Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fishtalk
Quite an interesting blog.

ANY dog is “potentially” vicious - under the right circumstances. Most men are “potentially” killer under the right circumstances.

In this particular situation, the gardeners - the guy who was bitten was an illegal invader - were specifically told NOT to come on the property as the dogs were being fed and one of them did and did assaulter said dog with a rake when it barked at him and did grab the dog’s owner when she came to its defense and did grab her and attempt to use her as a shield which the dog, not unreasonably interpreted as an attack and reacted appropriately.

Congo is, at least based on this incident, not a vicious dog. He was doing what any German Shepherd would have done under the circumstances. They are by nature protective and territorial. That doesn’t make them necessarily a danger to the community.

New Jersey is a weird state and the impact of this case extends beyond Congo and his fate. In New Jersey, the use of deadly force is not permitted to protect one’s property or even one’s person as long as an individual is provided with an avenue to escape from a threatening intruder. New Jerseyites have no right to self defense except in the most extreme circumstances.

I see this as related to the warped, perverted, unnatural and depraved state of the legislation enacted by that socialistic left-wing, liberal bastion of krytocracy and supernumerary attorneys.

4 posted on 12/10/2007 9:19:22 AM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: ZULU

I appreciate your augmentation to the story. At least the story as covered on the Blog post. My tale was based on one newspaper report and the details of the gardeners’ relationship with the dogs was not at all clear.

I did question this NJ law about labelling dogs as “potentially vicious”. Weird law, that, huh? I find that law so vague and intrusive as to be unconstitutional.

i couldn’t agree more about the theft of New Jerseyans right to protect themselves. Sheesh, you have to determine if you have a method of “escape” before defending yourself?

New Jersey politicians must not have anything better to do than to sit around creating new and unique laws to better get in your face.


5 posted on 12/10/2007 9:39:00 AM PST by Fishtalk (If you liked the above post, remember I've got a Blog you might like to visit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson