The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tucker on February 22, 2012, 06:50:30 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002336402
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:12 PM
Boojatta (11,983 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
View profile
If somebody is trying to kill your pet dog or cat ...
then do you have a legal right to use violence to protect your pet?
I understand that the right to use violence doesn't imply a right to use an unlimited amount of violence. It's possible to be guilty of using excessive force even though some degree of force may be legally justifiable to defend the pet.
I specified dog or cat because they are the most common pets, and if I were to leave it completely open then somebody might decide to consider a pet ant or even a pet rock.
I ask the question because I presume that if people are physically assaulting, without legal authorization, a human being, then you have a legal right to intervene even if the person who is being violently assaulted is a stranger to you rather than a loved one.
Is this, then, the essential difference under the law between human beings and animals: that human beings have a right to intervene to defend human beings who are strangers, but don't have a right to intervene to defend animals, unless the animals are friends?
If that is correct, then in a sense all foreigners who are living in their own lands are like animals to us. Their governments can violently attack them without any basis and we have no right to intervene. Intervention would violate sovereignty.
The stupid is strong with this one.
1620rock
1. If someone was trying to kill one of my cats, I'd return the favor big time...real big time.
Star Member Raine
2. No one better even think about doing anything to my cats!
I love the bravado from the limp wristed DUmmies.
Star Member former9thward
6. I would use violence to protect my animals.
View profile
However your comparison of foreigners to animals is offensive.
Honeycombe8
13. That is state law, but I would think it's pretty much same in most states...yes, you do.
View profile
You have the right to defend your property and person, as well as another person's.
The trick is to use the right amount of violence. If someone is trying to kill your dog, he's not armed, you're bigger and stronger than he is, you probably will get in trouble if you shoot him dead, because you didn't HAVE to go to that extreme to stop him. You have a gun...you could've shot him in the arm or leg. Unless you just shot and didn't aim at his head or heart, in the passion of the moment, and didn't mean to kill him. But if he's armed, then he's a threat to people, too, and you probably can justify shooting him, even if he dies.
It's common sense, really, is the way I think about it. You have the right to use REASONABLE violence to protect whatever you're trying to protect. I've read stories where someone has killed a house intruder, even though it turned out the intruder wasn't armed, and homeowner was not charged with anything. If someone is breaking into your house, you can shoot to protect, without having to stop and find out if he's armed or what he wants. It's assumed he means you harm.
Having said that...I have two dogs. If I found someone in my backyard trying to harm my dogs, I'd do whatever it took to stop him, and worry about the consequences later.
You watch way too much TV.
Star Member jsmirman
14. I will use an unlimited amount of violence
View profile
I'm just putting that out there, in case anyone is asking.
And I have a real imagination, so just let the whole "no limits" thing sink in.
I know you are asking some sort of other question, but I like to warn people about this, in case they might be unclear.
:lol:
Star Member jsmirman
16. I really try to abide by the laws
View profile
but call this one temporary insanity.
I might try to stop, but I'm not sure I'll be able to.
But when it comes to *my* pet - that is my son. And you come at my son, I know I won't be able to stop.
I have a general imperative to defend the defenseless - and then if you're talking about essentially my flesh and blood, the imperative is just kill.
He's certifiable.
All this being said, anyone tries to hurt my Dogs are going to be in a world of hurt. The difference between the DUmmies and myself is that I don't profess to be a peace loving, dirty, smelly hippie.
-
Honeycombe8
13. That is state law, but I would think it's pretty much same in most states...yes, you do.
You have the right to defend your property and person, as well as another person's.
The trick is to use the right amount of violence. If someone is trying to kill your dog, he's not armed, you're bigger and stronger than he is, you probably will get in trouble if you shoot him dead, because you didn't HAVE to go to that extreme to stop him. You have a gun...you could've shot him in the arm or leg. Unless you just shot and didn't aim at his head or heart, in the passion of the moment, and didn't mean to kill him. But if he's armed, then he's a threat to people, too, and you probably can justify shooting him, even if he dies.
Okay, retard, put down the remote and step away from the Law & Order.
Let's keep this simple: If someone is on your property, beating your pets with the intent to kill them (armed or not), presents a threat to not only your pets lives but your own, has the means to cause you great bodily injury or death to the point you are in fear for you life and the lives of others, you shoot them. They have completed the threat triangle, deadly force is authorized.
