Scenario - Hot Dog
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Dave, I was pointing out that fires have the risk of spreading, not to shoot the jolly workman. Thus, someone setting a deliberate fire can do a lot of damage.
To my fellow posters, the sociopath discussion is ridiculous. Its proponent is just trolling. I may disagree with an immediate charge to brain the guy with a wrench or shoot him, but I certainly don't think that charge for anyone is justified.
Until one can examine a person vs. the DSM standards, we just have a lot of hot air here.
To my fellow posters, the sociopath discussion is ridiculous. Its proponent is just trolling. I may disagree with an immediate charge to brain the guy with a wrench or shoot him, but I certainly don't think that charge for anyone is justified.
Until one can examine a person vs. the DSM standards, we just have a lot of hot air here.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Understood. My question is on the "intent" provision of the law, however. Is the intent to do animal cruelty or to do arson? By securing Fido to the tree has torchman indicated that he has no intent to commit an arson, thus negating that force justification under the law?
If it quacks like a duck...
What terrible irony it'd be if, while trying to prevent an arson fire, you start one yourself by a bullet striking a piece of quartz in the dirt 50 meters past the guy when the bullet passes through him and the sparks start a fire.
Oh, I'm trolling, am I? Seven years and I've deciding to start trolling in your thread. My, it must be exceedingly special, mustn't it, to deserve such an honor.
Alright, I'll admit it, I'm trolling...for rationality and proportional response, in a thread where people are discussing how best to legally justify murdering a human being (twisted as he may be) over a DOG, using the excuse of arson, or arson using the excuse of a dog, however you want to phrase it.
That's trolling for sociopathic +1's, and that's sick.
Biker: Mostly.
What terrible irony it'd be if, while trying to prevent an arson fire, you start one yourself by a bullet striking a piece of quartz in the dirt 50 meters past the guy when the bullet passes through him and the sparks start a fire.
Oh, I'm trolling, am I? Seven years and I've deciding to start trolling in your thread. My, it must be exceedingly special, mustn't it, to deserve such an honor.
Alright, I'll admit it, I'm trolling...for rationality and proportional response, in a thread where people are discussing how best to legally justify murdering a human being (twisted as he may be) over a DOG, using the excuse of arson, or arson using the excuse of a dog, however you want to phrase it.
That's trolling for sociopathic +1's, and that's sick.
Biker: Mostly.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Trolling is when you make a ridiculous claim to diagnois sociopathy over responses to the thread.
If you read the criteria, know how one makes such a diagnosis, you would see that your analysis was hot air trying to make a point.
When you keep it up, clearly, that's trolling.
But back to the issue. All decision to act in a moral manner are on a continuum of action based on personal values and their interaction with the outcomes. Preventing torture of an animal may not be wise legally. Is it moral? Open to debate. Are humans who would do such, apriori, more valuable than the animal?
What if you saw an individual going to torch an original of the Constitution or the Mona Lisa? They are just paper, canvas and paint.
Would you be a good witness? Thus, the values which one might use to initiate lethal force are complex and beyond silly and misunderstood definitions found through google.
If you read the criteria, know how one makes such a diagnosis, you would see that your analysis was hot air trying to make a point.
When you keep it up, clearly, that's trolling.
But back to the issue. All decision to act in a moral manner are on a continuum of action based on personal values and their interaction with the outcomes. Preventing torture of an animal may not be wise legally. Is it moral? Open to debate. Are humans who would do such, apriori, more valuable than the animal?
What if you saw an individual going to torch an original of the Constitution or the Mona Lisa? They are just paper, canvas and paint.
Would you be a good witness? Thus, the values which one might use to initiate lethal force are complex and beyond silly and misunderstood definitions found through google.
My post said:
To any "normal" human this would seem to be a post in jest, but you sir belive it? Hmmmm. Who is the sociopath here?
I find most of these "scenarios" posted here are ways to justify their wanting to kill another human in a SD fashion. I dont carry a gun, keep mine locked up in a safe, do not sit around in fear thinking up ways other humans can attack me so I can shoot them in a manner the police will think is Ok.
When you kill any living thing it is dead and meant for the table. Soooo, I really dont want to kill a human. Donner party......
Lets re hash, you are in Tx, in the dry season, a guy has tied up a dog and wishes to set it ablaze. Now I first must ask, is it his dog? if so it is his property to do with as he sees fit and I would expect the same from him or anyone else in this world. Maybe it is a new age method of cooking, I dont know and from the description I dont have enough info to proceed so out comes the cell phone and a call is to be made. End of story and my participation in that drama. Now back to the rubber room for you.....
