OT Pit Bulls -- Final Thoughts (long)

Dave Hinz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de:

If they were, they wouldn't be spending time here? :o)

Reply to
Lobby Dosser
Loading thread data ...

The law is at worst what will take away your liberty and property.

Reply to
J. Clarke

There, we get into the reason that we have laws and jails in the first place: to protect society from those whose unwillingness to abide by societal norms places the rest of society in jeopardy. While the hazards posed by a drunk at the wheel of a car are both obvious and serious, a drunk on horseback poses very little discernible hazard to anyone besides himself. Hence the former behavior is criminalized, and the latter is not.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Nonsense. Violate it, and you will discover that what you believe to be mere "theory" is in fact intensely practical.

Yes, of course it is. Thank you for helping me to make my point. It is the responsibility of the *owner* to confine or otherwise restrain the animal so that it does not pose a threat to the neighborhood. If the owner fails to do so, and the dog harms someone, it is the *owner* who is liable.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Ironically it is often the lawmakers and law enforcers in this country who are placing "society in jeopardy".

In lieu of enforcing existing laws, logic is often twisted to enable some to break a law while penalizing those who obey it:

Try driving the speed limit in the left lane of a four lane in many states.

Reply to
Swingman

While it is certainly against common sense, courtesy, and commonly accepted "rules of the road" to drive in the left lane when not passing, is it really against the law in some states? I wish it were against the law and enforced in more states.

Reply to
alexy

Your law, if enforced, would lead to more accidents. Where there is local access to the road, it's often best to plan on the right lane being just that - access. It's for accelerating/decelerating and turning. Left lane is the through lane.

Real problem with left lane is the impatience of those who want to get to their accident in a hurry. They speed into your mirror as you pass, climb up your ass so close that in several Southern states they'd have to marry you, then, before you can safely, let alone courteously enter the right lane, they do a duck in, causing the overtaken vehicle to brake, then cut left, forcing you to do the same in their hurry to get to the left.

Some of these >

Reply to
George

Whether the law specifically acknowledges intent in an animal or not, it certainly leaves room for interpretation. I'll estimate that one out of three times I hear about a dog attack on the news, in cases where the cops arrive when things are still "hot", the cops shoot the dog(s). Apparently,

*they* believe the dogs have intent, and I've never heard of the cops getting hassled about it.
Reply to
Doug Kanter

They already have. The criminals are called dog owners, and if you politely ask them to not stop their dogs on your lawn, they'll tell you that their dogs habitually use that spot, or like to use that spot, as if they've been through a discussion with the animal and the dog won the argument.

Reply to
Doug Kanter

Dogs are regularly killed after attacking someone, and you never hear a peep about it from their owners. Although I suspect you're right about the law not EXPLICITLY spelling out the theory of intent for an animal, there's a big-ass loophole somewhere. Of course, this is only right, considering that we're discussing a trash animal anyway.

Reply to
Doug Kanter

Be gentle. Adam's probably one of those guys who thinks "a complete landscape job" is three hydrangeas and a lifetime supply of weed killer.

Reply to
Doug Kanter

OK, Alexy, let's clean out all the text and pose a simple respone to what you just said.

Think about dog owners who walk their dogs. Forget that some clean up after their dogs and some don't. Focus only on the fact that these people allow their dogs to use other peoples' property as toilets.

With me so far? I'll leave lots of white space so you have time to think.

Ready?

Good.

Next: Let's say you have children. They have a sand box they love to play in. Now, a mommy or daddy comes along with a baby in a stroller. They stop in front of your house. You see the parent poking around the baby's diaper. Baby has apparently taken a dump. The parent removes the diaper. It must be a real stinker because they toss it into your kid's sand box.

You accost them and yell at them, but they tell you "Yeah....but I rolled it up and fastened it with the little tape things!"

In other words:

1) They've given you a reason that complete nonsense. 2) They informed you that your property is, in fact, their property.

What's your response to such a person?

Reply to
Doug Kanter

In cities, you're right about which lane should be used in what way, and the fact that perhaps 90% of drivers don't realize that is a major source of accidents. But, take a highway like the NY State Thruway in Western NY, where there's often 30 miles between exits. That's where being a left-lane hog is inexcusable. Unless you're a cop, it's not your job to decide who's going fast enough. If someone wants to pass and you can move over without creating danger of any kind, you move over. Period.

If you observe carefully, you might notice the following: Many people drive like "X". For "X", fill in any animal you like which congregates in herds with the hope that the lion (meaning "police") will nail someone else. You see these people driving 65 mph in tight clusters, which is outrageously dangerous, even if they observe the "one car length per 10 mph" tailgating laws.

Those of us who've actually seen (or been in) accidents at highway speeds know that you should keep 5 car lengths per 10 mph, even though that's difficult. On open highway, I will do almost anything to stay a mile from the living dead who drive in clusters, talking on the phone with one hand, driving with their knees, and chokin' their chickens with the other hand.

Reply to
Doug Kanter

Why? Maybe that doesn't make a difference to you, but it does to me. I have no hang-ups about neighbors whose dogs use our yard, when the neighbor immediately cleans up after them. But I do have a problem with one neighbor who lets his dogs run free to "do their business", leaving me with small turds to discover with each grass cutting (luckily small dogs).

Sure. And done something VERY different from a pet owner who cleaned up after their pet.

This must come from the same mind that equates negligence with intent!

I would think that a refusal to respect a request not to behave in that way would be unacceptable.

In what way do you think that contradicts my statement that many dog owners can be reasonable and not thumb their noses at their neighbors.

FWIW, I always clean up after my dog. He usually goes in our own back yard before a walk, or in the yard of another dog owner. I keep him from going in yards where I frequently see children playing. I'm not aware of any neighbors with hang ups about dogs similar to yours, but if I did, I would certainly respect their wishes.

Reply to
alexy

I guess you missed the words "local access."

Other than that, there are, as mentioned often _two_ hogs contesting. The one overtaking, and the idiot behind who thinks that menacing from the rear is the way to get the "left-lane hog" to do things his way.

Believe me, I've been to a _lot_ of accidents in over 20 years in EMS.

ws.

Reply to
George

I would agree. Personally, I find the creative use of headlights to be a useful tool for the 90% of drivers who have idea there's anyone behind them. They work better from a safe distance.

Reply to
Doug Kanter

Reply to
Robert Galloway

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.