OT Pit Bulls -- Final Thoughts (long)

Page 2 of 2  


Irrelevant. The law does not recognize animals (or, indeed, some humans) as capable of differentiating between right and wrong, and thus they are not responsible, under the law, for their actions. The owner of a dog is liable, under the law, for the dog's behavior.
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. Interesting though, that you can't get arrested for anything in particular if you're drunk and riding a horse. Our local town drunk (now deceased, guess how?) used to ride his horse down to the bar, get _very_ drunk, and then the horse would take them home. I asked the sheriff about it (off-the-record, he's a friend of mine) what the deal was, and as long has he didn't get obnoxious or something, there wasn't really a problem. Horse was "driving", after all, he was just along for the ride.
The other town drunk who does the same with his tractor, however, is definately violating something.
So, even though an animal can't be a criminal, it can turn what would have been criminal behavior into something that's not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

Now _that_ is an interesting observation ... with a myriad of traps and pitfalls, but I like the concept. Some inventive criminal mind should be able to use that to advantage.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, to be fair, the Sheriff in our county is a "regular guy" rather than a politician, so he's able to use actual logic and stuff rather than basing police decisions on what is politically driven or something. Basically it went from a potential drunk-driving problem waiting to happen, to a "public drunkenness" thing...but, the guy wasn't an obnoxious drunk, he was a happy drunk & didn't cause any problems. Nothing to be gained by dragging someone in that isn't causing any problems for anyone (except himself, but that wasn't gonna change anyway).
That having been said, if someone's dog bites, the owner is responsible for it, the dog is not. So, an animal can eliminate a criminal act but not be responsible for same. Interesting...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

place:
norms
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.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 inconsiderate nincompoops jump into the right lane as they speed toward a screeching halt at an obviously red or soon to be signal, thus blocking the three or four folks who could have gone right on red.
wrote:

states.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

local
lane
the
ws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

rear
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:31:33 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

but the law is at best theory.
the dog's will to roam the neighborhood is very real.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@thanks.com wrote:

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

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

as
liable,
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.