Defense of Dog?

[VMI77]

Really? Regardless of the "human?" Someone, say, out on parole, for rape, murder, assault, home invasion...etc?

Not necessarily, but how would you know. Did the guy attacking my dog come up and say, "Hi I'm joe, a convicted rapist and murderer." And then turn around and take a hatchet to my dog? If so, my response would be different. But I've never heard of anyone volunteering that information.
Guess it depends on who the human is????

Most likely, you wouldn't know. You expressed a principle --that the lives of all "human beings" have value and that this value is always greater than the value of a dog's life. I was just trying to determine if you really intended to be taken literally. Without getting into a discussion about "value," I don't believe that all human lives have value. In fact, I think some some people's lives may have a negative value --that the "world," so to speak, would be better off without them.

And you get to decide on the value? Will you also be executioner?

Wow, what a stunning and insulting non sequitur. Should I conclude from your illogical leap that you don't think there are people the world would be better off without? You're OK with say, a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? You think anyone saying a world without them would be a better world is a nut who wants to kill people? I want to say more but I can't, your lack of logic leaves me speechless.

[VMI77]

And you get to decide on the value? Will you also be executioner?

Looking at the looting, burning, and personal attacks committed in the London riots and by criminals here and elsewhere, you do not want to ask me those questions. The same planet that creates monsters also creates those that will defend against the monsters.

I feel the line between them and us is thin and usually made entirely of things we had no control over. People often give themselves far too much credit for their success, and think other people could have just done what they did. Everyone is responsible for their actions, but necessarily response for the circumstances or environment of those actions. So to distance yourself from other human beings and treat them like vermin just comes across as asinine to me. All it could have taken is your father getting laid off instead of some other stranger, and you'd be just like those "monsters". Instead I say hit them over the head a few time, hope they learn their lesson, then rinse and repeat. I'd rather have jails full of repeat offenders than a warehouse of execution chambers. This is America after all.

What a load of liberal hooey. The line between us and them is "usually made entirely of things we [have] no control over." So if you'd been brought up like Richard Speck you'd have tortured, raped, and murdered a bunch of nurses? In your world there are no "monsters," just some poor unfortunate souls who didn't catch the same breaks as you and I? So how come people all over the world who have miserable lives aren't a bunch of monsters out raping, robbing, and murdering?

You're spouting the classic liberal line that when someone does something bad it's the fault of society --they're just "victims" of circumstances. That's exactly the excuse being used in the UK to justify the riots. That's also the logic the liberals use when they say you shouldn't shoot home invaders --they're just unfortunate victims of society and it's not their fault they're criminals, circumstances beyond their control forced them into it. That's the logic of the liberal cesspit. What an appropriate nickname you use, because that's also the logic that leads to chaos.

[speedsix]

...no offense, TAM, but the law I quoted gives authority for a person to shoot the dog who's done the wrong...in that case, you'd be breaking the law to try to keep him from KEEPING the law...and he's NOT a vigilante, following that law...

I see our misunderstanding..... I'm assuming an innocent dog, because my dogs are innocent. A) I don't ever give them the opportunity to be guilty; and B) I don't adopt mean predatory dogs.

BTW, I wouldn't exactly be preventing him from "KEEPING" the law. The law doesn't place a legal burden on him requiring him to shoot my dog. It merely makes that a lawful avenue of pursuit should he choose to pursue it. In other words, he won't be in trouble with the law if he doesn't shoot my dog. That said, I would still likely insert myself between the other person and my dog. Don't really care what the law says about it, precisely because he can equally choose NOT to shoot it, and he's not required to do so. I just feel very strongly about it. If I get arrested for protecting my do, so be it.

..."acting within the scope of the law" would have been better wording, I agree...it's not mandatory that he do anything...I started with "no offense" because I think you love your dog as much as I do mine(well, ONE of mine, anyways...the other's a step-dog)...and if the dog's in your yard (or CERTAINLY in your home)...I don't see a need for him to carry out the execution...LEOs can step in and keep the sparks controlled between you and him...my post was about a dog who's done wrong and attacked another while unrestrained and off his property where he had no business...I don't think "close pursuit" would apply to this case, either...once the dog's restrained in a (or his own) yard, there's plenty of time to deal with it through the LEOs and avoid the conflict and emotional catastrophe that would happen if someone showed up and popped my dog in my yard...(even if his mouth was full of feathers)... as to someone just maliciously coming up and attacking, kicking, or stoning my dog when he's on a leash in a public place...that fella's gonna have a baaaaaaaaaaaad day...no doubt...I'm makin' no statements about deadly force but he's gonna wish he'd gone to the dentist instead...

