Jump to content

a question about "rights"


Frogster

Recommended Posts

Maybe this is the wrong forum. dunno

I am wondering what it means to have a right.

The proximal cause of the question is having been attacked for the 7th time this season by loose dogs. My dog took the brunt of it this time and is in the hospital. I found myself walking down the street,this evening, questioning my presupposition that a 64 year old woman has the "right"to walk down the street without being attacked and that if she is and takes the bloody dog to the sheriffs office, in the absence of a dog catcher, that perhaps they might help. 

What do other people think it means to have a right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, I’m so sorry. I would call the police at that point. The owner/s of those dogs are criminally negligent. When I was about 10, I had a pet ferret (who I used to walk on a leash like a responsible pet owner) and ended up having a really close call with some neighbors who constantly let their territorial Rottweiler roam around as s/he pleased. I only managed to save my ferret’s life because I was a fast runner, a quick climber, and already close to a tree. I sincerely hope that your dog will be okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What rights a citizen has is dependent upon where you live -- essentially the legal rights given to a person who lives in a certain state or country.  

 

But no state or country gives you the right not to be attacked.   Controlling every person to the extent that they can't take any action whatsoever (including attacking someone else) is impossible.   What right you may have is to report to the police that you have been attacked, and to have that person charged with the attack (in this it would be the dog's owner).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kindness. There are no police here just the county sheriff. There were some deputies standing around the office. They said that was a problem for the city to deal with and that I should go to city hall. City hall had a sign the door that they were closed until July 9th. When I went back to the sheriffs office and told them they gave me the mayors number and suggested that I call him and get the dog to a vet. The mayor was not home. I went to the newspaper office and the reporter took pictures and drove us to the vet.

I don't know who owns the dog or where it is now. 

I hope my dog will be ok too. She is my family.

It sounds like you think there really is such a thing as people being criminally negligent and that people ought not to be attacked while walking a pet on a leash. That helps me get my bearings a little if one other person, at least, thinks that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sally said:

What right you may have is to report to the police that you have been attacked, and to have that person charged with the attack (in this it would be the dog's owner).  

This seems to fit the reality that I see. I had the right to report the attack but not to intervention as far as finding and catching the attacking dog. If the dog were caught and the owner found I would have the right to seek restitution in the form of payment for the vet bill. I would not have a right to restitution only to seek it. 

 

I see that the law is enforced quite selectively and that I do not have the right walk down the street without being attacked. I do have the right to believe that it is wrong to let ones dog attack people. I still have the freedom and to think and speak. I do not have the right to protection or intervention when harm is done. It might happen sometimes but it is not a right --its more like a nice surprise.

 

There is a real disconnect between the presuppositions I have had and what is true in practice. Still, there is kindness and human decency here and there.

 

I've been thinking lately that the preamble to the declaration of independence is kind of a crock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I've been chased and barked at several times by neighbors' loose dogs. Some counties and cities have dog leash laws and announce it, online, on their government webpages, the reason for it, including that it's unsafe for children and adults if a dog owner doesn't or can't control their dog 

TW

Spoiler

because, occasionally, children and adults sometimes are mauled to death by them.

 

Just because many dog owners, nowadays, like to allow their dogs to harass neighbors doesn't mean they're correct; evidently, they take the part of the leash law that states they can have their dogs off leash if it's under their control and assume that, because their dog is nice to them and their family, that their dog is, and always will be, under their control, without socializing it to other people. Where I live, dog owners always act surprised when their dog runs off their property to chase and harass everyone in the neighborhood, even though they shouldn't be because their dogs continue to do that all the time. It's very frustrating and scary when dog owners don't bother to train their dogs or leash them, and fearing that I'll be bitten

 

TW

Spoiler

and mauled to death, like other local incidences that made the local and national news.

 

Dog leash laws do state that children and adults have the right to not be harassed and attacked on their own property by their neighbors loose dogs. Some are allergic to dogs, and it's not possible for everyone to stay cooped up in their homes, forever; they have to leave their house, sometime, whether for a job, school, to get their mail, to mow their lawn, to go shopping, etc. But they also mention that dog leash laws aren't about "special rights" for certain people: they're for the protection of everyone, not only for the owners of loose dogs preventing from being sued, but for their dog's safety, as well, because they could also be hit by a car or injured by another dog or animal.

 

I agree with you; I don't understand why many dog owners continue to do that, either. When I was in first grade, helping take care of my family's dog, my mother sternly warned me to not bother strangers' dogs without their permission and to always have our dog on a leash, so it wouldn't harass or attack anyone. 