To any "normal" human this would seem to be a post in jest, but you sir belive it? Hmmmm. Who is the sociopath here?
I find most of these "scenarios" posted here are ways to justify their wanting to kill another human in a SD fashion. I dont carry a gun, keep mine locked up in a safe, do not sit around in fear thinking up ways other humans can attack me so I can shoot them in a manner the police will think is Ok.
When you kill any living thing it is dead and meant for the table. Soooo, I really dont want to kill a human. Donner party......
Lets re hash, you are in Tx, in the dry season, a guy has tied up a dog and wishes to set it ablaze. Now I first must ask, is it his dog? if so it is his property to do with as he sees fit and I would expect the same from him or anyone else in this world. Maybe it is a new age method of cooking, I dont know and from the description I dont have enough info to proceed so out comes the cell phone and a call is to be made. End of story and my participation in that drama. Now back to the rubber room for you.....
Ernest T Bass
New member
+1 markj
I couldn't agree more. Personally, I find these “scenario threads” creepy and wouldn’t be surprised if they were banned soon, just as zombie topics are banned...but that's just my opinion, so don't get offended. So I'll just continue to steer clear of the Tactics & Training forum. I only clicked on this thread because the title caught my eye. I rely on this website for firearm advice, not legal advice.
I am cynophobic, so I'm scared to death of dogs. I'd likely be much more afraid of the dog than the nut case who is setting it on fire. I'd probably assume that it was his dog and it had a horrible and contagious disease and he was burning it to destroy the corpse so the disease wouldn't spread (or something like that). My life isn't in danger, so the very most that I'd do is call the police and leave it at that. Or maybe I'd assume that it was some kind of local tradition or something. More than likely I'd just roll my eyes and form an unfavorable opinion of the folks in Texas.
I couldn't agree more. Personally, I find these “scenario threads” creepy and wouldn’t be surprised if they were banned soon, just as zombie topics are banned...but that's just my opinion, so don't get offended. So I'll just continue to steer clear of the Tactics & Training forum. I only clicked on this thread because the title caught my eye. I rely on this website for firearm advice, not legal advice.
I am cynophobic, so I'm scared to death of dogs. I'd likely be much more afraid of the dog than the nut case who is setting it on fire. I'd probably assume that it was his dog and it had a horrible and contagious disease and he was burning it to destroy the corpse so the disease wouldn't spread (or something like that). My life isn't in danger, so the very most that I'd do is call the police and leave it at that. Or maybe I'd assume that it was some kind of local tradition or something. More than likely I'd just roll my eyes and form an unfavorable opinion of the folks in Texas.
You can't be serious!
Nobody sets a dog on fire, while the dog is alive, because they think it is carrying a disease!
They kill the animal as humanely as possible and THEN burn the dog's corpse.
The guy in the senario is clearly a sadistic nut case and the world would be better off without him.
Ernest T Bass
New member
That may be true, but...
The guy may be a "sadistic nut case", but it's not my place to play judge and jury. Can you just start blasting away at the guy because he's not killing a dog as humanely as you'd like?
Once again, I'm far from being a dog lover, so I'm not too concerned for the fate of poor little puppy. Maybe that's why this senario doesn't "do it" for me. I just don't see why you would "go out of your way" to shoot someone in this senario. I don't want to see animals suffer, but I don't want to go out of my way to shoot at somebody who isn't harming me.
The guy may be a "sadistic nut case", but it's not my place to play judge and jury. Can you just start blasting away at the guy because he's not killing a dog as humanely as you'd like?
Once again, I'm far from being a dog lover, so I'm not too concerned for the fate of poor little puppy. Maybe that's why this senario doesn't "do it" for me. I just don't see why you would "go out of your way" to shoot someone in this senario. I don't want to see animals suffer, but I don't want to go out of my way to shoot at somebody who isn't harming me.
:barf:stephen426
New member
markj and Ernest T Bass,
Who do you guys keep insisting that we just plan to go around blasting people? Reread the original post. The guy was trying to prevent a severe case of animal abuse. While I'm sure we all agree that a human life is worth more than an animals, senselessly torturing a dog is just plain wrong. Based on the original post, this guy has done it before. How many dogs have to suffer before someone does something about it?
I have not read a single (serious) post where anyone said to just shoot the guy. I hope that everyone is at least willing to be a good witness and report the guy's license plate number to the police (dog lover or not).
Who do you guys keep insisting that we just plan to go around blasting people? Reread the original post. The guy was trying to prevent a severe case of animal abuse. While I'm sure we all agree that a human life is worth more than an animals, senselessly torturing a dog is just plain wrong. Based on the original post, this guy has done it before. How many dogs have to suffer before someone does something about it?
