An aggrieved neighbour takes the law into his own hands and slaughters 33 dogs. This is exactly the reason why the idea of vigilantism sparks deep reservations within me.
If there was a problem with these dogs (as yet unproven) they should have been destroyed humanely.
The whole story is utterly sickening and sad. The owner is clearly something of an eccentric man who has chosen a lifestyle most people wouldn't understand. But apart from not registering his dogs, which would have been financially beyond him, what harm was he doing anybody else?
The guy that committed this atrocity is the headcase. He may well have been heartbroken over the loss of his pet but as such should have understood something of the way Mr Hargraves might have felt about his own animals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
About 17,000 abortions per year in NZ. On average, 46 human foetuses are exterminated each day. Care to get outraged about that?
Didn't think so.
Anon
I do not speak for Lyndsay, but as far as I am concerned can I be the first to tell you to piss off and get a life.
Bruv
Sounds like the "gunman" did the Council's work for them.
I once shot a herd of goats like that. Got about 30 of them in five minutes. Trapped them in a gully up against a fence line. It was the Great Goat Massacre. Good thing the papers didn't hear of it.
Crap Lindsay. Why do you come over all left when leedle puppies and kitties are involved.
Those dogs had no more right to life than Pihema Cameron.
Like Bruce Emery, those guys took personal responsibility for a problem, solved it, and should get medals, not investigations!
Even libertarians find a function for the state when it comes to law and order. The dogs should have been humanely destroyed if they were a danger. That is still unproven. But you don't care about proof.
Those dogs were the property of the owner and apart from not paying for their registration, an unjustifiable tax, he had broken no law.
Even libertarians find a function for the state when it comes to law and order.
Some do. Some don't. Those who don't are generally more convincing. NZ already has privatized a substantial part of the police function.
The dogs should have been humanely destroyed if they were a danger. That is still unproven. But you don't care about proof.
Nope. Especially not when the owner admitted that his dog killed another man's dog, and agreed and signed a form saying the victim of that crim (the dead dog's owner) could shoot all his dogs.
As for "humane killing" I don't believe it either for men or for dogs. Like "inalienable human rights" (and UNLIKE "property rights"), it's another lefty idea.
His dogs were killers. The victim shot them. He was lucky the victim didn't Bruce Emery him too!
Those dogs were the property of the owner and apart from not paying for their registration, an unjustifiable tax, he had broken no law.
Bruv
Yeah, I got a life. Unlike the 17,000 kiwis aborted each year.
Post a Comment