BTW, DUmbass, shooting to wound never works. If you wound some psychopath, your ass is going to get sued and/or prosecuted. Wanna know why? Yours won't be the only story that gets told when the cops show up. For all the they know, crazy Joe was just petting your dogs and you put a cap in his ass.
Star Member jsmirman
14. I will use an unlimited amount of violence
I'm just putting that out there, in case anyone is asking.
And I have a real imagination, so just let the whole "no limits" thing sink in.
I know you are asking some sort of other question, but I like to warn people about this, in case they might be unclear.
Star Member jsmirman
16. I really try to abide by the laws
but call this one temporary insanity.
I might try to stop, but I'm not sure I'll be able to.
But when it comes to *my* pet - that is my son. And you come at my son, I know I won't be able to stop.
I have a general imperative to defend the defenseless - and then if you're talking about essentially my flesh and blood, the imperative is just kill.
No, keyboard commando, you won't. Wanna know why? Because you're broadcasting it out in the open and beating your chest. So, no, you're not going to do all of those cute little things that you're "putting out there" to see if "anyone is asking".
Jerking a gun and pulling the trigger may work good in the movie that runs in your head, but in real life it's a scary ass proposition that carries scary ass ramifications and is something you'll live with the rest of your life. Keeping a steady hand, pulling the trigger, and taking someone's life is not something that is as blase as you make it out, tough guy, let alone using your "imagination" to execute a "no limits" scenario on someone's person. That kind of shit will get you thrown in pound-me-in-the-ass-prison faster than liberal leeches running to the welfare disbursement window.
-
Pets are just personal property in the eyes of the law, and I'd bet every feisty idiot in that thread would've agreed with Tavs the other day that property is never worth deadly force. Illegal aliens and foreign nationals, on the other hand, are always people.
And yes, Boojes is a complete tool.
-
BTW, DUmbass, shooting to wound never works.
I was more or less thinking that they would shoot an innocent bystander who is standing behind their intended target. Then they're in deep dodo.
They are responsible for that bullet.
-
I was more or less thinking that they would shoot an innocent bystander who is standing behind their intended target. Then they're in deep dodo.
They are responsible for that bullet.
Indeed they are.
-
Well said, Wasp. Hi-5.
-
they all admit they would kill, but they (with the exception of honeycomb) are not clear that they would use firearms.
i wonder how they propose to kill? hand combat? frying pan? nude pics of nads?
-
Okay, retard, put down the remote and step away from the Law & Order.
Let's keep this simple: If someone is on your property, beating your pets with the intent to kill them (armed or not), presents a threat to not only your pets lives but your own, has the means to cause you great bodily injury or death to the point you are in fear for you life and the lives of others, you shoot them. They have completed the threat triangle, deadly force is authorized.
BTW, DUmbass, shooting to wound never works. If you wound some psychopath, your ass is going to get sued and/or prosecuted. Wanna know why? Yours won't be the only story that gets told when the cops show up. For all the they know, crazy Joe was just petting your dogs and you put a cap in his ass.
No, keyboard commando, you won't. Wanna know why? Because you're broadcasting it out in the open and beating your chest. So, no, you're not going to do all of those cute little things that you're "putting out there" to see if "anyone is asking".
Jerking a gun and pulling the trigger may work good in the movie that runs in your head, but in real life it's a scary ass proposition that carries scary ass ramifications and is something you'll live with the rest of your life. Keeping a steady hand, pulling the trigger, and taking someone's life is not something that is as blase as you make it out, tough guy, let alone using your "imagination" to execute a "no limits" scenario on someone's person. That kind of shit will get you thrown in pound-me-in-the-ass-prison faster than liberal leeches running to the welfare disbursement window.
We in VA are waiting on the governors signature on a bill that takes away the ability to sue if you are shot during the commission of a crime. A nice step but the castle doctrine would be nice.
-
We in VA are waiting on the governors signature on a bill that takes away the ability to sue if you are shot during the commission of a crime. A nice step but the castle doctrine would be nice.
my state legislator has been pushing for an expanded castle doctrine. i think it would pass if it weren't for our governor. lots of fun opinions in the paper about it.
the same legislator is the one who got us the CCW law passed in '04. he's also the chief of police of my hometown. he's the only politician i have ever donated money to.
