Export thread

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/ap_on_re_us/us_dog_shooting;_ylt=AikgcDhLXwwS8k0xUM_iZ1B0fNdF

ok.... just to let y'all know. I LOVE my dog. I do spoil her and play with her, but I think this could set a bad precedent in the future.

I do have medical insurance for my pet (Banefield) which I do use for checkup and shots and cost me 35$ a month. I am pretty sure it will cost a whole lot more if this exception to the law is passed.

but with the case in hand, the owner should not have the right to even sue. The dog enter ANOTHER person's yard. In Texas, that is fair game.

How god damn hard would it be to pick up a phone and call animal control? Fuck that guy, I hope he loses. If the animal was a danger, that's different. I know you can never know an animals intent, but there are other ways of dealing with it than shooting it. A couple hundred dollar fine is not gonna make people think twice about shooting a pet.

Pet owners should get fined every time they let their animal roam free too. The owners are partly responsible, but they don't deserve a dead pet.

He's on a year probation, 100 hours of community service and a $4,000.00 fine. How is that "a couple hundred dollars fine"?

He's paid his dues on the matter, but I can assure you, they won't let their animals run around causing havoc in his yard again.

Also, it was an air rifle. The death itself seems to have been a one in a thousand accident. No, that doesn't make it right, but don't spin it like he had a .38 sitting next to his rocking chair, waiting for anything to step on to his yard.

Cause I said so.:humph:

I know it would get abused, and it's not a good idea to allow it. It still bugs the hell out of me though.

Heck, it wasn't even a fine, it was 4000 bucks to the dog's family. I don't see them winning. Especially, as said in the OP, this is Texas.

:gun-toting-redneck:

Awww, thats not one of our emoticons?

I'm a cat lover and all, but if my cat snuck up on someone else's property and they shot it... Why the heck should I be able to sue? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

What bugs me more is the attitude of "it's just an animal". I know not everyone feels the same way, but it's not your pet. There are non-lethal ways of dealing with the situation and they don't cost you a dime. If he didn't want to kill the dog he shouldn't have fired a weapon at it. Air rifles can shoot at nearly the same speed as .22's now, it wasn't a spring loaded BB gun.

I've just seen too many dogs around my area abandoned in the woods to starve to death or shot because they weren't wanted. My sister found a dog shot in the side with a shotgun that was nearly dead. They just left him to suffer. She kept him and he ended up being a great dog. So, I guess that's why it bugs me a little more than it should.

Anyway, moral of the story? If you don't want a dead pet don't let it wander.

If the owner of a pet can't keep them under control they should be willing to accept the responsibility if something happens to it. Their dog could have just as easily wondered into the street and been hit by a car. As far as I'm concerned it's their negligence that got the dog killed.

it's just an animal

Cuyval Dar said:

it's just an animal

Click to expand...

Sez the squid.

Cuyval Dar said:

it's just an animal

Click to expand...

And it's not even a kitteh

They could win. I think they have a good argument for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. If I were there attorney I would argue for it.

Gruebeard said:

Heck, it wasn't even a fine, it was 4000 bucks to the dog's family. I don't see them winning. Especially, as said in the OP, this is Texas.

:gun-toting-redneck:

Awww, thats not one of our emoticons?

Click to expand...

On-topic: I'm really torn because I can understand the agony that the owners are going through. Pets die by accident, but in this case, the "accident" was "the gun I shot him with wouldn't normally have killed him".

That said, the guy clearly tried to make somewhat amends, took his punishment, and besides, how do you value the emotional value of a pet?

Covar said:

If the owner of a pet can't keep them under control they should be willing to accept the responsibility if something happens to it. Their dog could have just as easily wondered into the street and been hit by a car. As far as I'm concerned it's their negligence that got the dog killed.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with this enough. I treat my dog like he's a child, but I wouldn't hold someone else responsible if I let my dog wander off unattended and it was killed.

There is a difference between someone hitting the dog with a car and shooting it with a gun. The first is an accident (well presumably) and the other is an intentional act. When someone intentionally acts in a way that they should know would cause another person extreme emotional distress, that is where the charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress comes into play. Regardless of whether someone is, as is my opinion, so heartless and callous to think that a dog is "just an animal" does not change the fact that that he SHOULD know that to other people dogs are more than that, that the killing of the animal could most likely cause great emotional distress.

