I must extend my sympathy to this couple

[BattleMage]

I read this in yahoo.

Courts ponder value of man's best friend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_on_re_us/animal_justice)

"Unable to have children, the Scheeles got two dogs instead. They fed them human food, brushed their teeth and put coats on them when it rained."

I'm sorry for your loss.

It's sad that it takes the loss of a loved one for the judicial system to wake up and realize that these are our friends, loved ones, kids, and what ever else you refer to them as. They are more than domesticated animals. They are family!

Sorry, things like this get me fired up. You need to read the full article to see why.

[StarfishSaving]

I'm on the fence in my reaction to this. I believe that the family was totally at fault for the results of their actions because 1) they were in violation of a state law- even if it wasn't their state, you should always assume when in a foreign place that there may be provisions like this and not take liberties such as they did. 2) It's highly irresponsible, IMO, to release a dog off lead in an unfamiliar territory that may be private property. Three of my dogs can be trusted off leash but I do not take that right for granted. They are leashed any time I do not feel that I can either fully control them or know what dangers are around. That would include 74 year olds with BB guns, apparantly.

That said, I think it's stupid to shoot even TOWARDS a dog if your intention is merely to scare it away. I'm not sure he should have a gun if he can't think things through a little better. This man was not right in what he did, but suing him in their negligence is not right. He has to pay via his state laws for his animal cruelty misdemeanor, which sounds about right to me in this situation. I do not feel the family is owed anything else by him. I think they're going through the stages of grief- denial, anger, depression- and it's easier to have someone to blame and something to fight for than to take responsibility here. When I committed to my dogs, I committed to being their primary caretaker, protector, handler, and mom. It is up to me first to keep them out of harm.

However, I DO believe that courts and legislators need to start looking at animals as more than just property. That's a given, personally speaking.

It's all just my opinion but I think both parties are at fault, the family moreso than the guy with the gun.

[StarfishSaving]

And while I am thinking about it (at 2:15am... geez):

I think it's paradoxical to say that one wants courts to recognize animals as more than property while at the same time wanting to be able to sue for loss of companionship. Like the article says, you can't sue in situations like this because your best friend or a family member dies, and I don't think it's right to do so. Asking for an exception is admitting that your dog is there to serve the PURPOSE of companionship, which sounds much more similar to property. Suing for loss of a function. I hope that makes sense. I don't think it's fair to ask for it to go both directions.

[DiggityDogs]

you can't sue in situations like this because your best friend or a family member dies,

You absolutely can sue if a family member died in an incident like this. It's called a wrongful death suit and it's filed in civil court. Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson's families WON their wrongful death suits against OJ even though he lost the criminal case. You CANNOT sue over a friend or 'civil partner'. You must either be an immediate relative or spouse.

All that aside...This is a slippery slope. If you make it further punishable in court to shoot a dog, ranchers and farmers watch out. I agree, I'm sorry for their loss, I can't imagine, but the DID break the law. Pretty much every city has a leash law nowadays, what makes them think they're entitled to anything? What if the dog had been hit by a car? Would they still sue? That was just an old man, afterall, and he DID plead guilty and was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution. That's a pretty good deal considering they lost a dog. I love my dogs, but here we are bordering on serious anthropomorphosization, dogs are NOT people, no matter how much companionship they provide, losing a dog is not the same as losing a family member, even if you consider your dogs family. The key word there is 'consider'. I consider my dogs family, but not human family. Canine life unfortunately does not hold the same value as human life in the eyes of the law.

[SmoothCollieluver]

Normally I would agree that thier loss was a bad one ect. But they put their dogs at risk by letting them lose. The onlly person that should be having to pay is them.

I love my dogs but if a dog gets loose and hit by a car ect the driver should not be held responsible, espically not for pain and suffering from the loss.

[DiggityDogs]

well I don't think the old guy should be completely excused for shooting the dog- but he wasn't. He accepted responisbility and plead guilty for his part. They didn't even get a ticket for letting their dog off leash. The old guy got one year probation, 100 hours of community service, and $4000 restitution. correct me if I'm wrong, but restitution gets paid to the victim. They already got a judgement for $4000 and they want more! Maybe next time they'll keep that leash on those 'babies' they love so much since they 'can't have children'.

[SmoothCollieluver]

well I don't think the old guy should be completely excused for shooting the dog- but he wasn't. He accepted responisbility and plead guilty for his part. They didn't even get a ticket for letting their dog off leash. The old guy got one year probation, 100 hours of community service, and $4000 restitution. correct me if I'm wrong, but restitution gets paid to the victim. They already got a judgement for $4000 and they want more! Maybe next time they'll keep that leash on those 'babies' they love so much since they 'can't have children'.

I think you totally hit the nail on the head.

[canvasjockey]

I pretty much agree with everything said here. As far as them looking at these dogs as their chidren, I can't imagine driving to another town in another state and turning my kids loose to run around unsupervised across the countryside!

[ClarkFarm]

"These people think that this dog is a human being," he said. "It's not a human being. And that dog was trespassing."

I agree with this. A dog is not a human being. Having said that, I agree that we have genuine feelings for our dogs and they are more than just a disposable item.