I have not read a single (serious) post where anyone said to just shoot the guy. I hope that everyone is at least willing to be a good witness and report the guy's license plate number to the police (dog lover or not).
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
if so it is his property to do with as he sees fit and I would expect the same from him or anyone else in this world.
Why does TX have this:
SEC. 42.09. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
(A) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) tortures or seriously overworks an animal;
(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, SHELTER or care;
(3) abandons unreasonably an animal in his custody;
(4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;
(5) kills, injures, or administers poison to an animal belonging to
another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent;
(6) causes one animal to fight another;
(7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing;
(8) horse tripping
AN OFFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
SEC. 12.21 CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
(A) Any individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000.00;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year;
(3) BOTH such fine and imprisonment.
Animal Cruelty Statute - Third Offense
An amendment to the Penal Code, provides a felony penalty for individuals convicted of animal abuse on a third offense.
As of September 1, 2001, people who are convicted of committing acts of cruelty or torture to animals can receive harsher punishment via the new bill: HB 653. Heinous crimes of cruelty towards animals can now be tried as a FELONY punishable by up to $10,000 in fines or 2 years in jail or BOTH. Under this new law, minors (under the age of 18) can be forced to undergo psychological counseling.
I think most civilized societies have proscriptions against animal cruelty. If anyone wants to worry about standards, the claim that is your right to treat an animal this way is quite troublesome.
Even the animals we eat should be slaughtered with minimal pain. Our technology has reached the level to make it possible.
Why does TX have this:
SEC. 42.09. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
(A) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) tortures or seriously overworks an animal;
(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, SHELTER or care;
(3) abandons unreasonably an animal in his custody;
(4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner;
(5) kills, injures, or administers poison to an animal belonging to
another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent;
(6) causes one animal to fight another;
(7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing;
(8) horse tripping
AN OFFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION IS A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
SEC. 12.21 CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
(A) Any individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000.00;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year;
(3) BOTH such fine and imprisonment.
Animal Cruelty Statute - Third Offense
An amendment to the Penal Code, provides a felony penalty for individuals convicted of animal abuse on a third offense.
As of September 1, 2001, people who are convicted of committing acts of cruelty or torture to animals can receive harsher punishment via the new bill: HB 653. Heinous crimes of cruelty towards animals can now be tried as a FELONY punishable by up to $10,000 in fines or 2 years in jail or BOTH. Under this new law, minors (under the age of 18) can be forced to undergo psychological counseling.
I think most civilized societies have proscriptions against animal cruelty. If anyone wants to worry about standards, the claim that is your right to treat an animal this way is quite troublesome.
Even the animals we eat should be slaughtered with minimal pain. Our technology has reached the level to make it possible.
Ernest T Bass
New member
Stephen426,
I have found several posts in this thread that I feel advocate “just shooting the guy”.
#8
#22
#24
#32
#57 (also advocates covering up the shooting)
#61 (also advocates covering up the shooting)
#80
#88 (evading prosecution)
#97
#153
#157 (this one even refers to shooting me personally!)
There are arguably several more, but these ones are blatant about it.
Even if you could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the sicko in the scenario was the same guy who had been reported to have burnt other dogs, that still doesn’t give you the legal ground to start blasting away at him. I’m not making any judgments as to whether or not your actions would be morally right, I’m just saying that I don’t believe that you can shoot this guy and convince a jury that your life was in danger, or that the guy intended to start a wildfire which may or may not have killed others. If you were to shoot this guy and there were no witnesses around and I was the prosecuting attorney, I don’t think it would be too hard to get you convicted.
Are there any judges on this forum who can help me out on this?
I have found several posts in this thread that I feel advocate “just shooting the guy”.
#8
#22
#24
#32
#57 (also advocates covering up the shooting)
#61 (also advocates covering up the shooting)
#80
#88 (evading prosecution)
#97
#153
#157 (this one even refers to shooting me personally!)
There are arguably several more, but these ones are blatant about it.
Even if you could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the sicko in the scenario was the same guy who had been reported to have burnt other dogs, that still doesn’t give you the legal ground to start blasting away at him. I’m not making any judgments as to whether or not your actions would be morally right, I’m just saying that I don’t believe that you can shoot this guy and convince a jury that your life was in danger, or that the guy intended to start a wildfire which may or may not have killed others. If you were to shoot this guy and there were no witnesses around and I was the prosecuting attorney, I don’t think it would be too hard to get you convicted.
Are there any judges on this forum who can help me out on this?
- Status