"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

"FragileWarrior" wrote in message
...


Why are you asking me? What does your local dog ordinance say? If
the law is on your side, then talk to the law. A photograph of the
deed being done is good proof of who the culprit is, too.

One dipshit owner does not make all dogs and all owners scoundrels.

This example has nothing to do with dog ordinances.

Of course it does. If there is a law against it, then evoke the law.

Our dog ordinances say dog owners must clean up after their animals.
Not likely with dog ****.



And, there's no
reason (or easy way) to photograph plants covered in ****.

Get the dog lifting it's leg. Let the police extroplate from there.

Yeah. I'll stand outside all day with a camera. :-)



The issue
is this: If a property owner asks you not to do something on their
property, you do not ask why.


Is there a law against asking why?

Of course not. But, the laws against trespassing do not require that
the landowner explain anything. You know that.




You obey. If you disagree with what I've
just said, then I have the right to urinate on your dog, in your
mail box, or anything on that property, and there's nothing you can
do about it.


No, I believe that is classified as assault AND indecent exposure.
Do so and you'd be in much, much, MUCH more trouble than the dog
owner. But, hey, don't let me stop you from trying it. Get back to
us on how that works out for you.


Assault? Not really.

****ing on someone is assault and public indecency. Ask a policeman.
Or, as I suggested, try it. Get back to me after you make bail.

Got a car you love? What if I walk onto your
property and start spray painting it a new color? Why would I do this?
Because it was a convenient place to stop and paint a car! No
different than doing what's convenient for your dog. Now, you'll say
the car is damaged, but it's not. It'll still do what a car needs to
do. The ****ed-on plants may not, or they might, so let's choose the
latter and call the two situations equal.

This is truly bizarre.

See what you're doing here? You're trying to twist your interpretation
of law (and common decency) to suit a particular type of pet. You're
doing this because the dog needs to walk, and it needs to crap & ****
while being walked. Therefore, you have made behavioral adjustments
because of the dog. Another way to describe this is training. You have
been trained by your pet.


*I'm* twisting logic? You're talking about ****ing on people and in
mailboxes and vandalizing cars and *I'M* twisting logic? My my.

To reiterate a point you seem unable to grok: my animals stay on my
property. I'm sorry your neighbor's animals don't do that but, truth be
told, I feel much more sorry for your neighbors AND their animals.

Nice talking to you but it won't happen again in the future.