Chicken owner charged after shooting dog.

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
Don't be surprised if this is not continued, a common occurrence in court cases. I personally would like to see it resolved, but Mr. Harris's attorney may still be doing research into cases for a proper defense. And I am sure they will opt for a jury as opposed to a ruling from the sitting judge.

 

[EweSheep]

Wolf, I am aware of the "dragging out" in court systems but hoping for a speedy and fair trial!

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
Charges get dropped, added, and amended all the time.. Depending on the DA's mood, they may add a count of killing a chicken-chasing dog in city limits before this is all over with -- if they haven't already.

Quote:
I don't know how in the world you could possibly enterpret subsection 3 that way, nor how you could say it "makes sense" even if interpreted that way, but...at least you tagged it as an opinion.

I won't argue your opinion.

Quote:
Yeah, but common sense is pretty subjective... To some folks, it's just common sense that you don't shoot a beautiful, friendly golden retreiver because it's trying to play with some stupid chickens inside a locked run.

I'm not saying that's what I believe, personally...but I will say that most people value dogs over chickens, so I'd be careful in wishing for "common sense" to prevail.

Quote:
True, the rules are that we shouldn't be sarcastic and judgemental about how others get rid of predators and pests..

The rules also say that BYC doesn't condone illegal acts, and that it's basically up to the individual to know their laws and consequences..

Nowhere does it say that we have to either support or keep quiet about solutions which may, indeed, be illegal. That seems to be a grey area.

So far as I can tell, you and I are just discussing whether or not Mr. Harris was legal -- not whether or not he was right.

For what it's worth -- and to reiterate -- I think he was right in doing what he did. I'm just not sure he was legal.

Quote:
Even though I support Mr. Harris, too, that doesn't preclude me from being objective about the situation.. Objectively, to me, it appears that there's a very specific law prohibiting what he did.

Keep in mind that I didn't write the law...I certainly don't think it's a very good law...but it's a law nonetheless, and I've yet to see any convincing argument -- from you or anyone else -- that it doesn't apply to Mr. Harris.

I'm still open to discussion, though.

Quote:
I accept it, and I post. You must not be speaking to me, here..

Quote:
As is the case with everyone else, it's entirely up to you to care or not care whether or not Mr. Harris broke the law. Frankly, I don't particularly care either, except to say that I hope he doesn't get convicted of anything..

I'm mostly interested in seeing how it will play out. Frankly -- objectively -- I think it's going to come down to the letter of the law which will not only be a loss for Mr. Harris, but what I'd characterize as a total miscarriage of justice..

But, that's just me, and that's just my opinion.

Quote:
I didn't engage in this discussion with you because I wanted to find conflict...I did it because I realize that lots of people read and take advice from these threads, and I know that bad information can get passed around in a hurry.

As such, if I see opinions masquerading as facts -- totally devoid of any supportive citations -- or posts that are just patently and provably wrong, I will correct them.

I've been corrected before, believe me.. It's not always pleasant, I'll admit, but it serves the community better than rallying around "feel-good" misinformation.

If I've offended you, I'm sorry.

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
Yep...I'm still considering that. I think that could be a loophole if the judge were sympathetic to Mr. Harris, but if not, turkeys could easily become chickens in a "spirit of the law" kind of way..

 

[citrusdreams]

Quote:
I agree that people keep reading the above mentioned (and way too frequently quoted) subsection 3 out of context. It all goes together and they were intertwined for a purpose. I also read this as "corportate city limits" as NOT meaning private property. One of our basic fundamental rights as Americans, is the right to private property. Living in the corporate city limits doesn't take that right away. Mr. Harris' story is about one's rights vs. another person's rights. And I'd be concerned that if he does lose this case, that it would lead to other gross violations of one's rights.

A lot of people hope that he loses the case because they love dogs and think there is no excuse for killing one.

The fact is, we don't know how these things will be interpreted by the Jury. Look how many of us are in conflict over the same passages. And the fact is, unfortunately, the way they feel about chickens and dogs will affect how they will be interpreted. Again, it will be interesting to see how this churns out and if Mr. Harris will be allowed the right to protect his property against those who are destroying his private property.

It does seem like the dog owners in that town are allowed to walk all over everyone else and that the laws clearly stated just don't apply to them. I don't live in an Ivory Tower. I know all too well how laws are twisted and distorted. The laws (all of them quoted together) are clear to me.