-
Well said, Wasp. Hi-5.
Thanks :-)
-
We in VA are waiting on the governors signature on a bill that takes away the ability to sue if you are shot during the commission of a crime. A nice step but the castle doctrine would be nice.
It's made it to his desk?
-
It's made it to his desk?
Sorry misread it a little.
It passed the senate and just needs the nod from the house before it goes to him. Nice step forward though.
House Bill 48
, sponsored by Delegate Dickie Bell (R-20), would provide civil liability immunity to someone who uses any degree of physical force against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and committed an overt act. Despite its passage due to the amended language, HB 48 must now be sent back to the House of Delegates for their concurrence.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB48
-
Sorry misread it a little.
It passed the senate and just needs the nod from the house before it goes to him. Nice step forward though.http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB48
Nice! Thanks!
-
Nice! Thanks!
Got a little excited and jumped the gun a bit. :rotf:
-
would provide civil liability immunity to someone who uses any degree of physical force against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and committed an overt act.
that sounds like current MN law
what is being proposed now expands on that: House panel OKs 'Castle Doctrine-plus' gun bill (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/04/28/minnesota-gun-laws/)
...The proposal is based on the Castle Doctrine, a legal doctrine which allows a person to use deadly force against an intruder in his or her home in self-defense. Many states, including Minnesota, have such laws. But supporters of the bill say the Castle Doctrine doesn't go far enough. The bill would allow a person to shoot a trespasser who is outdoors on a patio, porch or garage -- as long as the defender has a reasonable fear for his or her safety....
<snip>
But supporters of the bill offered anecdotes of their own. Eric Pekeiser conducts training courses for people who've applied for conceal carry permits. He told the story of a permit holder who was being assaulted on his front lawn by two bigger men. Pekeiser said the man pulled his pistol and the two attackers ran away. Then the man called 911. "St. Paul police showed up and immediately arrested him at gunpoint," Pekeiser said. "Searched him, handcuffed him, put him in a squad car. He spent three days in the Ramsey County jail with no access to an attorney -- no medications -- which were necessary for a medical condition he had -- sharing a cell with an accused criminal."
<snip>
It would increase the firearm purchase permit expiration period from one year to five years. It would honor concealed-carry permits from other states in Minnesota, and it would restrict law enforcement from seizing firearms from people during natural disasters. (Supporters of the bill say following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, local police illegally confiscated firearms from citizens.)
people are crying that it allows anyone, including criminals, to shoot anyone for any reason. they dub it the "shoot first, dont bother asking questions" law.
-
people are crying that it allows anyone, including criminals, to shoot anyone for any reason. they dub it the "shoot first, dont bother asking questions" law.
Just like blood was going to flow in the streets in Florida when they passed the CD. I am still waiting for that to happen.
-
people are crying that it allows anyone, including criminals, to shoot anyone for any reason. they dub it the "shoot first, dont bother asking questions" law.
Bliss ninnies have branded it with the same name in every state it was proposed.
It hasn't happened yet.
-
Idiots all of them. A pet isn't a person no matter how much you wish it to be in the eyes of the law. As it was said before ,you pull a gun you had better have a good reason to and if you pull that trigger that reason had better be justifiable under the law or your ass goes to jail . I don't know how many states have protection against lawsuits while the person is commiting a crime when you shoot them but I don't think it's all that many yet . I know they are starting the process of getting castle Doctrine passed in Nebraska but here in Iowa we don't have it.
As a person thats had to face another after a shooting has taken place. It's not always clear who's done what at what time so talking about what your going to do when X happenes is one thing but doing it is completly differant when you may actually have to shoot someone. I still thank God I never had to pull the trigger on the guy even though he probably deserved it. Next week is the trial and the State of Nebraska will get to decide his fate.
-
Just like blood was going to flow in the streets in Florida when they passed the CD. I am still waiting for that to happen.
Same here in Missouri.......however, after a couple of (highly publicized) dirtbags assumed room temperature in someones foyer, home invasions have dropped by 25%.
