In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
link.net...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
link.net...

Anybody that would advocate violent action against helpless and
innocent
animals is one sick puppy.

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?

I repeat. You are one sick puppy.

Actually, Henry, a garden *does* fall under that definition. These laws were
almost eliminated as farms began to vanish, but in many places, they were
kept intact because of the victory garden movement during World War II. The
current legal argument is that flowers have no intrinsic value unless
they're raised by a commercial grower. But, food *does* have value to anyone
who grows it. Therefore, any food garden is defined as a farm.

Sorry to burst your bubble.....

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.

You are twisted.

Like Charles says -"keep back--pedaling".

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
ink.net...

Actually, Henry, a garden *does* fall under that definition. These laws
were
almost eliminated as farms began to vanish, but in many places, they were
kept intact because of the victory garden movement during World War II.
The
current legal argument is that flowers have no intrinsic value unless
they're raised by a commercial grower. But, food *does* have value to
anyone
who grows it. Therefore, any food garden is defined as a farm.

Sorry to burst your bubble.....

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.

You are twisted.

Like Charles says -"keep back--pedaling".


Call your town hall and ask. So far, it's been the case in 2 out of 3 towns
in which I've lived. While we're discussing this, answer the following:

How big does a food garden need to be in order to be considered a farm, in
your opinion?

I won't hold my breath. Thus far, you've been too much of a pussy to answer
the muffler question, because you'd have to reveal that you'd do exactly
what I would: Lean on the local law enforcement authorities until they
rained hell on the guy and made his life miserable.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
Path:

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
link.net...

Actually, Henry, a garden *does* fall under that definition. These laws
were
almost eliminated as farms began to vanish, but in many places, they were
kept intact because of the victory garden movement during World War II.
The
current legal argument is that flowers have no intrinsic value unless
they're raised by a commercial grower. But, food *does* have value to
anyone
who grows it. Therefore, any food garden is defined as a farm.

Sorry to burst your bubble.....

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.

You are twisted.

Like Charles says -"keep back--pedaling".


Call your town hall and ask. So far, it's been the case in 2 out of 3 towns
in which I've lived. While we're discussing this, answer the following:

How big does a food garden need to be in order to be considered a farm, in
your opinion?

I won't hold my breath. Thus far, you've been too much of a pussy to answer
the muffler question, because you'd have to reveal that you'd do exactly
what I would: Lean on the local law enforcement authorities until they
rained hell on the guy and made his life miserable.


Only a "pussy" would kill somebody's pet under the guise of protecting
their "farm crops" (****ty old garden) in the suburbs.

Only a "pussy" would help a distressed boater's boat to sink and ignore
their personal plight.

Only a "pussy" (and a rather ignorant one at that) would rub their
pet's nose in their own **** to try and "train" it OR support some
whacko that does so.

Pussy isn't a strong enough word for the person described above. **** is more
like it.

Have a nice day! :^)

"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?

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?

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?

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?

True. But if someone's inside your home, you don't need to feel ANYTHING.
You're entitled to shoot. It's always wiser not to, though. The paperwork is
outrageous and the police don't clean up the mess for you.

"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?

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?

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?