One thing no one can deny is that the dog owners aren't being penalized AT ALL for laws clearly stated that they themselves broke and continue to break. Where is the justice there? How is it NOT completely obvious that Mr. Harris' rights are being totally stripped while another party can break them at will with no consequence and they're basically being honored for it? How can we expect Mr. Harris to be given a fair trial in these circumstances? Everyone who loves dogs beyond the rights of their fellow citizens will be arguing over whether or not "corporate city limits" negates the right to private property.

Mr. Harris, I'm SO very sorry for you and what your townspeople are putting you through. I am ever thankful that I live where I live and my rights are protected. I hope you move to a better place, where you are appreciated as a citizen and treated as an equal.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
Charges get dropped, added, and amended all the time.. Depending on the DA's mood, they may add a count of killing a chicken-chasing dog in city limits before this is all over with -- if they haven't already.

Quote:
I don't know how in the world you could possibly enterpret subsection 3 that way, nor how you could say it "makes sense" even if interpreted that way, but...at least you tagged it as an opinion.

I won't argue your opinion.

Quote:
Yeah, but common sense is pretty subjective... To some folks, it's just common sense that you don't shoot a beautiful, friendly golden retreiver because it's trying to play with some stupid chickens inside a locked run.

I'm not saying that's what I believe, personally...but I will say that most people value dogs over chickens, so I'd be careful in wishing for "common sense" to prevail.

Quote:
True, the rules are that we shouldn't be sarcastic and judgemental about how others get rid of predators and pests..

The rules also say that BYC doesn't condone illegal acts, and that it's basically up to the individual to know their laws and consequences..

Nowhere does it say that we have to either support or keep quiet about solutions which may, indeed, be illegal. That seems to be a grey area.

So far as I can tell, you and I are just discussing whether or not Mr. Harris was legal -- not whether or not he was right.

For what it's worth -- and to reiterate -- I think he was right in doing what he did. I'm just not sure he was legal.

Quote:
Even though I support Mr. Harris, too, that doesn't preclude me from being objective about the situation.. Objectively, to me, it appears that there's a very specific law prohibiting what he did.

Keep in mind that I didn't write the law...I certainly don't think it's a very good law...but it's a law nonetheless, and I've yet to see any convincing argument -- from you or anyone else -- that it doesn't apply to Mr. Harris.

I'm still open to discussion, though.

Quote:
I accept it, and I post. You must not be speaking to me, here..

Quote:
As is the case with everyone else, it's entirely up to you to care or not care whether or not Mr. Harris broke the law. Frankly, I don't particularly care either, except to say that I hope he doesn't get convicted of anything..

I'm mostly interested in seeing how it will play out. Frankly -- objectively -- I think it's going to come down to the letter of the law which will not only be a loss for Mr. Harris, but what I'd characterize as a total miscarriage of justice..

But, that's just me, and that's just my opinion.

Quote:
I didn't engage in this discussion with you because I wanted to find conflict...I did it because I realize that lots of people read and take advice from these threads, and I know that bad information can get passed around in a hurry.

As such, if I see opinions masquerading as facts -- totally devoid of any supportive citations -- or posts that are just patently and provably wrong, I will correct them.

I've been corrected before, believe me.. It's not always pleasant, I'll admit, but it serves the community better than rallying around "feel-good" misinformation.

If I've offended you, I'm sorry.

I think you stated your piece and I stated mine as well as others and it should be left at that. Continually bringing it up is NOT going to change anyone's mind in their support for Mr. Harris. To keep it up over and over and over again is not gaining any ground for anybody. We have heard 5 times we do not need a 6th. You are one quoting the same law over and over again yet you ignore clear rules. Agree to disagree and let it GO!

 

[speckledhen]

ok, folks,

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
Good idea. I received another e-mail from Ed. It was very heartfelt and told about his hopes for people being good citizens, etc. I asked for permission to post it here, but haven't heard back yet. I think he is very greatful for the moral support from most of the people here. There is a lot more to the story than posted so far. I really hope this ends with justice. Even though the news reporter and the dog owner were idiots, I don't think that the DA is.

 

[cmjust0]

Quote:
I agree.

 

[gardencricket]

Waiting for the 13th it's on my calendar!! Good luck Mr.Harris