In one of these cases, which happened in one of the most "liberal" cities in the state, the perp broke down the homeowners front door, heard the occupant rack a round into a pump-action 12-gauge, turned to run, and caught the load of buckshot in the middle of his back, and fell on the front lawn........the bleeding heart prosecuter tried, but the Grand Jury "no billed" the case.
doc
-
Boojatta
If somebody is trying to kill your pet dog or cat ...
then do you have a legal right to use violence to protect your pet?
I specified dog or cat because they are the most common pets, and if I were to leave it completely open then somebody might decide to consider a pet ant or even a pet rock.
I can't speak for others, but I find the violence against pet rocks in this country to be abhorant. Though I must admit I've never seen a pet rock that wasn't able to defend itself without assistance from others.
Honeycombe8
The trick is to use the right amount of violence. If someone is trying to kill your dog, he's not armed, you're bigger and stronger than he is, you probably will get in trouble if you shoot him dead, because you didn't HAVE to go to that extreme to stop him. You have a gun...you could've shot him in the arm or leg. Unless you just shot and didn't aim at his head or heart, in the passion of the moment, and didn't mean to kill him.
Let me make this very clear, primitive: If someone is trying to kill a dog or cat, and you shoot them, if I'm on a jury your butt is a gonner. Yes, abusing animals cannot be tolerated, but killing someone over it is excessive. Even if you aim to shoot them and accidently kill them, you're a gonner. I would say in most circumstances even if you fired at the person, you're a gonner. You may think of it as your human child, you may even love it like a human child, but it's not a human child, it's a pet.
Again, someone tries to kill one of my kids and I can shoot them, they're dead. Someone tries to kill one of my dogs or cats, killing the worthless scum might feel justifiable, but it's wrong.
.
-
The sorry thing about this is the biggest reasons for why a person can't shoot at another person for the reasons given by the DUmmies is that liberal douchebag lawyers made it that way. Although It's still excessive force to kill someone over their harming a pet it wasn't like that back in the days when the gun laws were not so restrictive when it came to protecting your home and family.
-
Idiots all of them. A pet isn't a person no matter how much you wish it to be in the eyes of the law. As it was said before ,you pull a gun you had better have a good reason to and if you pull that trigger that reason had better be justifiable under the law or your ass goes to jail . I don't know how many states have protection against lawsuits while the person is commiting a crime when you shoot them but I don't think it's all that many yet . I know they are starting the process of getting castle Doctrine passed in Nebraska but here in Iowa we don't have it.
Good thing we do have it here then. Someone attempts to kill either of my two dogs, they're going to be DRT.
-
Honeycombe8
13. That is state law, but I would think it's pretty much same in most states...yes, you do.
View profile
You have the right to defend your property and person, as well as another person's.
The trick is to use the right amount of violence. If someone is trying to kill your dog, he's not armed, you're bigger and stronger than he is, you probably will get in trouble if you shoot him dead, because you didn't HAVE to go to that extreme to stop him. You have a gun...you could've shot him in the arm or leg. Unless you just shot and didn't aim at his head or heart, in the passion of the moment, and didn't mean to kill him. But if he's armed, then he's a threat to people, too, and you probably can justify shooting him, even if he dies.
It's common sense, really, is the way I think about it. You have the right to use REASONABLE violence to protect whatever you're trying to protect. I've read stories where someone has killed a house intruder, even though it turned out the intruder wasn't armed, and homeowner was not charged with anything. If someone is breaking into your house, you can shoot to protect, without having to stop and find out if he's armed or what he wants. It's assumed he means you harm.
Having said that...I have two dogs. If I found someone in my backyard trying to harm my dogs, I'd do whatever it took to stop him, and worry about the consequences later.
I think my solution would solve your problem, DUmmie...use a shotgun. You stand a better chance of hitting that leg. Of course, unless you're totally incompetent boob you're bound to hit other parts too...
cindie
-
I love animals, and I especially love my animals. That being said, while I do in a way consider them part of my family, I would never commit violence on their behalf. Sorry, DUmmies.
-
Let me make this very clear, primitive: If someone is trying to kill a dog or cat, and you shoot them, if I'm on a jury your butt is a gonner. Yes, abusing animals cannot be tolerated, but killing someone over it is excessive. Even if you aim to shoot them and accidently kill them, you're a gonner. I would say in most circumstances even if you fired at the person, you're a gonner. You may think of it as your human child, you may even love it like a human child, but it's not a human child, it's a pet.