I actually have this problem on my land now. I usually just walk out on to the porch and clap my hands. Sometimes I have to walk out and shoo them away or throw a rock near them (I never hit them). But, if I didn't know anything about the dog or it showed any kind of ill intent, I would not hesitate to get it with the paintball gun since I don't have an air rifle.

I don't know about in other states, but here I'm out in the sticks and animal control would laugh me off the phone.

I've got a toddler who will be playing in the yard soon. As we're on a good bit of land, a dog could come from any number of directions and I'd rather not have them thinking it's acceptable to be anywhere near the area we use for a yard.

Amorous Vyxen;317299][quote=makare1 said:

There is a difference between someone hitting the dog with a car and shooting it with a gun. The first is an accident (well presumably) and the other is an intentional act. When someone intentionally acts in a way that they should know would cause another person extreme emotional distress, that is where the charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress comes into play. Regardless of whether someone is, as is my opinion, so heartless and callous to think that a dog is "just an animal" does not change the fact that that he SHOULD know that to other people dogs are more than that, that the killing of the animal could most likely cause great emotional distress.

Click to expand...

But in this case he didn't mean to cause the animal (and its owners) any harm. While a poor choice of deterrent for sure, the fact that it was a fatal shot was a fluke accident.[/QUOTE]

The intentional act was the shooting not the death of the dog and he did intentional shoot the dog.

Animals that are killed by a mere pellet don't deserve to exist.

"That's not what the relationship between humans and dogs is anymore. They're a member of the family and when they're lost you can't just go out to the local store and buy a new one. That doesn't fix it."

Click to expand...

So they're saying they'd let their child run into a strange old man's yard?

Philosopher B. said:

"That's not what the relationship between humans and dogs is anymore. They're a member of the family and when they're lost you can't just go out to the local store and buy a new one. That doesn't fix it."

Click to expand...

So they're saying they'd let their child run into a strange old man's yard?

Click to expand...

Yeah, i mean lock up your kid in the closet if you really don't want him to run in your neighbours yard.


Also, i never got how the whole "shoot anyone within my property" thing still existed past the wild west era... seems way to easy of an excuse for murdering people. Any situation where a trespasser might need to be shot would easily fall under self-defence imo.

My point obviously isn't that you should lock your dog/child up. My point is if 'Shadow' was so bloody important to them, they could have kept a better eye on, or even gotten a damned leash. Hell, they should have been extra careful since they were visiting relatives. There they are in another neighborhood, and their dog is probably off shitting on some random person's lawn (something I hate when it happens to me).

But yeah. Better bleed dry that 76-year-old dude who probably didn't mean to kill the dog in the first place and probably feels bad about it now and pile another couple hundred hours of community service on his ass.

- Philosopher B., who doesn't condone killing dogs but figures the guy has already paid up.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

There are non-lethal ways of dealing with the situation and they don't cost you a dime. If he didn't want to kill the dog he shouldn't have fired a weapon at it.

Click to expand...

I agree. He should have tried loud noises. I find stray dogs (even big ugly ones) scatter pretty quickly the minute you give tongue. Which is why he should have paid in some form (which it appears he already has).

Philosopher B. said:

But yeah. Better bleed dry that 76-year-old dude who probably didn't mean to kill the dog in the first place and probably feels bad about it now and pile another couple hundred hours of community service on his ass.

Click to expand...

Well that i agree with... sue happy americans and all that.

Just another step on the Great Wussification of America.

Amorous Vyxen said:

But in this case he didn't mean to cause the animal (and its owners) any harm. While a poor choice of deterrent for sure, the fact that it was a fatal shot was a fluke accident.

Click to expand...

Actually he did mean to cause the dog harm since he shot it with a air rifle. Not an air soft gun a full on air rifle that easily has enough force to penetrate skin and possibly bone.

Even if he had shot the dog in the hind leg like he said he ran a good chance of maiming the dog and at the very least requiring surgery to remove the lead pellet. He obviously meant to cause the dog harm, maybe not to kill it I'll accept that but saying that he didn't mean to hurt the dog is an outright lie.

sixpackshaker said:

Just another step on the Great Wussification of America.

Click to expand...

