Man doesn't know what to do with dog, ties to train tracks

[woolfe9998]

The guy has dementia, probably Alzheimer's. People with dementia do really odd things. End of story.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The guy has dementia, probably Alzheimer's. People with dementia do really odd things. End of story.

Really odd doesn't even begin to cover it.

 

[Wreckem]

They aren't treated as property already. They have rights ask Michael Vick or anybody convicted of bestiality.

Actually, animals/pets are treated as property. Every state in the country treats animals as property. The Texas Supreme Court just reaffirmed this last week when they sided against pet owners arguing that if animals are property and the law allows damages based on sentimental value for some types of property like heirlooms, that negligent killing of a pet deserves sentimental value. They said yes pets are property, as established by over 100 year old precedent, but there is no sentimental damages for pets. Basically if a vet/animal shelter/groomer or really anyone kills your pet you don't get squat in damages.

All property rights are regulated, as are pets, but typically(varies by jurisdiction, always check your state/local laws) a pet/animal owner has the right to terminate their own animals so long as it is done in a humane manner. With pets this typically requires having it done by a vet.

What this senile old man did would have been animal cruelty.

 

[momeNt]

Actually, animals/pets are treated as property. Every state in the country treats animals as property. The Texas Supreme Court just reaffirmed this last week when they sided against pet owners arguing that if animals are property and the law allows damages based on sentimental value for some types of property like heirlooms, that negligent killing of a pet deserves sentimental value. They said yes pets are property, as established by over 100 year old precedent, but there is no sentimental damages for pets. Basically if a vet/animal shelter/groomer or really anyone kills your pet you don't get squat in damages.

All property rights are regulated, as are pets, but typically(varies by jurisdiction, always check your state/local laws) a pet/animal owner has the right to terminate their own animals so long as it is done in a humane manner. With pets this typically requires having it done by a vet.

What this senile old man did would have been animal cruelty.

I'm viewing it as, if something has rights of its own, it isn't property. Something being protected from abuse doesn't make it property. At best pets are treated in a pseudo-property like manner. I can throw my furniture in a fireplace or chop away at it with an axe, can't do that with my pets unless I want to get prosecuted.

 

[Texashiker]

The whiff of trailer is strong in this post.

Why you want to hate on trailer dwellers?

If you take the axles off it is no longer considered a trailer house.

 

[Wreckem]

I'm viewing it as, if something has rights of its own, it isn't property. Something being protected from abuse doesn't make it property. At best pets are treated in a pseudo-property like manner. I can throw my furniture in a fireplace or chop away at it with an axe, can't do that with my pets unless I want to get prosecuted.

Real property is regulated by state law, local ordinances, zoning, HOA restrictions, deed covenants, CWA, CAA, CERCLA, ESA, SWDA, etc etc. You can face fines going up to 5, 6, and 7 digits or go to jail for violating regulations relating to real property. All real property is regulated. Does that make it pseudo property?

The law has always viewed pets as property. You are confusing regulations and criminal statutes as rights. Neither infer ANY rights on animals. Animals/Pets don't have rights. Animals/pets are simply regulated like most all property.

There is not a single jurisdiction in the country that gives animals rights. If animals had rights they would be allowed to have standing in court to protect those rights. In divorce pets would be subject of custody rather than property division. There is a small movement to give animals rights but that has yet to go anywhere and is unlikely to unless legislatures act to actually give them rights, instead of treating them as regulated property.

 

[momeNt]

Real property is regulated by state law, local ordinances, zoning, HOA restrictions, deed covenants, CWA, CAA, CERCLA, ESA, SWDA, etc etc. You can face fines going up to 5, 6, and 7 digits or go to jail for violating regulations relating to real property. All real property is regulated. Does that make it pseudo property?

The law has always viewed pets as property. You are confusing regulations and criminal statutes as rights. Neither infer ANY rights on animals. Animals/Pets don't have rights. Animals/pets are simply regulated like most all property.

There is not a single jurisdiction in the country that gives animals rights. If animals had rights they would be allowed to have standing in court to protect those rights. In divorce pets would be subject of custody rather than property division. There is a small movement to give animals rights but that has yet to go anywhere and is unlikely to unless legislatures act to actually give them rights, instead of treating them as regulated property.

They have pseudo rights which make them pseudo property.

I think we can both agree that regulation destroys true property rights though.