Judge rules your dog IS family.
- Thread starter Im2bent
- Start date
The finally caught the reckless driver of vehicle involved that hit the Dog named by Judge as family member .
-
-
-
-
- Nov 3, 2010
- 10,885
- 24,292
That cat is stoned, I can tell. He was knee deep in catnip
Nikita is not my pet, she's my 4 legged friend. I just happen to be her guide and supervisor in the world of people. Frankly, I like her more than many people. I'm a bit in the air on this. If she were killed because someone's tire blew and they went out of control, I'd just let it go. ON the other hand, if they were texting, or intoxicated, I'd burn them as hard as I could.
ATF will need remedial training. Only shoot pets if you are going to shoot the rest of the family too. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
So I can now protect my dog with deadly force in Ohio.....................
I was prepared to defend my dogs with deadly force before some random judge said it was OK.
My dogs have been and always will be family!!
Last edited:
Great for this pet owner. But the real success will come when we can include our pets in the HD/SD plan. That is, if we can defend our pets as we do our human loved ones. In Florida, pets are still considered "property" and you can't defend property with deadly force.
Last edited:
I just want a tax deduction…. Same as for a kid!
There are few lives I value more than my dogs.
Like I needed some fucking judge to make THAT ruling. We don't need a fucking judges ruling on every fucking thing in life.
Does this mean children are finally required on a leash?
Since dogs are now family members, the next one I see dry humping someone’s leg is getting shot. With the elevation in station, comes great responsibility.
Sorry animals are property, they are not people. I understand that pets are better than some people, still the same not people!
Flame me all you want. I am a human not an animal!
Mike
Flame me all you want. I am a human not an animal!
Mike
Who said people? We are talking FaMiLy and kids that belong on a leash
If push ever comes to shove, I might need to, although I dread the expense. I GTFO'ed the PRNJ for FL for a reason. And I'd much prefer to fight to make FL what I need it to be. And to fight to keep it from sliding back the other way.
It's just a little frustrating to have to deal with criminals that know *exactly* where that red line is drawn and go right up to it, without going over it. It just seems that deadly force is the only thing to which those criminals pay attention. But you can't use it. You know it, and they know it. And they keep "red lining" it without stepping over. Uggghhhhhhh.
Tell that to the cops and DAs who treat shooting a police dog the same as shooting an actual police human.
"A New York judge". Enough said unfortunately. I'm more thankful for living in OK by the day.
While I am sorry to hear of any pet that is unfortunately killed... I am so over this culture of bullshit litigation for every possible thing. Millions of people here are just going about their days, waiting for any kind of 'trauma' like it is their lotto ticket. I'm not arguing against 100% reimbursement of the replacement cost/associated bills etc... I think that is completely fair.
I wonder how this will trickle down to 'defense of pets' by citizens etc... What happens when one dog attacks another, and an owner kills the aggressor in front of its 'family'? What happens when a family cat kills a neighbor's bird or rabbit or Richard Gere's gerbil in front of the kids? Stupid ass slippery slope.
While I am sorry to hear of any pet that is unfortunately killed... I am so over this culture of bullshit litigation for every possible thing. Millions of people here are just going about their days, waiting for any kind of 'trauma' like it is their lotto ticket. I'm not arguing against 100% reimbursement of the replacement cost/associated bills etc... I think that is completely fair.
I wonder how this will trickle down to 'defense of pets' by citizens etc... What happens when one dog attacks another, and an owner kills the aggressor in front of its 'family'? What happens when a family cat kills a neighbor's bird or rabbit or Richard Gere's gerbil in front of the kids? Stupid ass slippery slope.
Pretty sure Richard Gere's gerbil wants to die, just saying
No charges. You as a taxpayer will just get the honor of paying more in taxes to cover the lawsuits.
Well since they also shoot the owner with impunity that would be a no.
From this point forward I will celebrate Juneteenth as my dogs liberation day!!
I will no longer be pissed I do not get my mail.