Not sure what being it has to do with Wussifying anything. I hunt. I shot 2 deer this year, and a few grouse. I also fish. My parents have scottish highlander cows and we usually butcher 1 a year. If not feeling the need to shoot an animal for no reason other than it is there is being a wussy, I'll gladly be called a wussy.

Shakey;317509][quote=sixpackshaker said:

Just another step on the Great Wussification of America.

Click to expand...

Not sure what being it has to do with Wussifying anything. I hunt. I shot 2 deer this year, and a few grouse. I also fish. My parents have scottish highlander cows and we usually butcher 1 a year. If not feeling the need to shoot an animal for no reason other than it is there is being a wussy, I'll gladly be called a wussy.[/QUOTE]

No but to sue over the death of an animal is being a wus. And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

you can intentionally run a dog over with a car and make it look like an accident. (I wouldn't do it I actually stop) so either method is bad (running over or shooting)

You know, I'm really fighting back the urge to yell "IT'S A GODDAMD DOG!" here. I like animals, I know people who love their pets, but at the end of the day, it's still an animal. You have it around for a purpose, whether that's company, training, eating it or wearing it. And if this passes, where do you draw the line? Cats? Gerbils? Goldfish? Dustbunnies?

I repeat what was said before: the guy sounded like he was sorry, and paid up for it. These assholes are just bleedin' him dry for no good reason.

North_Ranger said:

You know, I'm really fighting back the urge to yell "IT'S A GODDAMD DOG!" here. I like animals, I know people who love their pets, but at the end of the day, it's still an animal. You have it around for a purpose, whether that's company, training, eating it or wearing it. And if this passes, where do you draw the line? Cats? Gerbils? Goldfish? Dustbunnies?

I repeat what was said before: the guy sounded like he was sorry, and paid up for it. These assholes are just bleedin' him dry for no good reason.

Click to expand...

Plus, the lawsuit could open a whole new can of worms.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

This mean you CAN'T put them in kennels (would you put your kids in one?) I mean it can cause distress to the DOG. (I know I am going out on a limb but it is still a valid point)

I do treat my dog very well but she is lock up in the yard and left alone (she can't escape it) so would that be cruelty?

sixpackshaker said:

And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

Click to expand...

Which is why I don't think it's really a good idea, even though I would like to see it happen.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

Click to expand...

No, it's just acknowledging that people form an emotional bond with their pets that go above that of normal personal property. And that because of this the value to the owner is more than the cost of replacing it and paying for it's disposal.

Shakey;317553][quote=sixpackshaker said:

And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

Click to expand...

Which is why I don't think it's really a good idea, even though I would like to see it happen.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

Click to expand...

No, it's just acknowledging that people form an emotional bond with their pets that go above that of normal personal property. And that because of this the value to the owner is more than the cost of replacing it and paying for it's disposal.[/QUOTE]

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

Not saying it's so, but it seems more likely to me.

I may have a solution to the problem from the OP. Do not treat the animal as property, so give him back the $4k. The force a settlement for emotional distress for the value of the dog. $1k.

North_Ranger said:

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.

Click to expand...

I don't know the details of why it's like that, but my first guess would it would be so the parents and grandparents can't both sue the same person. If it's not the case then it's a shitty law, but it's a shitty law that doesn't have anything to do with this.

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

Click to expand...

They live in the city. They can call the police and the animal control.

I think it matters what exactly, if anything, this guy was trying to protect by shooting the dog. Did he have children or other animals to protect?

I have livestock on my property, and if I come out to find a strange dog chasing around my chickens, damn right I'm going to shoot it. I have a right to protect my own animals, and if it's a choice between my animals and a strange animal that wandered into my property, I'm sorry but that's an easy choice. I'm not going to stand back and watch all my chickens die violent deaths while waiting for animal control to show up. Nor am I going to walk up and attempt to manually chase away an animal that for all I know has rabies.

I love my new car almost as much as I love my dog. If some one slashes my tires for parking near their driveway... Can I sue for the mental anguish of seeing my beloved car disfigured? Or will I only get the money for the repairs.

David, if you saw a dog attacking your chickens, would you use a rifle and kill it, or an airgun and chase it away?

I don't actually own either :blush: my option at the moment is frozen paint-ball gun, so I guess the "chase it away" option. Since I have a fence around the chicken yard and usually keep them locked in the coop at night and when nobody's around, it hasn't been much of an issue to date.