[speedsix]

...Voice of Reason said "... I would have killed either dog if necessary but I would have been angry at the owner"
....that's the key where dogs are concerned...there are no bad dogs, only irresponsible owners...domestically speaking...I know wild dogs are a problem because they have NO training...there are pit bulls in our neighborhood that the owner walks off leash with a leash in his hand...I've(by myself) walked up and dropped to my knees and the dogs ran and wallered on me while I hugged them...one day with my dog on a leash...I entered the small local park and he was playing with his pit...off the leash...his pit started for my dog and I told him loud and hard to get his dog on the leash NOW...he didn't argue...understood what was happening...and we had no problem because of it...a pit will go after another dog where it won't go after a person...it's in the dog's makeup...I suppose it could be trained out but his wasn't...
...all dogs in public should be leashed...all dogs should be kept in fenced yards or let out into fenced yards...if I open my front door and my dog goes out and bites someone instead of doing his business...it's MY fault...Texas' laws are pretty aggressive and, considering the stories on dogs attacking and killing animals and people...that's good...

...bottom line for me is I love my dog deeply...I show that by feeding him, treating him for worms, giving him a place that's cool in summer and warm in winter...AND restraining him so that he can't get into trouble...

[speedsix]

...as to the side issue being discussed here...I feel this way about it...not because I'm an ex-cop...or a former Marine...but because I've lived 62 years and seen a lot of good and bad stuff...

...every life is precious and worth what our Saviour did for us all...because He says so...no person is of less value than another...no matter their economic status or lineage...HOWEVER...
...society...common, decent society...is constructed on principles...commonly agreed principles that extend that value to those around us...and extend respect that won't let us steal, rape, loot, vandalize, murder, rob, and so forth those around us...this is expressed in law, but it goes much deeper than law...it's human decency...

...when a person acts contrary to that and does these things to his fellow man...or woman...not as an isolated incident or poor choice or act of desperation, but as a chosen lifestyle, flying in the face of all that person knows is good and right...AND chooses to go about breaking the law with NO respect for others' rights and value...while he is doing those things, he is not a part of this society...he's an enemy to ALL people...and society has to stop him...or he will destroy us all...I feel that harsh and brutal force to stop and control him and severe punishment once the legal system has control of him is right and good...no matter what has happened to him as a child, how hard or deprived his life has been...what bad luck or heartache he's endured...when he throws away the basic human decency we all live by, he must be stopped...what happens after that is up to the legal system and his choices about changing or not...it is SOCIETY's responsibility to rise up and STOP him...by whatever means necessary...to preserve the society...and the principles we live by...

...to do less is to devalue our principles and tell all those who shall remain nameless in this post that we are fodder for their whims and wishes, and will not resist...and if we send that message, we get what we deserve...

...there is no sensible rational justification for the kind of looting and rioting and violence we've seen here in the past and is being seen in England in the present...they MUST stop it by whatever it takes...or their society will crumble...

[VMI77]

...no person is of less value than another...no matter their economic status or lineage...

With that sentiment I completely agree. To cite an extreme example in the interest of simplicity, I do consider the life of someone like Stalin not only to have less value than the life of another, but actually a negative value. Not because of his race, his income, or even his ideology: but because of his behavior.

Perhaps the concept of "value" is the wrong way to express it. But if you shoot someone who points a gun at you then you must consider your life more important, or more valuable, than his life, otherwise you'd let him kill you. If you're willing to die to save the life of your wife or your child then you must consider their lives more important, or more valuable, than your own. To me, it is immoral to assign the same value to the life of someone who has chosen to do evil as you would the life of someone who has not chosen to do evil. How do you know if someone has chosen an evil path? by their behavior. When faced with evil behavior you exercise your right to defend yourself, loved ones, and innocents, against it.