Personally, I am outraged he was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution but I do not know what that state's particular laws are concerning shooting a loose animal on your property. He pleaded guilty.. he didn't mean to actually kill the dog but he still took the punishment due without opposing it. I wish more people took responsibility for their actions like he did... especially the couple who did not abide by the leash law! I didn't read anything where they admitted they were wrong as well! Instead of pointing fingers, they need to take a look at how they acted. If they hadn't broken the law initially, their dog would not have died.

[Rottweilerlvr]

I'm sorry BattleMage, I know you wanted some support. While I symphasize with the owners, we/ I am constantly preaching responsible ownership and obviously, this dog wasn't responsive enough to come when called off leash and stay close to their parents, so he shouldn't have been off leash in the first place.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

Coming from a legal standpoint....

I think the owners of the dog were in direct violation of the law. By allowing their dog off leash and to wander onto someone's private property, they ALLOWED their dog to get shot.

I truly feel bad for their situation, but the fact is if they love their dogs so much, they would take every precaution necessary to ensure their safety.

As for the man who shot the dog...
I feel he paid what he owes. There was a dog on the property that he didn't know, he shot towards it, ended up fatally shooting it.
Personally, I think that situation could have been handled differently, but it was not my call.

As for the statement of dogs not being human beings, I agree completely. We love them, sometimes more than certain human beings, but the fact of the matter is that they are NOT a human life.
I agree with Clark in being a little disappointed that $4000 restitution was ordered. It was his property and the dog had absolutely NO business being there.

I feel for the families loss, I sincerely do, but they cannot blame anyone but themselves at this point...

[SiNNiK]

US Senator George Graham Vest made this argument in court back in 1870 over a farmer's dog that was shot by a sheep farmer, the amount requested was the maximum allowed by law, $150. after this, the jury awarded far more then that:

Gentlemen of the jury: The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it the most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.

Gentleman of the jury: A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

US Senator George Graham Vest made this argument in court back in 1870 over a farmer's dog that was shot by a sheep farmer, the amount requested was the maximum allowed by law, $150. after this, the jury awarded far more then that:

Gentlemen of the jury: The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it the most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.

Gentleman of the jury: A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.


Wonderful quote, but I fail to see the point....

Im not trying to be mean, but I am not seeing where you are going with this...

Are you trying to say that the couple deserves money for this?

[reeskujo]

I to agree that the owners irresponsibility is ultimately what caused the death of their dog but I have to say even though I consider my dog a family member it angers me that they got $4,000 in restitution but yet when my late husband was killed I got $13,000.Tell me how that's fair.I lost a husband,my kids lost a dad plus we lost everything we owned do to losing his income.yet these people will have none of those hardships and got almost half of what I did for something that happend that was their fault in the first place.It certainly wasn't mine or my husbands fault he was killed Yet I got a little over half of what they did.How does this make sense/Sorry for the rant guys it just really angers me!

[BelovedJuggernaut]

I to agree that the owners irresponsibility is ultimately what caused the death of their dog but I have to say even though I consider my dog a family member it angers me that they got $4,000 in restitution but yet when my late husband was killed I got $13,000.Tell me how that's fair.I lost a husband,my kids lost a dad plus we lost everything we owned do to losing his income.yet these people will have none of those hardships and got almost half of what I did for something that happend that was their fault in the first place.It certainly wasn't mine or my husbands fault he was killed Yet I got a little over half of what they did.How does this make sense/Sorry for the rant guys it just really angers me!


You make an excellent point!

I love my dogs very, very much, but they are DOGS. No matter how much you treat them like your children, they wont be.

I am angry that they got that much for restitution for their own stupidity. I think, if anything, they should have been given what they paid for the dog.

Man's best friend, maybe...
Child.... NO.

[reeskujo]

You make an excellent point!

I love my dogs very, very much, but they are DOGS. No matter how much you treat them like your children, they wont be.

I am angry that they got that much for restitution for their own stupidity. I think, if anything, they should have been given what they paid for the dog.

Man's best friend, maybe...
Child.... NO.
I totally agree Beloved.I know to me my Husband was worth more then $13,000 but I certainly didn't get it!

[BelovedJuggernaut]

I totally agree Beloved.I know to me my Husband was worth more then $13,000 but I certainly didn't get it!


Our husbands are now, and always will be priceless.

I think to say a dog is man's (my) best friend rather than my husband is horrid, which is why I never liked the "dogs are a man's best friend" attitude.

A dog is a great friend/companion, but I think human companionship ranks first for me.

[reeskujo]

Kujo is one of my best friends but certainly not before my husband!!!!

[SiNNiK]

no point, just a wonderful quote.

[reeskujo]

I to think it was a beautiful quote and I hope I didn't upset you with my post.I only wanted to make the point that for as much as we love our dogs they don't hold a higher value then our spouse.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

no point, just a wonderful quote.


Ok... couldn't be sure!

Just confused on my end!

[SiNNiK]

((((((((((((group))))))))))))

:D

[reeskujo]

?,what were you reffering to?

[BelovedJuggernaut]

?,what were you reffering to?


I tried to figure that out, but I think I am just going to nod my head and go with it... LOL!

[reeskujo]

I tried to figure that out, but I think I am just going to nod my head and go with it... LOL!
LOL Beloved!

[SiNNiK]

just my tourette's.

[BelovedJuggernaut]

Or randomness...