If I HAD to choose rifle or airgun, and the airgun is as likely to cause the dog to die painfully as the guy in the article did, I'd go with the rifle to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Otherwise, if I have the option to chase it off from a distance and keep it away while animal control gets there, then yes I'd choose that option.

I think the particular dog matters though. If it's a little yip-yip dog, I'll just go out there and chase it away. If it's something like a mastif and it looks hungry and desperate and could probably take me down if I simply annoy it, I'm more likely to go out with the rifle to start with.

Shakey;317570][quote=North_Ranger said:

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.

Click to expand...

I don't know the details of why it's like that, but my first guess would it would be so the parents and grandparents can't both sue the same person. If it's not the case then it's a shitty law, but it's a shitty law that doesn't have anything to do with this.

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

Click to expand...

They live in the city. They can call the police and the animal control.[/QUOTE]
Clearly you've never had animals on your property, they don't stay there they come back over and over again during the day and night. When you lay down to bed? They start fighting with other animals outside your window. I told my neighbor with cats that if it happens again I'm going to shoot it, and not with a pellet gun. I wouldn't actually shoot it but me and the wild cat that lives in my yard have slept better now that my neighbors own a housecat.

North_Ranger;317557][quote=Shakey;317553][quote=sixpackshaker said:

And that there is a good chance of precedent being set that you can sue for large sums of money over the death of a stray dog.

Click to expand...

Which is why I don't think it's really a good idea, even though I would like to see it happen.

If you CAN sue another person for emotional distress does this mean dogs are consider people?

Click to expand...

No, it's just acknowledging that people form an emotional bond with their pets that go above that of normal personal property. And that because of this the value to the owner is more than the cost of replacing it and paying for it's disposal.[/QUOTE]

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.[/QUOTE]

If a set of grandparents had never met their grandchild, maybe never knew he existed, they would in fact have less of an emotional stake in the death of that child but to you they would have more of a right to sue for emotional strain than people who have had a pet as part of their family unit for years.

That is why things are taken case by case.

Just to clear up this emotional distress thing because it seems like alot of people in this thread don't really understand it.

Let's say that instead of the dog the man destroyed a volleyball. But it wasn't just any volleyball, this was Wilson the beloved volleyball that kept Tom Hanks company on his lonely island. The owner, Tom Hanks, has a great emotional attachment to this ball and let's say that the man knew this. But he destroyed the ball anyway. Because he knew that this, generally worthless, ball was beloved by Hanks and that destroying it would cause him great anguish and emotional pain, Hanks would be able to sue for emotional distress. Would people be saying that a volleyball is worth more than a grandchild, no because it isnt relevant to the facts.

Emotional distress is not making a comment on the financial value of something, it is commenting on the emotional value of something.

Shakey;317570][quote=North_Ranger said:

But in Vermont you can't sue for emotional distress for the loss of a grandchild, for instance. Forgive me, but I would think it pretty fucked up if one would value a dog over a grandchild. Seriously.

Click to expand...

I don't know the details of why it's like that, but my first guess would it would be so the parents and grandparents can't both sue the same person. If it's not the case then it's a shitty law, but it's a shitty law that doesn't have anything to do with this.

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

Click to expand...

They live in the city. They can call the police and the animal control.[/QUOTE]
Or instead of wasting the city's time and money you can scare off the dog with an air rifle.

sixpackshaker said:

I love my new car almost as much as I love my dog. If some one slashes my tires for parking near their driveway... Can I sue for the mental anguish of seeing my beloved car disfigured? Or will I only get the money for the repairs.

David, if you saw a dog attacking your chickens, would you use a rifle and kill it, or an airgun and chase it away?

Click to expand...

he might have to use airgun. the chicken might sue HIM for emotional distress of seeing a dying dog

Shakey said:

There's also no talk of the animal in question doing this repeatedly or not. I kind of get the feeling this guy didn't just up and do it, but was built up to it instead.

Click to expand...

They live in the city. They can call the police and the animal control.

Click to expand...

Again, there was no comment on anything leading up to the matter,only the matter itself, so we can't know if he'd tried other methods or not.