Again, someone tries to kill one of my kids and I can shoot them, they're dead. Someone tries to kill one of my dogs or cats, killing the worthless scum might feel justifiable, but it's wrong.
.
Of course, if only one person is around to explain it afterwards, you don't have to worry about being contradicted when you tell them he tried to jump you and take the weapon when he was confronted...
:whistling:
-
I love animals, and I especially love my animals. That being said, while I do in a way consider them part of my family, I would never commit violence on their behalf. Sorry, DUmmies.
This is what drives gun owners crazy. Most states require you to take training to get a permit to carry and as a good safety measure you should learn anything you can about how and WHEN to use deadly force should that time ever come. Those dick gurgling idiots on DU think that whatever they see on TV or the Brady Campain tells them is good as gold Truth. Fact is they don't know dick about how to deal with deadly force scenarios and should keep their keyboard commando shit to themselves least they be found liable for giving one of their fellow DUmmies bad ideas that lands them in prison.
-
Let me make this very clear, primitive: If someone is trying to kill a dog or cat, and you shoot them, if I'm on a jury your butt is a gonner. Yes, abusing animals cannot be tolerated, but killing someone over it is excessive. Even if you aim to shoot them and accidental kill them, you're a gonner. I would say in most circumstances even if you fired at the person, you're a gonner. You may think of it as your human child, you may even love it like a human child, but it's not a human child, it's a pet.
Gonna have to disagree.......
Again.....this depends on your state......here pets are "personal property", and you are allowed to use lethal force to protect your personal property (that's what the "Castle Doctrine" is all about). If someone was committing violence against one of my perts, they can expect two rounds, center-mass, same with a "car jacking"........it'll never see a jury......
In our case, the dogs are in the house, and are trained to raise the alarm, should anyone attempt to force entry. Legally, if the perp has gained entry to the extent that he/she/it can assult the dogs, a violent felony has already been committed, and they are potentially (and legally) dead meat.......I wouldn't lose a moments sleep after converting them to the aformentoned status.
Perhaps we're just not all that "enlightened". It's long past time that we stopped tolerating (and coddling) such behavior.
doc
-
I love animals, and I especially love my animals. That being said, while I do in a way consider them part of my family, I would never commit violence on their behalf. Sorry, DUmmies.
I would use force to prevent harm to my dog, not lethal force, but I could not watch someone hurting my dog.
-
Gonna have to disagree.......
Again.....this depends on your state......here pets are "personal property", and you are allowed to use lethal force to protect your personal property (that's what the "Castle Doctrine" is all about). If someone was committing violence against one of my perts, they can expect two rounds, center-mass, same with a "car jacking"........it'll never see a jury......
In our case, the dogs are in the house, and are trained to raise the alarm, should anyone attempt to force entry. Legally, if the perp has gained entry to the extent that he/she/it can assult the dogs, a violent felony has already been committed, and they are potentially (and legally) dead meat.......I wouldn't lose a moments sleep after converting them to the aformentoned status.
If an intruder is in your house, that's different.
The scenerio for which I was making reference is more along the lines of a neighbor who is fed up with a dog that comes into their yard and makes a dump or digs up their flowers. They talked to the owner and asked them to control their pet, but they won't. So one day they get upset and shoot the dog for crapping in their yard again. I don't care if they shot the dog in their own yard, the pet owners propery as it was running back home, or someone elses yard, I'm not going to go shoot the neighbor. That's a little beyond looneytuneville.
.
-
If an intruder is in your house, that's different.
The scenerio for which I was making reference is more along the lines of a neighbor who is fed up with a dog that comes into their yard and makes a dump or digs up their flowers. They talked to the owner and asked them to control their pet, but they won't. So one day they get upset and shoot the dog for crapping in their yard again. I don't care if they shot the dog in their own yard, the pet owners propery as it was running back home, or someone elses yard, I'm not going to go shoot the neighbor. That's a little beyond looneytuneville.
.
That is a different situation then catching someone beating your dog. However, most states have laws to deal with people that kill pets. I'll bet there are cases of animal abusers getting stiffer sentences than someone convicted of assaulting a person.
-
That is a different situation then catching someone beating your dog. However, most states have laws to deal with people that kill pets. I'll bet there are cases of animal abusers getting stiffer sentences than someone convicted of assaulting a person.