 

I don't trust dogs or owners with dogs, anymore, and emotionally prepare myself to be barked at and followed, whenever I come across them, since, where I live, I've seen that most people don't bother to train their dogs and just let them loose to bark and harass everyone (not in a friendly way, but as though they think everyone else except their owners are evil criminals), even when they know their dog continues to do that around people.

 

I've tried doing what dog trainers advised, as far as trying to not make myself appear to be a threat to calm raging, aggressive dogs, but nothing's worked (unless you count the fact that, luckily, none of them have bitten me, yet, a success). It's ridiculous how most dogs react, where I live: "The small child/adult is a threat! Must bark and follow them to make them go away from my owner's house!", as though they think they own the entire street and other neighbors' property.

 

Since people claim dogs are so smart and intelligent, I've never understood why they don't realize, even after the hundredth/thousandth time of doing that, that the humans they're harassing, who keep passing by, everyday/weekly aren't a threat or doing anything, but walking slowly by, not even on their owner's property or harassing their owner at all.

 

Most of the time, though, it's impossible to know who owns the dogs because they roam. By the time dog catchers come, the dog(s) have either moved on to a different street or neighborhood and the dog catcher can't find them, or the owners have allowed them back inside their house.

 

Apparently, I was raised more strictly on the seriousness of dog attacks and to adhere to dog laws than most people. It's rare for me to come across a well-behaved and trained, safe dog that's on a leash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, froglady said:

I've been thinking lately that the preamble to the declaration of independence is kind of a crock.

Not really.  What the Preamble says is "...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  It doesn't say that you have the right to have nothing bad happen to you.  That can't be guaranteed by anyone or any government.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a debate about whether anyone has rights. Some say that all rights are granted by the government and therefore if the government chooses to take away all your rights, it would be wrong for you to rebel. On the other extreme, some (incels) say that they have the right to have sex with whoever they want, that the government does not have the right to give rights or to take rights away.

 

I don't think we are going to find a nice definition of rights that will satisfy everyone. I think the only thing we have is "my rights end where your rights begin." So you can make the case that the other person has the right to keep vicious dogs but that right ends when those dogs escape to attack other people. So whether the government or the law says so or not, you do have the right to not be attacked when not on that person's property.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bejjinks said:

 So whether the government or the law says so or not, you do have the right to not be attacked when not on that person's property.

That presumed right does not protect you from being attacked.   

 

If you are attacked, that's when your rights depend on whether there are laws that say you can sue the attacker and get some kind of recompense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sally said:

That presumed right does not protect you from being attacked.   

 

If you are attacked, that's when your rights depend on whether there are laws that say you can sue the attacker and get some kind of recompense.  

More like, if I am attacked and the law says I am not allowed to sue the attacker or do anything at all, then I can rally all the other people who have also been attacked and we can petition the government, and if the government does not allow us to petition the government, we can do so anyway. This may lead to revolution and bloodshed but if the government needs to be overthrown for denying people their rights, then the government needs to be overthrown.

 

The caveat being that if I am trying to claim a right at the expense of others and the government denies me that unwarranted right, then the government should not be overthrown.

 

This is what the U.S. founding fathers were attempting to promote. Whether they succeeded or not they attempted to promote the idea that a government should be by the consent of the governed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like I have some freedoms  but not rights or protections in anything but theory. I can live with that. I am free to walk down the street and deal with whatever happens as best I can. 

 

Maybe my dog will even be ok. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, froglady said:

It seems like I have some freedoms  but not rights or protections in anything but theory. I can live with that. I am free to walk down the street and deal with whatever happens as best I can. 

 

Maybe my dog will even be ok. 

You do have options. Since this has been an ongoing issue, talk to some neighbors and see how they feel about it and if they’d be willing to put in a formal complaint about the situation as well. Keep putting pressure on your local government/law enforcement. Also, really, this is kind of gruesome but... In many, if not most, places, you have the right to kill an attacking animal. However, it would be better to buy pepper spray. There’s pepper spray designed specifically for use on dogs. It’s a bit weaker than human pepper spray so that it’s less dangerous to the dog (since they can’t go wash it off) but still highly effective. Once they learn that you “bite back”, they’ll sure as hell think twice about messing with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In England dogs must be kept under control - in the home and especially outside. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, its gruesome but in the absence of prompt help I need to be mentally prepared to do that. I can talk to my neighbors and see if they are willing to do anything other that curse the city and threaten to use their guns. They are certainly fed up with the pattern and with being attacked even in their own yards. Probably the most useful thing I can do is talk with the mayor and write a clear concise letter to the editor and ask them to follow up with an article. I need to be careful and keep my feelings out of it or I won't be heard. I'm not sure which to do first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can ask for the number of the lady whose donkeys were killed by dogs and see what she learned in the process of dealing with the local government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2018 at 1:04 AM, Sally said:

Not really.  What the Preamble says is "...Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  It doesn't say that you have the right to have nothing bad happen to you.  That can't be guaranteed by anyone or any government.  

