Free Republic

You and Donna brought abortion into the discussion. These people did not. This discussion had NOTHING to do with abortion.

There are many people who view their pets as their children. It has NOTHING to do with one parent purposely murdering their own child.

>>I would say that since you can’t<<

Yours.

>>And it lessens the value of a child. You and Donna have brought a child down to the level of a DOG.<<

That’s what you’re not wanting to see.

THE OWNERS are trying to bring a dog up to the level of a child. They are trying to get money in a way that one has ONLY gotten when a human, not livestock, not a pet, not any form of chattel, has been killed or maimed.

Your beef is with these people. Not FReepers. It’s the Irony that fathers are not compensated for their loss when a woman kills their child, but these people want that compensation that has only been reserved for humans.

I’m sorry you won’t see it. But have a great day. I have laundry and homeschooling to do. Oh, and the dog needs to go out.

I would say that since you can’t,

Why would I defend Donna's position? I don't see the killing of a pet the same as an abortion of a child. You and Donna do.

You are cheapening the abortion debate by demanding that if an owner is compensated for the loss of a pet, so should the father of an aborted baby be compensated. That kind of logic induces a stomach churning reaction. And it lessens the value of a child. You and Donna have brought a child down to the level of a DOG.

Well, at least some of us keep trying. There’s always hope.

>>Then let Donna defend her position. <<

I would say that since you can’t, she doesn’t need to.

>>with not getting to possess/experience something one anticipates having in the future.<<

So if I’m pregnant and someone hits my car and I lose the baby, there should be nothing for my loss?

Afterall, my husband never possessed/experienced that child.

Oh, I learned that long ago. Every so often, I grow exasperated with it and try (usually in vain) to open a mind or two.

Head, wall, you know the story.

And actually, it was Donna who brought it up.

Then let Donna defend her position.

>>They are not comparing it to abortion. YOU are.<<

No, I’m saying that the courts are off if one can get compensation for a dog like a child but a father who loses a child to abortion cannot.

It’s the compensation.

And actually, it was Donna who brought it up.

According to this site

http://forums.cabelas.com/showthread.php?t=5818

there is no Federal law about Deer Dogs. In fact, people are saying that there are state laws against it.

You may want to check with your own state.

They are not comparing it to abortion. YOU are.

Can’t believe I missed this when it was first posted!
Kudos, Kim4VRWC’s et al!! < stands and applauds wildly >

I didn’t say that, or in any way imply it.
I am making the point that one can’t compare losing something one has already possessed and experienced,
whether it is a pet, a family member or a car or a diamond necklace — with not getting to possess/experience something one anticipates having in the future.

Double luxating pattellas stage four (Knees). And folks around here think I’m nuts too, Lol.

Maybe you missed this part of the article.

“Now the Scheeles are asking the court to carve out a new legal doctrine that a dog’s owners can sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship, just like parents can when they lose children.”

Who is comparing a dog to a child? They are.

BAM!

You are allowed to use dogs to chase and hunt deer where you live? I have never heard of that, around here in Indiana and Michigan I though they would put you under the jail if they caught you doing that.

Hip dysplasia? (sic) We put new hips in two of our family pets now. Most people think we’re crazy to put that kind of money in a dog around here where we live.

I think most would just put them down and try again.

If a neighbor shot my dog dead I would not in good spirits be able to live there anymore. I would be so hard pressed to move away I may very well sell my house to a drug dealer, or some crazed looking person like that.

Families feel a loss when a pet is harmed. By bringing abortion into it, it lessens the argument against abortion. BOTH entail loss. But comparing the two is demeaning to the abortion debate. Not everything in life is about abortion. And it compares with NOTHING. It is a horror all it’s own.

I love my dog, but its a dog not a child... raising an animal to the status of a human is just as stupid as raising man to the status of god.

Court should toss this.

Anybody who does not keep their animals under complete
control 24/7 are bad owners and worse neighbors.

Some of the new ones are 1,100+ fps, you could kill a dog easy with one of those if you were a good shot, especially with some of the new styles of pellets available today.

I disagree, there was no excuse for shooting the dog.
By the way, it’s a FEDERAL offense to shoot a DEER DOG that that is chasing deer on your property! I know, it happens on mine all the time. And they will drive up and drop the dogs off on your property line so they will chase deer off your property so they can shoot them.

but somehow, it’s ok for this Ahole to kill the dog.

I hope they own him before it’s over with.

I love dogs, have them, just spent two grand on one for leg surgery. I also live in an area where people think they can just let their dogs out and they don’t get into trouble.

I’ve had dogs crap in my yard, get in my trash, and kill neighbors chickens. I now keep a bb gun by the back door and shoot ‘em in the a@@ if they come around. If I accidently put an eye out I’m sorry but keep your damn dogs home! Nice little Spot can turn into a jerk when he’s out on his own.

It is a tough call, if I was on a jury and someone killed a pet on it owners property (poison, shooting, etc.) then I am all for making them pay big time for doing it.

If it’s on someone elses property and it happens though, I can’t go that far.

Property rights trumps hurt feelings any day for me. If the dog was a nuisance and was poisoned on the defendants property then I would have not sided with the family for higher value in that case.

