On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog
crap is NOT my choice. A phone book on a bookshelf is a phone book. A phone
book placed on the floor to keep a door from closing is a doorstop. Get the
difference?

On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:36:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog
crap is NOT my choice.

So you routinely garden while wearing $150 dress shoes? And does the
"horse dung" not similarly foul them?


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:36:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the
pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the
following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog
crap is NOT my choice.

So you routinely garden while wearing $150 dress shoes? And does the
"horse dung" not similarly foul them?


Dave

1) No, dummy. But if I'm on the way to my car before going to work, it's my
right, on my property to walk over to the flowers and smell them without
having to change my shoes. Get it?

2) No, dummy. One does not spread horse manure on 100% of the property. One
composts it or digs it into the soil within the vegetable garden. The
gardener knows where it is and can avoid it if necessary, unlike dog ****,
which is random.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:02:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:36:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the
pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the
following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with dog
crap is NOT my choice.

So you routinely garden while wearing $150 dress shoes? And does the
"horse dung" not similarly foul them?


Dave

1) No, dummy. But if I'm on the way to my car before going to work, it's my
right, on my property to walk over to the flowers and smell them without
having to change my shoes. Get it?

2) No, dummy. One does not spread horse manure on 100% of the property. One
composts it or digs it into the soil within the vegetable garden. The
gardener knows where it is and can avoid it if necessary, unlike dog ****,
which is random.



Did you not say the following: "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".

We were talking about "in the garden".

So who's the real dummy?


You flip-flop worse than John Kerry. I claim (rightly) that you can't
shoot a dog for taking a dump on your yard. You claim you can if it's
in the garden (The perceived value thing). I respond that one pile of
dung is the same as another in terms of fertilizer. You then claim
that you spread your fertilizer by choice and that soiling a $150 pair
of shoes is not by choice. Now based on the chain of events, what is
the logical conclusion that should be made here?

You were talking about your garden. If you are not gardening in your
$150 dress shoes, you point is irrelevant anyway since we go right
back to my original assertion that you can't legally kill a dog for
crapping on your YARD.

This has thus far been little more than a back and forth banter of two
people's opinions. Since you have failed to provide any legally backed
statute which allows for the killing of a domestic animal, I decided
to do a little google searching. The results are to numerous to list.
For you edification, I invite you to enter "Killing neighbor's dog"
into the advanced search and view the many articles, including this
one:

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:02:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:36:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:17:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Some people apply similar amounts of "dung" as natural fertilizer.
What's the difference?

Dave

This coming September, when I have a house again, I will visit the
place
where the city cops keep their horses and I'll load the back of the
pickup
with horse manure. I'll put it in the garden to prepare it for the
following
spring. That's MY choice. Fouling a $150.00 pair of dress shoes with
dog
crap is NOT my choice.

So you routinely garden while wearing $150 dress shoes? And does the
"horse dung" not similarly foul them?


Dave

1) No, dummy. But if I'm on the way to my car before going to work, it's
my
right, on my property to walk over to the flowers and smell them without
having to change my shoes. Get it?

2) No, dummy. One does not spread horse manure on 100% of the property.
One
composts it or digs it into the soil within the vegetable garden. The
gardener knows where it is and can avoid it if necessary, unlike dog
****,
which is random.



Did you not say the following: "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".

We were talking about "in the garden".

So who's the real dummy?


You flip-flop worse than John Kerry. I claim (rightly) that you can't
shoot a dog for taking a dump on your yard. You claim you can if it's
in the garden (The perceived value thing). I respond that one pile of
dung is the same as another in terms of fertilizer. You then claim
that you spread your fertilizer by choice and that soiling a $150 pair
of shoes is not by choice. Now based on the chain of events, what is
the logical conclusion that should be made here?

You were talking about your garden. If you are not gardening in your
$150 dress shoes, you point is irrelevant anyway since we go right
back to my original assertion that you can't legally kill a dog for
crapping on your YARD.

This has thus far been little more than a back and forth banter of two
people's opinions. Since you have failed to provide any legally backed
statute which allows for the killing of a domestic animal, I decided
to do a little google searching. The results are to numerous to list.
For you edification, I invite you to enter "Killing neighbor's dog"
into the advanced search and view the many articles, including this
one:

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

Because I realized late in life that I should've been a teacher.

On Thu, 06 May 2004 13:04:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/...ws/293141.html


Now, tell me again how you are legally justified in killing your
neighbor's dog.

Dave

Because I realized late in life that I should've been a teacher.



Didn't Charles Manson once say something like that?.....

But I digress......

So now that I've made my case, I guess there is no further point in
debating it. Unless, of course, you want to keep picking at the remote
possibility that there may be a few isolated communities around which
haven't yet caught up with the rest of society when it comes to animal
cruelty laws.

You really need to sit down and conduct some serious introspection.
You need to come to terms with your apparent disconnect with the
majority of society WRT your "rights".

Dave