario has been going on for 20 years, Dave. Therefore, it is real. Dave, you seem to support the idea that dog owners should feel fine about letting their vermine run around the neighborhood. How do you justify that? |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: How about this: I'm creating a new art form. It's sort of like etchings. I use a key on the side of your car. It won't be just a scratch, mind you. It'll be an actual picture. This is identical to your allowing your dog to crap on my lawn. Is my new art form OK with you? Another strawman? You also seem to be unable to grasp the difference between deliberate and malicious intent, and incidental, consequential actions. The dog craps because that's a natural act. In some places, it's illegal to allow a dog to roam loose. In other places it's perfectly acceptable (and legal). I suggest you move to one of those uptight areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents. Dave Coprophilia: marked interest in excrement, especially the use of feces or filth for sexual excitement. This hobby is fine for some, but dog owners should ask before sharing their fixation with others. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
John, get up to speed here. A toy doesn't get stuck to your shoes, stink up
your home or car rugs, and cost you time to clean it. Forget shooting. We're way past that subject. Besides, it's not safe to kill a dog with a gun in a typical neighborhood. "John Smith" wrote in message news:zcdic.12536$aQ6.939244@attbi_s51... Doug, If your neighbors child was always running through your yard, leaving his toys in your yard, stepping on your flowers etc, would you shot him? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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. Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to my yard and litter it with ****? 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. 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. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . 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. Rights? Are you saying that a neighbor has the RIGHT to send his dog over to my yard and litter it with ****? 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. 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. I'm a little lost... How did the dog get on your boat? BB I wish I knew! I think it jumped in while I was parking the trailer. Oh well. More chum for the day. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
I agree inconsideration should be gauged by the offenders intent.
Obviously a dog has no idea about how its behavior impacts the property owner. In addition, I am an animal lover, and to a vastly greater extent, a dog lover. I would never shot a dog, and it would be under rare circumstances that I would ever approve of anyone killing a dog. Even if the dog is ****ting on the lawn and digging up the garden. Even if the property owner conveyed the problem to the dog owner, I don't believe killing the dog is an appropriate course of action. I would view people who make the choice to kill a dog who was only defacing their property as mean spirited. Still, if a dog went on to someones property and the owner shoots it, even if its my dog, I wouldn't even consider holding them legally responsible for thee act. Even in the most unflattering circustances in which the owners kills my dog without ever first attempting to communicate or pursue legal efforts, while I'd think my neighbor to be the biggest prick on God green earth, I'd still acknowledge the fact that it was my dog, it was my responsibility to keep this dog under my control, and I failed to meet the responsibility. Even if the the law gives me the right to seek retribution, does not make it morally acceptable for me to do so. Obviously, the rule of Dave applies, and this mean spirited little prick will be promptly removed from my Christmas card list. If the property owner warned the dog owner about problem and the intended consequences, then shame on the owner. Once again I don't agree with the action, but I really can't comprehend why every one is putting the owness of the problem on the shoulders property owner and not the dog owner. If my neighbor told me to build a fence to keep their dog from defacing my property, they will not have made a friend that day. In the most reasonable tone I could muster, my replyto their comment would be: "Aside for the fine point that it is YOUR DOG, it would be quicker and cheaper solution to put your dog on a restraint when you let it out." As for any comment about it being legal for dogs to roam loose, while I'm not an attorney, I'd assume anything citing a dog may run loose implies it is within the confines of YOUR PROPERTY. I'd love to see any type of ordinance that even remotely suggest otherwise. Bob Dimond In article , Dave Hall wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: How about this: I'm creating a new art form. It's sort of like etchings. I use a key on the side of your car. It won't be just a scratch, mind you. It'll be an actual picture. This is identical to your allowing your dog to crap on my lawn. Is my new art form OK with you? Another strawman? You also seem to be unable to grasp the difference between deliberate and malicious intent, and incidental, consequential actions. The dog craps because that's a natural act. In some places, it's illegal to allow a dog to roam loose. In other places it's perfectly acceptable (and legal). I suggest you move to one of those uptight areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents. Dave |
When to shoot a falre into someone elses bilge WAS: When would you board someone else's boat??
"Bob D." wrote in message
... In article , Dave Hall wrote: So you take picture of the dog crapping in your yard and show it to him. "I really can't tell if that's my dog..." Now he's pushing it.. Well, sadly, there are even people who will commit an act in front you and while denying it to your face. I think we call them politicians :^) Hey...my first dog experience was with a very old lady who said just that: "You must be mistaken, young man. My dog never leaves the yard!" The problem was that I watched it leave and return to her yard about 20 times before trying to discuss it with her. |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"DSK" wrote
But then my attitude is shaped by always having had a dog, and always having cared for & trained them properly, and been rewarded by always having *good* dogs. Don wrote: There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. I disagree. There are definitely some bad dogs. Almost all of them have been programmed to be bad by stupid and/or lazy owners, and unfortunately not all can be reprogrammed... although most can, with enough patience & a working knowledge of behavioral psychology. DSK |
When would you board someone else's boat??
"John Smith" wrote I thought we were talking about the law according to the US Penal Code. Now if we were talking about the Penal Code the law is: I don't give a **** about your discretionary laws. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com