3 Demotte dogs shot

[sadclownwp]

I love that this lady and her family are trying to get this guy ran out of town. They are notifying anyone who will listen and threatening to get non profits involved. This should make national news any minute now.

 

[churchmouse]

I love that this lady and her family are trying to get this guy ran out of town. They are notifying anyone who will listen and threatening to get non profits involved. This should make national news any minute now.

When is someone going to put the blame where it originated.....Her and her family.

 

[Hookeye]

Like I said.............standing on a car yelling "Burn it down!"

Friggin' psychos.

Proly PO'd at the dogs being burned, couldn't give them a "last ride".

 

[mom45]

Our county has a dog ordinance that states how many you can have before being considered a kennel, etc. They are supposed to get dog tags annually and pay a fee, but I believe only a small fraction of dog owners actually know about the ordinance and follow it.

 

[pudly]

Shouldn't this story be renamed "Bambi vs. Cujo"?

 

[Hookeye]

I remember an ordinance years ago, on cat breeders.
Supposedly to help with the problems of strays..............like a lynx point Himalayan at $1500 is out and about eating goldfinches and p*ssing in flowerbeds.

Akin to buying a gun and paying a sin tax for "gun violence".

Revenue generator, does nothing to address the actual problem.

 

[Indy317]

Unless Hookeye is really the govt, what does the 1st Amendment have to do with his feelings on FB stupidity?

I believe the issue here is this part of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law ...... abridging the freedom of speech..." The first amendment pretty much protects most of what people can say on FB. Some say the speech aspect of the 1st Amendment was really only about speaking out against the government. I don't agree. I think it is more than that. If the 1st only applied to speaking out against the government, can the government ban speech on platforms like FB, Yik Yak, etc. so long as what is being said isn't about the government? I've already seen where the younger generation wants to take free speech rights. They actually want an entity, any entity, to protect them from certain speech. They protest about derogatory language on Yik Yak and demand someone do something to stop it. So their universities ban it from their wi-fi networks, but that obviously doesn't stop it. So they demand more. Many want someone in power to trace IP addresses, expel the posters if they are students, or make it so such speech isn't able to be posted.

If what you feel is Free speech actually slanders or threatens me it goes to a whole new level.

I agree on the threats, maybe on the slander issue. Too many people think someone calling this guy a "monster" is slander. Others will think Hookeye calling the dog owner a "terrorist" is slander. I don't think such name calling is slander. I don't want to get to a point where simple economic protesting, or voicing our opinions, and even name calling, are actionable in either civil or criminal court. I support Hookeye being able to label someone as a "terrorist" without fearing a ridiculous "You hurt my feelings, you hurt my business" lawsuit. I want these Facebook people to be to call this guy a monster, a killer, etc., just like I want pro-gunners to be able to say negative things about gun grabbers. So long as everyone is with in reason, meaning no threats to physical safety, and maybe property destruction, I don't see a problem.

 

[Fargo]

I believe the issue here is this part of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law ...... abridging the freedom of speech..." The first amendment pretty much protects most of what people can say on FB. Some say the speech aspect of the 1st Amendment was really only about speaking out against the government. I don't agree. I think it is more than that. If the 1st only applied to speaking out against the government, can the government ban speech on platforms like FB, Yik Yak, etc. so long as what is being said isn't about the government? I've already seen where the younger generation wants to take free speech rights. They actually want an entity, any entity, to protect them from certain speech. They protest about derogatory language on Yik Yak and demand someone do something to stop it. So their universities ban it from their wi-fi networks, but that obviously doesn't stop it. So they demand more. Many want someone in power to trace IP addresses, expel the posters if they are students, or make it so such speech isn't able to be posted.




I agree on the threats, maybe on the slander issue. Too many people think someone calling this guy a "monster" is slander. Others will think Hookeye calling the dog owner a "terrorist" is slander. I don't think such name calling is slander. I don't want to get to a point where simple economic protesting, or voicing our opinions, and even name calling, are actionable in either civil or criminal court. I support Hookeye being able to label someone as a "terrorist" without fearing a ridiculous "You hurt my feelings, you hurt my business" lawsuit. I want these Facebook people to be to call this guy a monster, a killer, etc., just like I want pro-gunners to be able to say negative things about gun grabbers. So long as everyone is with in reason, meaning no threats to physical safety, and maybe property destruction, I don't see a problem.

So Hookeye is now "Congress" and posting on INGO is somehow "making a law"? The first amendment doesn't apply to Hookeye unless he is the government. With one exception, the Constitution restrains the government, not private individuals.

 

[Indy317]

So Hookeye is now "Congress" and posting on INGO is somehow "making a law"? The first amendment doesn't apply to Hookeye unless he is the government. With one exception, the Constitution restrains the government, not private individuals.