I will no longer be pissed I do not get my mail.
New York court issues habeas corpus writ for chimpanzees
A judge in New York issues a writ of habeas corpus in a case brought by animal rights activists trying to free two chimpanzees.
www.bbc.com
Keep that gomper on a chain, the leash will be chewed through in the first hour.
the point is that the family can experience trauma, and thus the killer may not escape liability.
it isn't a reclassification of the animal.
and no, killing a beloved pet is not the same as livestock that is raised to be slaughtered eventually.
it isn't a reclassification of the animal.
and no, killing a beloved pet is not the same as livestock that is raised to be slaughtered eventually.
I like your perspective in the first part, but I also routinely see livestock that are treated like beloved family pets... milk cows, goats etc... They even have names in my patient portal as given to them by their owners. They're as current on vaccinations and deworming as your dog is. More, a lot of them actually provide a source of sustenence with milk and cheese in addition to 'companionship'. And no, many of those will not be slaughtered in the end, and simply become yard ornaments like many family dogs. You might think it funny that I'd be called out to euthanize a pet cow, but I've done it (owner couldn't bring themselves to shoot it).
I still believe that a ruling like this opens the door for litigation more... and how are we going to determine which animals get to be immediate family members and which aren't?
This wasn't a call out man, I'm not trying to put anyone on the defensive.
I just wanted to note that people across the country are going to have differing opinions on what is a pet and what isn't.
As much as I'm for the law in general...does that mean we have to legally concede furries are human now? That'd be a bummer.
I knew a guy in Kansas who was more attached to his pet crayfish than most people like their own kids. Someone on Instagram had a pet crab that lived for almost 10 years. Is something that would normally be a wild animal, but that's in human care for whatever reason (medically incapable of being returned to the wild, etc) and has formed a non-normal bond with people (foxes, possums, or even the famous squirrel P'nut) supposed to be considered "less" of a pet?
I don't know that there's a good "yes/no" answer to it, since the level of emotional investment the person has in the animal is more important than what the animal is.
I knew a guy in Kansas who was more attached to his pet crayfish than most people like their own kids. Someone on Instagram had a pet crab that lived for almost 10 years. Is something that would normally be a wild animal, but that's in human care for whatever reason (medically incapable of being returned to the wild, etc) and has formed a non-normal bond with people (foxes, possums, or even the famous squirrel P'nut) supposed to be considered "less" of a pet?
I don't know that there's a good "yes/no" answer to it, since the level of emotional investment the person has in the animal is more important than what the animal is.
Yessir, that is precisely my point.
There comes a time where you either say "that is a human, and that is an animal (not a human)", or you allow the 58 genders ideology to bleed over into classifying the role and weight of a non-humans into human lives based off of one person's perspective and emotions vs another's.
Where and how does one draw the line?
Precisely. The question is not (nor should it be) whether an "animal" is "human" a la the DEI mindset, as you mentioned. Technically, we're all animals, per the "animal kingdom" taxon. Furthermore, I don't believe we can equate other families of animals as "humans" (Homo Sapiens). We all are what we all are.
The question is, do these other non-human species that we call "pets" deserve the same legal protections that we humans have (i.e. use of deadly force as a defense), given their status within a given family of humans? Will the loss of a pet for any reason, much less a criminal act, leave the family as devastated as they would be if a human in the family was lost, similarly?
Yes, to both, AFAIC.
It is a slippery slope. I think it a good place to allow for the working out of the great American experiment and within reason let the judge, or jury, make the decision.
Why and how was the animal killed. Was it self defense? and accident? or a malicious act?
Pure accident, I see no need for any punishment, civil or criminal. If it was an act of malicious intent, or abject carelessness, then yes, the owner should be entitled to some sort of compensation above the mere value of the animal. Its not about whether its an animal or human, its about the damage, emotional or financial to the owner.
Again, it should be left to a reasonable judge or jury, which is questionable to find.
Similar threads