Also, I own two dogs and I've owned four throughout my life. You've probably seen pictures of them and I love my dogs more than some branches of my family. But I would only sue for the value of the pet because as much as I love them, they are dogs. I would also never pay $4,000 to extend the life of my 14 year old dog either, they don't live long and things happen. I lost one that was hit by a mail truck, the dog had run out but the truck was speeding since it was residential, did I blame the mailman? No. I paid to have him fixed up and when the resulting injuries started causing other problems I put him down. Dogs are loving pets but they're dogs.

They should use the method my family used for keeping our dogs safe. We trained them to stay in the yard unless they were on a leash. It's a crazy idea I know, but none of the dogs we had growing up ever got hit by a car or shot at by the neighbors.

Hmm.. odd thought but "He was part of our family!"?

That's one fucked up family. They'd let their children run around naked outside with nothing but a collar on?

Crazy.

Twitch said:

Also, I own two dogs and I've owned four throughout my life. You've probably seen pictures of them and I love my dogs more than some branches of my family. But I would only sue for the value of the pet because as much as I love them, they are dogs. I would also never pay $4,000 to extend the life of my 14 year old dog either, they don't live long and things happen. I lost one that was hit by a mail truck, the dog had run out but the truck was speeding since it was residential, did I blame the mailman? No. I paid to have him fixed up and when the resulting injuries started causing other problems I put him down. Dogs are loving pets but they're dogs.

Click to expand...

I keep saying tha about kids and everyone thinks i'm crazy... weird, right.

Covar said:

Or instead of wasting the city's time and money you can scare off the dog with an air rifle.

Click to expand...

And then you're wasting even more time with the animal cruelty case and the police investigation when the dog is found by some local youths and the news footage causes an uproar that the police can't ignore.

So you end up wasting hours and thousands to save minutes and tens.

SeraRelm said:

Hmm.. odd thought but "He was part of our family!"?

That's one fucked up family. They'd let their children run around naked outside with nothing but a collar on?

Crazy.

Click to expand...

in all states, that would have been child abuse.

Crazy right?

SeraRelm said:

Hmm.. odd thought but "He was part of our family!"?

That's one fucked up family. They'd let their children run around naked outside with nothing but a collar on?

Crazy.

Click to expand...

I think people have already made that joke about five times in this thread.

He was part of the family. Doesn't mean he has to be human. Both a grown man and a child can be part of a family and that doesn't mean that the man wears short pants to work and the kid, a suit.

It's a dog, get over yourself.

SeraRelm said:

It's a dog, get over yourself.

Click to expand...

You are the one making jokes about the loss of someone's beloved pet and I should get over myself?

That's really funny. Hey you made a funny joke, well done.

This is something I realize comes down to what each person feels in regards to animals and life.

I, personally, hate destroying anything that lives with my own hands. I am the guy that when I see a cockroach that wanders in from the outside during the rain, I capture it, take it outside, and release it in the compost heap.

I am also very attached to my pets, mostly my cats, like they are my children. If someone shot one of them, or mangled one of them, I would probably explode into a rage similar to what a father that just lost a newborn child would go through.

Many people love to take the easy road of "It's just an animal", and act like in the end it's just property like your car, or your television. Legally, you are correct and that is your right to feel that way, I have no intention of stopping you, but some people put a little more stock in life, even that of an animal. I really don't think it is fair to demonize that attachment as an overreaction just because you don't agree with it.

The way I see it, if someone smashes my TV, I can get a new one of the exact same model. No matter what happens to most of the things you own, you can get a replacement just like the original. Pets? When it is killed, it is gone, no amount of replacements are going to bring it back.

In the end, I do think the Sheeles are being excessive. I would want an apology from the person that killed my pet more then anything, and restitution for the crime and help with the burial, but I would not pursue him farther as long as his regret was genuine. I think by continuing to hound the man, they are only going to drag out their own suffering.

I'm saying don't take befriended animal to mean family, the two are very different, but you go on feeling good about yourself with whatever you do. There really are more important things to worry about for me.

ScytheRexx said:

This is something I realize comes down to what each person feels in regards to animals and life.

I, personally, hate destroying anything that lives with my own hands. I am the guy that when I see a cockroach that wanders in from the outside during the rain, I capture it, take it outside, and release it in the compost heap.

I am also very attached to my pets, mostly my cats, like they are my children. If someone shot one of them, or mangled one of them, I would probably explode into a rage similar to what a father that just lost a newborn child would go through.