>>That has NOTHING to do with a neighbor shooting a dog. And you lessen the impact of murdering a baby when you compare the two.<<

It’s not the dog and the baby.
It’s the hypocrisy of humanizing a dog (they are seeking money damages intended for a human) compared to DEhumanizing a fetus.

This isn’t about the death of the dog as much as the loss that the human’s feel.

Ping Bull

In this undated photo released by the Scheele family, their pet dog, Shadow , is seen in Annapolis, Md. Is a pet just a person's property, or something more? That's the question facing the Vermont Supreme Court, which hears arguments Thursday on whether a Maryland couple can recover for emotional damages in the fatal shooting of Shadow, a shepherd-chow-spaniel mix killed by a Northfield man when it wandered onto his property. (AP Photo/Scheele Family)

>>The father hasn’t already had the companionship
of the unborn child, so he hasn’t lost it
because he never experienced it.<<

Sounds like you’re saying that the companionship of a child is all it’s worth.
So if a baby is stillborn, the father shouldn’t care at all?

You haven’t realised yet, how agenda-driven this forum is?

When I was a kid, the neighbor’s teenagers would let their dog out every morning and he would beeline for our front lawn.

My dad tried talking to the neighbor who swore up and down that he would stop it. It continued.

One Saturday Morning, dad went up to my bedroom with a pocket full of luckystones and a slingshot. He parked himself at 6am with a little tv and a keen eye. Round about 8am the dog came onto our lawn. Dad took aim as the dog squatted. I heard a YIPE!

This went on for two days. The dog became terrified to come to the front yard.

Now, had my dad not been such a good shot, he could have hit the dog in the head and killed him. It would have been sad but considering the dog was unleached and on our property, they took the risk.

Thanks.

OK then

not a good analogy, in my opinion.
The father hasn’t already had the companionship
of the unborn child, so he hasn’t lost it
because he never experienced it.

"I think we need to reign in the trial lawyers, not find even more ways for them to make money. Just my opinion; I could be wrong."

You're not wrong, your opinion should weigh as much as those idiots with the black robes in a case like this.

oew = owe

This is not at all a new legal concept. I had a case 30 years ago on the death of a pet which had been poisoned. I took the time to research the value of a dead pet in the highest court of every state. About a third awarded only the cash value of the pet. About a third awarded additional value for the relationship of the pet to the family, especially to children.

My state, Maryland, had no ruling either way. I persuaded the court there to accept the increased value as a more realistic measure of a deceased pet. The only thing interesting about this case is that the Supreme Court of Vermont had not yet addressed this subject. I predict the court will rule in favor of the family whose dog was shot.

Congressman Billybob

Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"

"Ben Franklin: On Science"

I wonder what would have happened if the guy that shot the dog had a German Shepherd and the Shepherd attacked and killed the dog? I have animals and my neighbor has Peacocks and Guinee hens. These birds are all over the place and will drive you nuts. They never shut up. We are in the country so I just shoot them. I have warned him time and again. I keep all my animals on my property. Horses, dogs, cats. People need to respect others property and keep their animals under control. If they don’t, they get what they get.

>>Having someone else shoot your dog is nowhere NEAR the same as intentionally killing your child.<<

Actually, the article and case are about someone trying to collect damages intended for the loss of a human. One does not get emotional distress cash when one’s car is totaled. Watch Judge Judy or People’s Court and you see that all the time. Emotional Distress is for personal injury only.

So really, the plaintiffs are the ones who are bringing their dog to the level of a human being. Donna just pointed out that fact.

Man losing dog/compensation
Man losing baby/ none?

Didn't catch that bit. Even still...don't aim or shoot at anything you do not want to destroy. Rule number two, you know.
Rule number one being, the gun is always loaded.

Yes, I think they can sue for the cost of a replacement dog, if the person who shot it is deemed to oew them compensation.

If it were an expensive purebred, then he’d owe more.

But I believe the animals are treated as property, nothing more.

I know that can lead to some heart-wrenching results, but I think that’s the best way to handle it. I think we need to reign in the trial lawyers, not find even more ways for them to make money. Just my opinion; I could be wrong.

That has NOTHING to do with a neighbor shooting a dog. And you lessen the impact of murdering a baby when you compare the two.

He admitted to trying to hit the dog in the butt, but instead hit it further forward and the pellet hit an artery.

That’s his story at least...

How Much Is A Dog’s Love Worth?

Apparently not enough to keep it where it is supposed to be...

But it’s NOT.

Having someone else shoot your dog is nowhere NEAR the same as intentionally killing your child.

Absolutely. If a tort deprives you of property, you are entitled to damages for the value of that property.

But a neutered, elderly "special needs" mutt isn't worth much in the way of money.

That's why they're trying to attach an emotional distress claim to this.

I think that punitives for reckless disregard for human life/safety (if there were any humans in the vicinity) would be a much better way to try to get some money out of this.

What if someone loves their Ipod and it becomes obsolete?

Loss of an animal.

If you cannot see that there is a difference between losing a pet and killing a child, I cannot explain it to you.

Strive for clarity. Deal with one issue at a time. Your arguments will be much more effective that way.