On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:04:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:24:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.



Mine's just another version of the same thing.

No it's not. An animal control person is acting within the boundaries
of the law. You are not. And they merely remove the animal. You kill
it.

Quite a few animals picked up by animal control end up euthanized, Dave.
Call your local dog catcher and ask. Yes, there are animal welfare groups
which try and rescue as many as they can, but the fact is that if your pet's
taken away due to negligence on your part, you should assume it'll be worm
food soon. The law does not define how dead your pet will be. Dead is dead.

Various animal shelters and SPCA organizations will euthanize an
animal if not adopted within a certain time. If a pet owner does not
reclaim their "captured" pet, there can be only 2 possibilities. They
either A) don't know where the animal is, or B) do not want to pay the
costs associated with adoption.

The euthanasia policy for these shelters has nothing to do with the
animal crapping on your yard.



But hang on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with you?

It's not considered theft. Why do you have so much trouble
differentiating these differences?

Cat scratches car. Cat is taken by animal control. Cat is gone.
Dog damages private property. Dog is taken by landowner. Dog is gone.
Same thing. Pet is gone.

One is legal, the other is not. The ends do not justify the means in
your case. A cop is legally allowed to shoot criminals. It doesn't
mean that I am, in most circumstances which do not involve imminent
threat.

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.


What if your dog is hit by a car because you let if off your property
unsupervised. Would it bother you if the driver stopped for a moment,
looked
in his mirror to see what he'd hit, saw that it was not a human and just
kept going?

What does this have to do with the original topic? Why do you feel
the need to go off on slightly related, but not relevant, tangents to
deflect from that which makes you uncomfortable?

I dont' do it to deflect. I do it in a pointless attempt to make you think,

Maybe you should think a little. Your problem is that if you think one
course of action is appropriate in one set of circumstances, that the
same course of action is appropriate in others. That's binary thinking
to the extreme.

You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

or sometimes to befuddle you because it's entertaining.

You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and he'll swear that you're
crazy.........


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a
month sooner.


You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting, and an innocent person might step
in it. And, of course, the dog would still exist.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

Dave

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

Dave Hall wrote:
But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

This is a new high water mark in stupidity, even for you, Dave. Did
anybody say anything about "teaching them a lesson?" No.

An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed
by the property owner. This is in order to prevent further damage to his
property. It comes under the heading of "property rights" and could
easily be equated with defending one's home against robbers.

The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances,
except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be
responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility.

This explanation might have too many big words for you, Dave, but it
doesn't matter since you appear to be determined to never ever learn a
single fact in this world.

DSK

On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:35:24 -0400, DSK wrote:

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

Dave Hall wrote:
But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

This is a new high water mark in stupidity, even for you, Dave. Did
anybody say anything about "teaching them a lesson?" No.

Doug did. If you are going to enter this fray, then you need to pay
attention.



An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed
by the property owner.

Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard.


This is in order to prevent further damage to his
property. It comes under the heading of "property rights" and could
easily be equated with defending one's home against robbers.

Not in any sane interpretation of law. If you feel that eliminating a
defecation problem is in the same category as defending against
robber, I would offer that your perception is a bit out of whack. In
fact there was a recent news story, in my general area, where a guy
caught two thugs breaking into his shed. He shot at them and killed
one of them. The homeowner is now facing murder charges. You simply
can't kill people or animals for being on your property unless there
is an imminent threat of life or safety.

Your "right" to defend your property is severely limited in scope.


The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances,

It does change the circumstances as a pet is perceived to have some
intrinsic value to the person who owns him, as opposed to a "wild"
animal. Think of it this way; If I blow up your boat, will you not
seek retribution? Does the law not give you that right?

The fact remains that other vigilante types have taken the law into
their hands before, and killed animals that they didn't like. They
have also been taken to court , by the animal's owner, and found
liable for damages.

except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be
responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility.

And it is not the place of Joe Citizen to play judge and jury. That's
why we have agencies like animal control.

This explanation might have too many big words for you, Dave, but it
doesn't matter since you appear to be determined to never ever learn a
single fact in this world.

I know a lot of facts. The fact that YOU fail to accept them and
instead choose to view the world through your own myopic bias does not
mean that I am wrong. Look it up. Find me any law which gives a
property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple
trespass. I have asked "the other" Doug to do the same, and he bobbed
and weaved, and spun his way out of it.

Put up or shut up.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week
or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog
attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:57:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week
or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog
attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm.

Back to the "all or nothing" defense?


Dave