Foxy "On behalf of CJ, Dickie, et al, I'd
like to remind you in the words of
your beloved Maggie:"

and if you look back in my posts, you will see that I have used quote by Margaret Thatcher myself.

So, like they say, "imitation is the highest form of flattery".

thank you Foxy.

and I came across this interesting take on it here

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/07/20020709_b_main.asp

"If the adage is right that imitation is the highest form of flattery, it's because it goes beyond sycophancy...."

I might ask, is it that important that I like you?

EVO: "When a large hound is barreling down on you..."

Um, it was a labrador.

CR: "Pit bulls and Staffordshire bull terriers immediately come to mind."

Staffies? You're scared of staffies?

Another way of saying it, Foxy, is "no one kicks a dead dog".

On the practical side, my dad always told me that in circumstances of being set upon by a dog, a hard crushing grip upon a forepaw made it impossible for the dog to actually close its jaws with any force.

I must add that I have never had cause to try out whether it works or not. And my dad had very large hardened powerful hands.

All of which is really not addressing the issue, which is that of some people having no shame in openly flouting the law, or in this original instance, a local government ordinance.

I don't have a dog, so I won't attempt to discuss this ostensible topic with respect to dog behaviour vis-a-vis pet owner behaviour.

At a pedestrian crossing outside a school entrance near to where I live, there exists a signed area marked as 'No Stopping' immediately upstream of the crossing in both directions. The reason for it is obvious: it is to obviate the hazard of children being obscured from a driver's view until the last moment when they plunge onto the crossing.

Most parents picking up students park and wait in the areas where this is permissible. There are some, however, who habitually seem to both come relatively late in relation to securing a conveniently close parking spot, and see no problem in pulling up (and waiting) in the "No Stopping' area.

I recently approached one such, and said "Mate, do you realize this is a 'No Stopping' area?" "So what?' was the response. He waited there for between five and ten minutes, collected his passenger, and left. He doubtless expects to do so routinely.

Its an attitude thing. How dare anyone call his (routine) behaviour into question, no matter how tactfully. Above the law, and no shame when confronted. You can bet the attitude carries over into other areas of life.

And people wonder why the pendulum swings to zero tolerance.

Dog owners and 4wd drivers go hand in hand. Does that explain the attitude.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is
particularly wounding because I think, well,
if they attack me personally, it means they
have not a single political argument left."

Ah dear Foxy

The following quote is also attributed to dearest Margaret

“You don't tell deliberate lies, but sometimes you have to be evasive.”

So does the second quote negate the first?

And that's odd. I thought Col Rouge hated pit-bulls!

Polycarp.
The first thing you learn in Law at Uni is not a bunch of laws. It is that the law has nothing to do with provocation or the average interpretation of justice. It is based on the black letter and precedent interpretations.

• the woman breached the by-law. (True) that neither gave you the right to kick the dog nor to intimidate her by threatening the dog harm.

Legal interpretation of self defence is based on measured and proportional to the threat. Enough to defend yourself anything more is an offence.

Consider the urban myth. A burglar enters your house you shoot him/her then shoot the ceiling. You change the sequence for the police telling them the first shot was a warning you were defending yourself. Result…You would be charged/probably convicted for at least manslaughter if not murder and for attempting to pervert the course of justice etc.
REASONING: the force YOU used was disproportionate to the threat.

The “or I’ll harm it” could be construed as a threat therefore possible assault charges. Unfair? Perhaps but it’s the law.

Then there maybe a case under common law if you damaged the dog. Here the court decides on probability not beyond reasonable doubt.

Are you now saying the dog continued the attack? If so then it's a dangerous dog and should be declared. Once DECLARED: Then the penalties and restrictive conditions apply.

If dog ‘attacked?' you on previous occasions? i.e. different days? It would be argued why you didn’t act then? It could be then further argued that you were simply retaliating? Your words in your posts would give a prosecutor plenty to play with in that field.

Anyway Given that you don’t accept anything anyone says least of all me, unless inline with your thinking this post is more directed to other readers.
Polycarp let’s agree to disagree. PS don’t call me for bail… no money :-(
end