Many people love to take the easy road of "It's just an animal", and act like in the end it's just property like your car, or your television. Legally, you are correct and that is your right to feel that way, I have no intention of stopping you, but some people put a little more stock in life, even that of an animal. I really don't think it is fair to demonize that attachment as an overreaction just because you don't agree with it.

The way I see it, if someone smashes my TV, I can get a new one of the exact same model. No matter what happens to most of the things you own, you can get a replacement just like the original. Pets? When it is killed, it is gone, no amount of replacements are going to bring it back.

In the end, I do think the Sheeles are being excessive. I would want an apology from the person that killed my pet more then anything, and restitution for the crime and help with the burial, but I would not pursue him farther as long as his regret was genuine. I think by continuing to hound the man, they are only going to drag out their own suffering.

Click to expand...

I agree with above.

But like some things, it cannot be replace like family heirloom (also an object) if that was stolen, damage and such.

BUT, the main purpose of my OP I think we shouldn't put in laws to allow that kind punitive damage (emotional distress damage) that just open a whole can of worms.

The guy did 100 hours of community service AND even paid the family 4,000$ for the dog, but the family wants to sue them for what? emotional distress? how much is that worth? how can you really put price on it? I am guessing they want like millions of dollars or something would it make it better?

The guy is sorry, and regret it, and doing his time WILLINGLY. I feel that is enough. We (the people and government) should not put in precedent that allow people to sue to emotional distress on animals.

Chibibar said:

The guy is sorry, and regret it, and doing his time WILLINGLY. I feel that is enough. We (the people and government) should not put in precedent that allow people to sue to emotional distress on animals.

Click to expand...

Actually I think that we should since as Scyth pointed out pets aren't just pieces of property that can be easily replaced and there are hundreds of stories out there of people losing their pets due to company misdeeds and the owners being unable to get any money out of the company for their mistake than the "cost" of the dog. And since they don't really have any real financial risk the companies never change their policies or fix the problems.

So I think it's a precedent that needs to be passed and this guy is a perfect test case. He freely admitted that he was wrong to shoot the dog, the court agreed that what he did was a crime so really the only question on the table is if he caused the people emotional distress.

Dubyamn;317719][quote=Chibibar said:

The guy is sorry, and regret it, and doing his time WILLINGLY. I feel that is enough. We (the people and government) should not put in precedent that allow people to sue to emotional distress on animals.

Click to expand...

Actually I think that we should since as Scyth pointed out pets aren't just pieces of property that can be easily replaced and there are hundreds of stories out there of people losing their pets due to company misdeeds and the owners being unable to get any money out of the company for their mistake than the "cost" of the dog. And since they don't really have any real financial risk the companies never change their policies or fix the problems.

So I think it's a precedent that needs to be passed and this guy is a perfect test case. He freely admitted that he was wrong to shoot the dog, the court agreed that what he did was a crime so really the only question on the table is if he caused the people emotional distress.[/QUOTE]

but where do you stop? do you consider all pet? what if you have a family of chickens? Do you treat the monetary penalties as if they were kids?

Where does it end?

If I park my car on the neighbor's grass, and they shoot a bb at it and it breaks my window, and further I'm unaware of it, so the rain ruins something more expensive, the neighbors can be legally held responsible financially for the cost to repair my window, and anything that was damaged due to the damage of the window. They had legal options (towing, police, etc) to take care of the property issue, but instead decided to damage the vehicle.

The $4,000 fine was paid to the STATE. NOT the owners of the dog, who doubtless paid hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars in an attempt to save the dog's life, and then to pay for cremation.

They are out of that money because the actions taken by a neighbor who had other options to remove the dog without destroying property, or taking an action which COULD REASONABLY lead to injury or death - an airgun is still a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law, though it's not as restricted as a powder actuated weapon.

Should the dog have been on the other person property? No.

Should the other person have shot at or even near the dog with a BB gun? No.

Should the person who killed the dog be financially responsible for the costs of their actions? Maybe.

Clearly the court has already shown that the person did NOT have the RIGHT to shoot at the dog with a BB gun, even though it was on their property.

Now the decision is: If he didn't have the right to do this action, is he financially responsible for the consequences of his action?

I'm reasonably certain that the answer is yes - he did something illegal, which cause another person to suffer financial harm, and those costs should be repaid.