I don't get this. The 1st Amendment applies to individuals. It is individuals who sue when there is a first amendment violation. I've never seen the government sue itself for a 1st Amendment violation, it is always non-government actors. If the 1st Amendment didn't apply to individuals, these cases would be thrown out for lack of standing.

 

[Hookeye]

Did the dog owner post a petition for a law change on social media?
Who is her audience?
No legal rendering yet, why is she putting it on social media?
IMHO she is trying to use the mob mentality without regard (and possibly knowingly contrary) to legal.

She's in the wrong and thinks getting a bunch of idiots wound up will somehow make her right.

What is this BS? Is it "Husky Lives Matter"?

She and her ilk should just stand in the middle of the highway in protest, preferably at night, when wearing dark clothing.

 

[Fargo]

I don't get this. The 1st Amendment applies to individuals. It is individuals who sue when there is a first amendment violation. I've never seen the government sue itself for a 1st Amendment violation, it is always non-government actors. If the 1st Amendment didn't apply to individuals, these cases would be thrown out for lack of standing.

The first amendment protects private/individual actors from government interference. Unless hookeye is the government, the first amendment does not apply to his critique of the Facebook posters speech.

 

[Hookeye]

I'm not anti pet.
One of my indoor cats got out...........was gone for almost a month.
I figured somebody blasted her for getting after their birds/rabbits (or a coyote/Buick got her).
Nope, she returned.
Sure I'd be sad if she got nuked...........but that's just the way it is. Collars slip off. Animals do destroy stuff. Not everybody knows who stuff belongs to, or the disposition of the critter.
If a guy had 3 wild rabbits killed by stray cats and mine just happened to show up next day (not the bunny killer) and it got smoked simply due to a guess......... I'd still not be mad at the shooter.

And I've had that cat 10 years, been a wonderful pet.

 

[Hookeye]

The dog owner is a terrorist by using social media when she was in the legal wrong (esp if she tries or allows PETA/other on board).

The deer farmer is no monster for defending his property.

Trying to spin it under some 1st Amendment thing doesn't cut it.

 

[KJQ6945]

I truly love these emotional threads about animals. You don't learn that much about dogs, but you sure learn a lot about people.

 

[ryanbr]

its very simple, if you are going to take the responsibility of owning pets, it is YOU THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY to keep them in control, whether on your property or out in public. You the owner are held liable for everything they do!

 

[Hookeye]

Going to social media to leverage the poor behavior of others is...............?
Knowing that threats of violence will come about from such ?
Being in the legal wrong and going about it in that manner ?

Like some radical............a PETArd cleric.........trying to get others to do their dirty work.

 

[sadclownwp]

There would seriously be less publicity if it was three teens killed.

 

[mbills2223]

There would seriously be less publicity if it was three teens killed.

That seems unlikely

 

[churchmouse]

I believe the issue here is this part of the amendment: "Congress shall make no law ...... abridging the freedom of speech..." The first amendment pretty much protects most of what people can say on FB. Some say the speech aspect of the 1st Amendment was really only about speaking out against the government. I don't agree. I think it is more than that. If the 1st only applied to speaking out against the government, can the government ban speech on platforms like FB, Yik Yak, etc. so long as what is being said isn't about the government? I've already seen where the younger generation wants to take free speech rights. They actually want an entity, any entity, to protect them from certain speech. They protest about derogatory language on Yik Yak and demand someone do something to stop it. So their universities ban it from their wi-fi networks, but that obviously doesn't stop it. So they demand more. Many want someone in power to trace IP addresses, expel the posters if they are students, or make it so such speech isn't able to be posted.




I agree on the threats, maybe on the slander issue. Too many people think someone calling this guy a "monster" is slander. Others will think Hookeye calling the dog owner a "terrorist" is slander. I don't think such name calling is slander. I don't want to get to a point where simple economic protesting, or voicing our opinions, and even name calling, are actionable in either civil or criminal court. I support Hookeye being able to label someone as a "terrorist" without fearing a ridiculous "You hurt my feelings, you hurt my business" lawsuit. I want these Facebook people to be to call this guy a monster, a killer, etc., just like I want pro-gunners to be able to say negative things about gun grabbers. So long as everyone is with in reason, meaning no threats to physical safety, and maybe property destruction, I don't see a problem.

OK........as always things are getting blurry.
If you say negative things about me and those things do not stir up a mob response that you start and maintain then no harm. Sticks and stones.
If in fact you enter into the negative and cause a mob uprising and continue to feed the frenzy then who is in the wrong here. Especially if this is solely to cover the main issue of who is at fault.
1st amendment or not these things are causing harm, duress, and possibly damage to others if threats are carried out.

Again.......Emotions are running high on this.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

There would seriously be less publicity if it was three teens killed.

Yeah, I really doubt that any teens would go to the trouble of trying to dig under a fence.