BTW, to be absolutely clear, I believe in the rule of law. Where there is no rule of law there is no civilization. I'm not proposing vigilantism. As regards the right to self-defense, I think the law in Texas is pretty reasonable, and strikes a pretty good balance between those who act in good faith and those who would exploit the law to do evil.

[KingofChaos]

Wow, what a stunning and insulting non sequitur. Should I conclude from your illogical leap that you don't think there are people the world would be better off without? You're OK with say, a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? You think anyone saying a world without them would be a better world is a nut who wants to kill people? I want to say more but I can't, your lack of logic leaves me speechless.

Are you kidding me? What lack of logic? You said: In fact, I think some some people's lives may have a negative value --that the "world," so to speak, would be better off without them. You said that there are people who currently exist who you feel should be dead, because they do nothing for the world. I'll get directly to the matter, there is nothing about you that makes you qualified to unilaterally start assigning "value" to human lives. No one has that right, period. And if you think you do, then you're very much like like Hitler and Stalin; two of the people who you mentioned that you would have had no problem getting rid of. You clearly said that there are people in this world who should be dead for actions that you feel are wrong, I asked if you be man enough to kill them if you had the ability. Unless you know some other way for people to be dead? I love order and the rule of law, and you say you do too, but I can't tell by what you're saying. We have a criminal justice system in place with rules and procedures that try to make things as objective as possible. You aren't being objective and are condemning people based on your opinion of their actions. That is not the law, the law is the standard by which we all agree. And to subvert the law is not being a friend of it. In particular, you said

Really? Regardless of the "human?" Someone, say, out on parole, for rape, murder, assault, home invasion...etc?

You feel that someone who committed assault or home invasion has a life less valuable than a dog, and that you would rather your dog live than them. None of these are even crimes that you could be executed for under the justice system. Though we did try to add child rape in Texas, and the SC made a terrible decisions, but that's irrelevant.

The legal system does not agree that your dog is more "valuable" than these people. It also appears to not agree with you that you should use deadly force against them to stop them from attacking your dog. I'm simply going by the things that you said. I already said that maybe you meant something different, and that my interpretation was flawed. Don't blame me for your lack of clarity. Also, people do have free will and should be held accountable for their actions, no where did I say that I didn't support punishing criminals. But to ignore that external factors shape a person is inane.

[speedsix]

....I am very curious, and I'm going to ask...how old are you, KingofChaos???

[KingofChaos]

I thought I had already told you speed, 21. Let the ageism begin!

[speedsix]

...I think you did, but I'd forgotten...at my age...you know the rest...thanks...

[paulhailes]

Well this topic took an interesting turn.

[VoiceofReason]

I thought I had already told you speed, 21. Let the ageism begin!

“ageism”?

I would say it is more like experience and wisdom.

I am 65 and I have seen some great people that would give you the shirt off their back if you needed it more than they did. I have also seen animals that only understand fear and pain. That is how they get what they want from others and that is the only way they can be controlled.

I think the same could be said for dogs. Our spaniel loves everyone and only has to be spoken to sternly to get him to behave because he wants to please and be loved. There are also dogs that cannot be controlled and/or will not be controlled by their owner.

You might want to think about what some of us old pharts on this board have to say. Many of us have been down that road and learned some of life’s lessons the hard way.

I personally have a few scars to prove it.

[speedsix]

I thought I had already told you speed, 21. Let the ageism begin!

...aw, whydja hafeta go and add that???

[speedsix]

...there's always been somethin' in us older guys that wants to share our experience with the younger ones...to keep them from learning things the way we did...

...there's always been somethin' in the younger guys that looks at us grey-hairs...older, maybe fatter, maybe weaker, not up on the latest stuff...and thinks "What can he possibly teach me? He's not even in the race"...

...when we meet somewhere in the middle of that...it's a good thing...we didn't get this old by accident...more like in spite of...

[PappaGun]

I've posted this on here before so I'll keep it brief.

A loose dog circled behind me and attacked my German Shepherd.

The owner was near, but unable to stop it.

My hands were full with the leashes of my 2 dogs.

I had my G27 on my hip OWB.

I was able to grab the dog and throw him on his side and keep him pinned down until the owner got there.
Kind of Cesar Milan style. This snapped him out of it and he stopped.

I let go of my dogs at some point. The next step would have been messy if the dog did stop his offense.
I would not have hesitated if it became necessary to protect my property.