Dangerous victims, part 1

Canine immunity - one of my main overarching themes.  This violates a primary civilizational principle of due process.  Due process *should* be granted to victims as well as perpetrators.  Why is it only the dog and the dog owner that is protected by "the system"?  Do not the rest of us have rights as well?   The government tells us "Put your blood feuds aside and let us dispense justice.  Give the system a chance to work".   Riiiiiiight!   That works when the "system" is not in the hip pocket of a certain special interest (cough, cough).

I have noted in the past that while dogs and their owners have protection from the government, that government can't be everywhere all the time.  Whether dog lovers like it or not, Fido is still beholden to the laws of nature and physics (see here and here).   Dogs and their owners may also face retribution from outraged victims.

On that note, British pilot drowns his neighbor's chronically barking dog.

Excerpts from the article [with my comments inserted].

A pilot drowned his neighbour’s dog in a bucket because he was fed up with hearing it barking from ‘morning until night’. 

Stephen Woodhouse, 52, lost his temper as he mowed his lawn and grabbed Meg the border terrier.  [He could hear the dog barking over the sound of the lawn mower?  Well, yes... dogs are LOUD]

After killing the pet – which had been bought as a companion for his neighbour’s disabled daughter who died aged ten – he dumped its corpse under a hedge.

Let me insert a longer comment here:  Forcibly drowning something / somebody is VERY personal.  You have to dunk it in water and hold it there while it struggles. This guy must have been SUPER pissed off!!

There was some building work being done and a big bucket of water, so I stuck it in the bucket until it stopped moving. I never thought of the consequences.’  [Uhhh... I guess not!]

When the Boddingtons reported seven-year-old Meg missing, dozens of villagers began searching for the little dog.

But the terrier’s fate was only revealed when a suspicious Mrs Boddington searched the boot of Woodhouse’s car. She found a rope and dog hair and alerted the police.

Lets stop here for a minute:  Consider that "Mrs Boddington (the owner) searched the boot (trunk) of Woodhouse's car".  OK - how the hell does a dog owner have the right to trespass search other people's cars?   You can't go around searching other people's houses and cars based on a suspicion.  Hey dog owners - I think I lost my watch.... I am going to toss your homes and your cars until I FIND THAT WATCH!  Idiots.

Defending, Sara-Lise Hawe said Woodhouse had recently suffered a heart attack and was still recovering at the time. She said the dog had ‘barked from morning until night’.

Mrs Hawe added: ‘He found it impossible to be in his garden. Mr Woodhouse is not a man who likes to complain but he had spoken to the council and he was at his wits’ end.  [Authorities did absolutely nothing to ameliorate the problem - as usual].

The Flybe pilot, who was yesterday sentenced to 12 weeks in jail, suspended for two years, later told police: ‘I reached my wits’ end. All I could think of was that the noise had to stop. It was driving me bloody mad  [I've been there a few times!]. I walked across my paddock, up to their fence, and the dog was about five metres away.

‘All I had to do was whistle and it trotted over. When it got to the fence, I picked it up and walked back across my paddock.There was some building work being done and a big bucket of water, so I stuck it in the bucket until it stopped moving. I never thought of the consequences.’

Again, this is the act of someone who is SUPER pissed off.  Given that this guy was gainfully employed, and not already in jail, I come to the conclusion that he must have suffered substantial barking torment for a long period of time.  This was exacerbated by the fact that the local authorities blew him off (welcome to the party, pal!).

Pro-barkers and apologistas need to contemplate the following:  This man was allegedly prevented from sleeping in his home by the neighbors yard barker.  Lack of sleep is equivalent to intoxication, and that has been proven.  Had the problem persisted, consider that the barking might have been the indirect cause of an airline crash!   How would you like it if YOU and your dog were on that plane?  I do not think you would like it too much.

I cannot directly condone what Woodhouse did, nor can I encourage others to act as he did.  That said, if I were on a jury for a case like this, I would either vote to aquit or nullify.  I would NOT grant the dog or the owner any state protection.  

Consider that Woodhouse had no protection from the dog or the owner.  The dog was allowed to destroy the peace for an extended time.  The dog owner was allowed to trespass and search Woodhouse's private belongings.  Where is the justice in that?   Why is there protection FROM this man, but none FOR him?   Vice Versa for the owner - there is protection FOR them, but none FROM them.  In a situation like that, is it really that surprising someone like Woodhouse would take matters into his own hands?

Now, I would vote to convict in a case like this if:

A)  The dog owner was fined substantially for disturbing the peace, and 

B)  The dog owner was banned from owning pets, and

C)  The dog owner was arrested for trespass and "searching" others private belongings. 

Of course, none of the above were done.  The dog owner is free to get another dog and go back to tormenting their neighbors.  Its all good!

One interesting takeaway from this incident are the comments under the article linked above.  It appears that many of the commenters have at least some sympathy for Woodhouse.   I.E. "I don't condone what he did, but....", more or less my position.   Another takeaway is, Meg's owners didn't care about her.  If they did, they would not have left her out to bark all the time.  They are lousy pet owners with no standards and they should not be allowed to own pets.

My verdict:  Woodhouse and Meg are the victims.  Dog owners and authorities are the perpetrators.