"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:
I know a lot of facts.

Good.

... 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.

No it doesn't, but somehow you manage to be wrong pretty much all the
time anyway. Or is it just when you try to argue?

... Look it up. Find me any law which gives a
property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple
trespass.

That isn't the case at all. You seem determined to put your own spin on
the situation.

In most locations I've ever lived, property owners are allowed to
protect their land from desructive animals.


Put up or shut up.

Now it's big talk, eh, Dave?

If you're seriously interested, a google search on property destruction
& animals & municipal codes will probably set you straight. But I
suspect that you are only having a little hissy because your dim views
are challenged.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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.

If said dump is taken in the food garden, the "circumstances" have most
certainly been met, in places where the law is written that way. But, you've
researched the local laws in every township in America, so you know better,
right?

"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