Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
And to add to Bullwinkle's post, Hawaii has long recognized that preemptive actions are justified since waiting for the actual action can cause greater harm.
As for the moral or ethical issues, I believe the reason (and only reason) why some may question the actions is because of the way the story was told. What if this was the first post:
“Oh my god, I was sitting in the house the other day and heard some horrible commotion in my yard where my sheep were grazing. I thought someone was trying to steal or kill the sheep. I grabbed a bow and arrow I was cleaning and ran outside in my underwear. There in the yard was this vicious loose dog attacking the sheep. I yelled at it but it immediately took a crouching positing ready to kill one of the sheep that was chained to prevent it from wondering away from the grazing area. As the dog began its attack, I shot it with an arrow. I fell so bad and wonder did I do anything wrong? Should I have waited for the dog to finish the attack and kill the sheep before taking action? I love dogs and this is tearing me apart."
If that was what was posted, I believe that all (but the most Kumbaya folks) would have rally behind the person as being legally, morally, and ethically correct in their actions.
The only reason any intelligent person wouldn’t side with the owner based on the original post was because they were emotionally swayed by the insertion of all the emotional commentary, used to distract and downplay the actions of the dog and try to focus on the acts of the sheep owner.
Posts: 631
Threads: 53
Joined: Oct 2006
Staking sheep out without water, as is mentioned at least twice here, is not abuse. Like goats, they get what they need from their graze/browse. And that certainly does not exonerate the dog ('Why kill the dog? The sheep were being abused anyway.' is not a logical position.)
Posts: 2,979
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
Again, Bob and Bullwinkle, there is no legitimate question that a person has a legal right to take the alleged action and I agree that we do not have all of the facts or both sides of the story. What I am saying is that it is immoral to kill a neighbor's dog without justification and that one has a moral responsibility not to harm the neighbor's dog unless it is necessary to do so.
I am also saying this is the wrong place to convene a jury on an incident on which we do not have both sides of the story.
As for the italicized scenario in Bob's post, that hypothetical describes an imminent danger to the sheep. On those facts, both the law and, I suspect, the community's sense of what is right and moral would support killing the dog.
I think it is important to maintain a clear distinction between the law and behavior that shocks the conscience and is immoral. My concern is that in this country and in Hawaii we are seeing incidents of the assertion of perceived legal rights, without regard to moral responsibilities, coupled with gun fetishism. It's a bad mix.
But then, we are getting quite far afield from what occurred, if anything, in this instance --- a matter on which we should refrain from passing judgment, except in the privacy of our own homes.
Posts: 123
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2009
Hey Alaska guy...this isn't the wilderness, and it was someones loved pet,,, unless this dog was completely out of hand, well killing it was too much, and if it were my dog....well ...
Posts: 77
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2011
quote:
Originally posted by the hare
Hey Alaska guy...this isn't the wilderness, and it was someones loved pet,,, unless this dog was completely out of hand, well killing it was too much, and if it were my dog....well ...
To put this in context then, suppose your dog was tied up and being attacked by another animal, say a pig. You would not shoot the pig to save your dog? Would you rather stand by and watch your dog get disemboweled or maimed? Maybe go up and hit the already aggressive pig with a stick to see what happens. It might run away, it might turn on you.
Extrapolate this into an interpersonal conflict. Say there was someone attacking you with a knife, what would you do then? Defend yourself or run away? Running would only infuriate your assailant further, so its not a feasible option.
The species of the animal is insignificant. The point of this is that the sheep's owner felt his property was threatened and acted accordingly in a legal manor.
People see pets as family, that we can all agree on, be it sheep, dog, cat, pot bellied pig, whatever. Where I am from, people have the legal, constitutional right to defend themselves. If an animal attacks my livestock or pets, it will be put down with extreme prejudice. If an armed person threatened my or mine, they would get the exact same response.
Point of the matter is, the sheeps owner was in fear of damage or death of his property/pet. His actions fell within the legal limits of the local laws. Good shoot in my opinion.
Barring additional information, arguing over the poor little doggie is moot. I regret the dog had to die, but it is the way (per current info) it needed to be.
Posts: 77
Threads: 7
Joined: Jan 2011
Its amazing how people place the live of one animal over that of another. A pet is a pet. Someone defended their pet from a danger, as any RESPONSIBLE owner would.
Sometimes, I just dont understand people.
Posts: 6,214
Threads: 354
Joined: Feb 2006
This is not the wilderness, but this IS an area where you can be invited over for a dinner that includes Balut & Kwik-Kwik.
It is a rural place, with VERY rural attitudes towards all animals (not long ago, most of what we think of as pets were livestock, & were eaten (and some still are...)
This is a place where many of us are the"newbies" and the minority. It is a place where animal pit fitting is not uncommon, and fairly unregulated by police, though it is illegal. It is an area where brutal beatings do happen, and most neighbors shrug off animal abuse with a "it's not my responsibility, I do not want to get involved" (and this even goes for abuse to humans) It is a place where neighbors that do get involved sometimes move out of the area.... it is hard to live somewhere where you are "marked" by one or more angry long time neighbors...
So no, it isn't the wilderness, but even in town, if is NOT like many places that some of the posters are used to....
ETA: Hilo is a place were MMA is usually the highest price 'entertainment' ticket in town..and often have sell out crowds.
As I typed this, the riots up on the NW over the Stanley Cup have me thinking it is wilderness all over the place!
|