The question of emotional distress is more difficult, and I don't know what the lawsuit is asking for in that term, it looks like they might be claiming emotional distress, but only asking for the costs to recompense thier financial loss because there is no other easy to understand method of suing someone in this particular circumstance without claiming emotional distress.

If they are asking for more than what they paid to buy, care for, treat, and lay to rest the animal, then emotional distress certainly does come into play, and IMO I think both sides have suffered enough to worry about that.

Personally, though, I wouldn't pursue the lawsuit at all. Way too much acrimony involved, the emotional turmoil of a lawsuit would be far beyond what she's suffering now.

Now that I know I can be prosecuted to this extent by the law, I'm just going to bury any pet I unintentionally kill.

Stienman: yea.. I can see where you are going, but I think we (this forum) are missing some info.

Was this the first time?
Did the dog look threatening?
Was the guy protecting his own family? grandkids? his own pet?

in Texas, if I am threaten in my own home, I am allow to use force. Sure I can call the cops, but the damage could already been done before they arrive.

Chibibar said:

but where do you stop?

Click to expand...

Let's go far down the slippery slope here. Where do you fear us stopping?

do you consider all pet? what if you have a family of chickens?

Click to expand...

What if you do have a family of Chickens? Is there any reason why a neighbor should be able to slaughter them?

Do you treat the monetary penalties as if they were kids?

Click to expand...

There is no standerd payout for kids so you can't treat monetary penalties as if they were kids. But you set the payment by how aggregious the actions were and how much the victim was hurt by the actions same as every emotional distress claim ever.

Where does it end?

Click to expand...

Like I said above go nuts with where this ends. Go to the deepest darkest place that you fear us ending up at if people are allowed to sue a man who shot their dog for no reason other than it was on his property and he had the gun.

You tell me where you fear this slppery slope leading us and then we can legitimately argue whether it's a realistic fear that is possible and whether it's worse than the current system because I quite frankly don't see any kind of civil rights violation at the bottom of this slippery slope.

I want to sue some of the trolls on the internet. They made me have a bad day. /sad

That should at least be worth a cup of coffee a day.

If the dog was so important to them, it shouldn't have been allowed to run free. The shooter should sue the family for the emotional distress of having to deal with their stupidity.

where do I fear it will go?

If you can sue for grievance, I am thinking the Vet and pet insurance (yes there are some and I have one for my dog) I can see that Vet will and can get sued if they don't treat the dog immediately (I know many try but you get the idea)

this could raise insurance and it can be as bad as humans (since humans can sue doctors)

(note: this is fresh in my head, cremation only cost 120$ in Dallas, cause that is what it cost to cremate my first dog)

now of course what about those kennels/pet motels? what if your pet is not as happy? can you sue them? pet can show emotions. what if the pet is distress after going to X pet hotel for couple of days can you sue them? What if they were mistreated?

Before, pets are treated as animals, but once we treat them (legally) as human equivalent, then all the good and bad that human legal system already exist will be added to pets.

There's already a huge organization that says animals should be treated as well as humans. I don't agree with PETA either, but animals are more than mere objects.

Chibibar said:

where do I fear it will go?

If you can sue for grievance, I am thinking the Vet and pet insurance (yes there are some and I have one for my dog) I can see that Vet will and can get sued if they don't treat the dog immediately (I know many try but you get the idea)

Click to expand...

Would never hold up because the vet has no responsibility to aid your pet. The person brings their dog to the vet or asks the vet to come to their house.

This case is nonsense because they have no reason to expect the vet to see their dog immediately.

this could raise insurance and it can be as bad as humans (since humans can sue doctors)

(note: this is fresh in my head, cremation only cost 120$ in Dallas, cause that is what it cost to cremate my first dog)

now of course what about those kennels/pet motels? what if your pet is not as happy?

Click to expand...

Sueing for the dog's emotional distress? No complaining witness, the lawyers can't take depositions, and the kennel can't face their accuser. Case would be impossible for any lawyer to pursue

Once again your example is nonsense.

can you sue them? pet can show emotions. what if the pet is distress after going to X pet hotel for couple of days can you sue them? What if they were mistreated?

Click to expand...

How badly mistreated? You can already sue them for abusing your dog if you find out about it for the cost of the dog of course.

Before, pets are treated as animals, but once we treat them (legally) as human equivalent, then all the good and bad that human legal system already exist will be added to pets.