I slept for the first time since the attack.

Thank you! I get it. I do not have the right not to be attacked but, in this location, I do have the right to defend myself when attacked. I also have the right to walk down the street.

 

I have equipped myself with something that can stop an attack, not just scare off an attacking dog only to have the same one attack again like what has happened in the past.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetsun Milarepa

It seems to boil down to whether a society really values its moral standards or just pays lip service to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It varies by local law.  Where I live there is a leash law that forbids loose dogs.  There is also strong language against animal attacks, especially of people but also of other animals, and of protection against the spread of rabies.  It’s generally understood that if your dog bites someone/another animal in “viciousness,” or more than once for any reason, it will be seized and euthanized.  Any animal that bites and does not have proof of current rabies vaccination will be seized and euthanized for rabies testing.

 

In my town the county Sheriff’s department provides police coverage.  A few villages and the city have their own police.

 

Regardless of the law where you live I’m sorry you had to go through this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ryn2 said:

It varies by local law.

Here the city contracts with the sheriff to police the city (pop. under 1000) but that does not include enforcement of city ordinances. Honestly, I don't know what it does include. Anything I have ever asked for help with has been "not their job" . Maybe certain felonies or something. The county has a two cell jail. There are a few prisoners so I guess they enforce some laws some of the time. There is a part time ordinance officer hired by the city but he is not necessarily available. I have been told that the sheriff may respond after the second documented attack that causes significant damage. In my case all there is is documented damage but no attacking dog.  Unless the dog is caught and positive identification made all this means is that I have a hurt dog, a vet bill, and have learned to be vigilant and carry a pipe with me. If the dog is caught I will have the option of going to court to try to get the owner to pay the vet bill. 

 

 Thanks for your kindness. It is really welcome right now. Its been an educational independence day weekend for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2018 at 7:50 AM, Tanwen said:

In England dogs must be kept under control - in the home and especially outside. 

I'm assuming that Tan is indicating that there is a law to that effect.  Therefore, if someone does not keep their dog under control and the dog injures you or others, the dog's owner can be charged with not doing so.  

 

Laws are our protection against what others do to us.  If your state/country allows things to happen that are detrimental to peoples' safety, you must either try to put a law into place, or if your government doesn't have a legal structure -- well, either deal with that lack of safety or emigrate to another state/country.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, froglady said:

Here the city contracts with the sheriff to police the city (pop. under 1000) but that does not include enforcement of city ordinances. Honestly, I don't know what it does include.

I live in a much more populous area - city itself is about 250,000, metro area is around 1,000,000 - so (for good and bad) laws and enforcement are a much bigger thing.

 

We probably have as many sheriff’s deputies as you have people total!

 

I hope you and your dog don’t have problems with the vicious dog again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

 

We probably have as many sheriff’s deputies as you have people total!

I read somewhere that its is the most sparsely populated county in the lower 48. It comes with its own freedoms and responsibilities. Mostly I do well with that. Sometimes, though, it gets really hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain

@Sally, you are correct. In Britain dogs must be kept on leads in public spaces, and if they're liable to bite or attack they should be muzzled. With the "Dangerous dog's act" it's illegal to own or breed some breeds of fighting dogs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, froglady said:

I read somewhere that its is the most sparsely populated county in the lower 48. It comes with its own freedoms and responsibilities. Mostly I do well with that. Sometimes, though, it gets really hard.

Makes sense... most of the time it’s probably a relief to be left to your own devices, but not when something like this happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

@Sally, you are correct. In Britain dogs must be kept on leads in public spaces, and if they're liable to bite or attack they should be muzzled. With the "Dangerous dog's act" it's illegal to own or breed some breeds of fighting dogs. 

Breed Specific Legislation is a really awful piece of legislation, produced as a knee jerk reaction to a spate of attacks. Victorians used to call Staffordshire Bull Terriers 'nanny dogs' because they were so good with children.  :( 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carry and use pepper spray.  I have a police officer friend recommend this.  He said when they had made multiple visits to a house, dogs who had been sprayed once would move aside and let them through on subsequent visits  I hate doing it to any animal, but also wouldn’t want my dog or me to be injured. 

 

I would be be tempted to take them to small claims court for the dog hospital bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...