I agree, and I based my original answer off the OP's statement...
If somebody is trying to kill your pet dog or cat then do you have a legal right to use violence to protect your pet?
I'm just not all that familiar with people who determine to go kill someone else's pets just because. Ususally it's provoked by the pets doing something that someone else finds to be annoying or intrusive. It's been my experience that most people approach the neighbor and ask them to do something, and most reasonable people would at least try. And then you've got your occasional hard-headed type who takes it the wrong way, etc...
The only time I hear of people shooting pets, which is seldom at best, is the scenerio I described. And most of the time the claim is they either shoot them with some type of salt pellets or maybe a BB gun to to sting the animal and perhaps discourage it from wandering over to their yard. I'm guessing most people here have heard the same type of things from others.
.
-
I'm not goin' to shoot someone who harms my pets, but I guarantee ya I'll pull 'em thru the wing window of their vehicle in order to hold them until my buddies from the Sheriff's office get here!
-
How about this, I'll defend my dogs in the same manner the K-9 police defend theirs. Cool? My dogs are no less important to me than their K-9s are to them.
-
How about this, I'll defend my dogs in the same manner the K-9 police defend theirs. Cool? My dogs are no less important to me than their K-9s are to them.
Police K-9s are considered by law to be law enforcement officers equal to a human LEO. Any action taken against a K-9 in the performance of it's duty is considered the same action against their human counterpart.
-
Anybody else find it ironic that they're pro-life and "heroic" when it comes to animals, but they are happy to stick a spike in the skull of an unborn child?
-
Anybody else find it ironic that they're pro-life and "heroic" when it comes to animals, but they are happy to stick a spike in the skull of an unborn child?
And to trees too.
Remember how the old dude, who's pro-abortion, mourned the old tree in his yard that had to be taken down.
Don't get me wrong--I myself like animals and trees as much as the next guy, but I put a, uh, rather higher value on human infants.
-
I love animals, and I especially love my animals. That being said, while I do in a way consider them part of my family, I would never commit violence on their behalf. Sorry, DUmmies.
I would. While I love my pets they are legally my property just like my house and vehicles. If someone were intent on harming my pets they would have to enter into my house or over my 7 foot stockade fence or through a locked gate to get into my back yard. If you have entered any part of my house/yard without my consent then I am going to think that you could be there to do me physical harm and I will act appropriately.
-
Gonna have to disagree.......
Again.....this depends on your state......here pets are "personal property", and you are allowed to use lethal force to protect your personal property (that's what the "Castle Doctrine" is all about). If someone was committing violence against one of my perts, they can expect two rounds, center-mass, same with a "car jacking"........it'll never see a jury......
In our case, the dogs are in the house, and are trained to raise the alarm, should anyone attempt to force entry. Legally, if the perp has gained entry to the extent that he/she/it can assult the dogs, a violent felony has already been committed, and they are potentially (and legally) dead meat.......I wouldn't lose a moments sleep after converting them to the aformentoned status.
Perhaps we're just not all that "enlightened". It's long past time that we stopped tolerating (and coddling) such behavior.
doc
Yeah!
-
Police K-9s are considered by law to be law enforcement officers equal to a human LEO. Any action taken against a K-9 in the performance of it's duty is considered the same action against their human counterpart.
That's fine that they treat them as LEO's and equals, but to make a comparison, they're just trained dogs, like mine...only not quite trained enough. They can treat their trained dogs as equals and LEO's, I'll treat my dogs as family members, which they are to me. When it comes down to it, and if anyone wants to make that argument, there is no difference between my Lhasa's and their Shepherds/Malinois, save better training.
-
...and I'm not trying to trash officers or their awesome dogs. They should drop any dirtbag that attempts to harm them. Just afford me the same opportunity.
-
...and I'm not trying to trash officers or their awesome dogs. They should drop any dirtbag that attempts to harm them. Just afford me the same opportunity.
Done. At least if it was up to me.
-
I care more for my Dog that I do for many humans.
-
I care more for my Dog that I do for many humans.
Same here. I don't like too many of those human things. :fuelfire:
-
Same here. I don't like too many of those human things. :fuelfire:
Exactly! I have way more "dog" friends than I do human ones!