Click to expand...

No pets aren't treated like animals. Pets right now are treated as property, like an endtable or a Plasma Television.

Dubyamn: you said worst case these cases you have to think AFTER if you treat your pet to be same level as humans. then above scenario will hold true.

scenario #1, it would treat as the same as doctor not treating human when needed (i.e. waiting in the emergency room too long and hurt) there are cases. I think there is a thread on it. Thus the worst case. Of course TODAY it is nothing on the pet part. The Vet will not be held responsible, but if treated as a human then the procedure changes.

If the dog is not happy, the owner will be unhappy, and thus could cause emotional stress in the FAMILY cause the dog is not happy..... thus.. emotional stress.
(again.. only apply IF the law is passed)

well.... voting a child off the classroom (mental anguish) cause a teacher to lose her job. raising a hand to a child (spanking) COULD lose your child if they think you are abusing them. (yea in some places even simple spanking = child abuse depending where you are) So if a pet hotel employee smack my dog with a newspaper, then I can sue them for abuse (again if I can sue for emotional distress why not abuse too?)

You said worst case I am thinking of possible scenarios in the future when pets ARE treated as human.

Chibibar said:

Dubyamn: you said worst case these cases you have to think AFTER if you treat your pet to be same level as humans. then above scenario will hold true.

Click to expand...

Yes I did and I then pointed out why your reasoning is false. Such as the "treating animals like they are humans" which oddly enough nobody but you has said.

scenario #1, it would treat as the same as doctor not treating human when needed (i.e. waiting in the emergency room too long and hurt) there are cases. I think there is a thread on it. Thus the worst case. Of course TODAY it is nothing on the pet part. The Vet will not be held responsible, but if treated as a human then the procedure changes.

Click to expand...

Under the law Doctors have a responsibility to provide service. Vets have no such responsiblity to do so. You bring your animal to the vet if you believe that the vet isn't providing quick enough service you are able to take your animal elsewhere and the vet can refuse service.

Unless the entire justice system is overhauled the case is utter nonsense and an unrealistic fear.

If the dog is not happy, the owner will be unhappy, and thus could cause emotional stress in the FAMILY cause the dog is not happy..... thus.. emotional stress.
(again.. only apply IF the law is passed)

Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. You have to show that it was the kennel that made your dog unhappy which is utterly impossible without a complaining witness.

well.... voting a child off the classroom (mental anguish) cause a teacher to lose her job.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough to protect against the lawsuit that would follow the Teacher's wrong actions.

raising a hand to a child (spanking) COULD lose your child if they think you are abusing them. (yea in some places even simple spanking = child abuse depending where you are)

Click to expand...

Non Sequitor.

So if a pet hotel employee smack my dog with a newspaper, then I can sue them for abuse (again if I can sue for emotional distress why not abuse too?)

Click to expand...

You can already sue them for abusing your dog but only for the "cost" of the dog. Is there some reason why the employee should be able to commit a crime with the kennel's protection?

You said worst case I am thinking of possible scenarios in the future when pets ARE treated as human.

Click to expand...

I did of course but your scenarios are past the realm of possibility. Pets aren't going to be treated as human nobody but you is talking about that. What everybody so far has said is to treat them like pets not an end table.

I really enjoy pets, hell atm we have 2 dogs 3 cats. always had pets of some kind since I was a kid.

As for losing them..is it sad? yea. do I miss them? definitely. but i dont share the..emotional outbreak some do. I wont cry over it cause I try to never let myself get emotionally attached to them

But I can say from experience, it does suck burying them in the backyard.. I've had to dig my share of holes for cats, dogs, etc Its not a pleasant task...really not

Mav said:

But I can say from experience, it does suck burying them in the backyard.. I've had to dig my share of holes for cats, dogs, etc Its not a pleasant task...really not

Click to expand...

It's far worse when you don't do it well enough and your dogs dig them back up...:shocked:

But zombie cats would be cool...

:zombie:

stienman;317975][quote=Mav said:

But I can say from experience, it does suck burying them in the backyard.. I've had to dig my share of holes for cats, dogs, etc Its not a pleasant task...really not

Click to expand...

It's far worse when you don't do it well enough and your dogs dig them back up...:shocked:

But zombie cats would be cool...

:zombie:[/QUOTE]