iamshack

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) Animals are property, if you kill an animal your liability is for the value of the property. But if you damage an animal, why would you not be able to sue for the medical damages? Ive gone through some Illinois cases and while you cant sue for companionship etc, this case I believe would allow you to sue for actual damages: http://www.nabranimallaw.org/Content.aspx?id=428#Illinois Anzalone v. Kragness (Illinois) Decided March 7, 2005 Pet owner's cat was attacked and killed by defendant's rottweiler dog while boarded at an animal hospital. The pet owner sued the veterinarian and animal hospital on several grounds, including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and rejected the request for damages on the remaining counts. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $100,000 on several grounds including loss of society and companionship. On appeal, the Illinois appellate court reversed the trial court stating it is for the jury to determine the appropriate amount of damages. The appellate court also stated that using "value to the owner" as a measure of damages is widely used in small cases. The case now moves back to the trial court for further consideration Also on a personal note, I have handled a case where comed maced a dog and they settled for the medical bills plus damage to the home. Its not the easiest thing, but you can frame a complaint that would potentially allow for recovery. Not saying youll win, just you can take a shot. Interesting. I can only imagine how large some of the "value to the owner" figures would be. Domesticated animals are often considered as members of the family, so imagine how much some people would claim the value was?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) As in, find out all sides of the story, find out the history behind it (look for motive, or if this guy is really just a psycho). I just don't like incriminating some guy I've never met without hearing all stories, because emotions can get in the way of truth many times. From the facts given, this guy is a mad man and guilty as hell, but you're only getting like half the story. No, I get that. My point was that we won't have the opportunity to. This is a minor story that probably won't even be followed up on unless it turns out the guy has been shooting all kinds of dogs in the neighborhood. I was more hoping this thread would be used as a forum for discussion on the topic of animal cruelty in general, as well as a place to find information on how to help the dog. I could give a s*** about some random drunken hillrod and whether I do a full and proper investigation.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) What do you mean the remedies arent strong enough? If they have to pay 5-10k in medical bills, why would they not want to try and recoup those bills from the person who caused the damage? As for this, I don't think someone who shoots an animal is liable for their medical bills. I believe they are only liable up to the value of how the animal is viewed as property.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) Did you not read what you quoted? I think the point was 91 percent, 82 percent, it's all massive approval because it is also massive fluff nonsense. There is no difference between 91 and 82 because those ratings almost never happen when you have to reveal actual policy you intend to be accountable for.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) This, the media and sides emotionally attached to the situation tend to pick and choose facts to report, while typically abstaining facts that defend the perpetrator. Like Milk said, I'm fairly sure he's guilty, but let's have a legitimate investigation first before concluding anything. What on earth are you talking about? A legitimate investigation? All I can say is I am flabbergasted.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) Well Iamshack, for all I know it will turn out the guy was shooting at a coyote who was attacking the dog and he missed and hit the dog 1 time. /shrugs Nothing to suggest thats what happened, but until you get both sides you really are just merely speculating. And just so you know my bias, Im pro-animal and anti-gun. I just dont like to jump to conclusions, even if I would be inclined to believe that this guy has no defense for what he did. I could be wrong, wont be the first or last time. Oh I understand that. The point is this is some random drunk and the discussion will just be had here amongst a few people. It's not the same as rampantly speculating about a famous personality while every media outlet is discussing the issue and it is water cooler discussion. Of course I am speculating.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) I agree with Milkman,always best to wait on the facts. The facts? This is a guy in a random neighborhood that shot someone's dog. I don't think there is going to be a Grand Jury indictment or a front-page news story regarding the case.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) Haha, I've been thinking about a new line of work. And I'm not saying that this guy is innocent here. He may well have done everything that was insinuated in this thread. All I'm saying is that there is a chance that he's innocent and that we can't believe what we've heard so far, which is all from the other side of the story. And it's not the hardest thing in the world to paint a gun-loving, secluded, avid hunter as a bad guy. Are you honestly doing this on purpose?

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) The dog's owners moved in next door March 2011, less than one year ago. They had exactly one conversation with this guy prior to the shooting... Thanksgiving... when he walked out his door with a beer in his hand and yelled at them to keep their dogs off his property. Think about the events here... A guy goes outside with his dogs. One wanders away for a few moments. He notices it missing and he hears a shot. He goes running towards it... sees the dog running towards him bleeding... during which he hears another shot which hits the brush near him. Timeline... when did the shooter have time to go get his rifle, etc? It had to be sitting somewhere relatively close and loaded. First shot... He walked 4 steps out his front door and shot the dog from 50 feet away. Second shot... There was blood all the way down his drive. No doubt the dog was hit. Why the second shot? And did the shooter even think that possibly he could be endangering the owner who was calling and running towards the dog? Guy goes back into his house and then comes smiling to the front door when the owner shows up to ask what happened. Bottom Line: He not only inflicted cruelty on a companion animal (which is a Class 4 felony in Illinois)... he endangered the owner with the second shot. And he came to the door smiling about it??? I'd be willing to bet he lured the dog onto his property and shot him in a drunken stupor.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Over The Monster notes that the Red Sox have a full 40 man, so any possible Gavin or Beckham deal might involve player or two from the list of Felix Doubront, Stolmy Pimentel, Drake Britton, Lars Anderson, or Michael Bowden. Most of these players have little value obviously, so one would hope they aren't trade centerpieces. They certainly could be throw-ins though. I would be willing to bet Bowden would be included.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) Well, the smiling part can easily be a fabrication or something the frazzled owner misremembered. Prior incidents could be that the guy has been losing money/food because the dogs are always running through his property. Perhaps he's gone to the owners repeatedly to ask them to keep their dogs caged up so that they don't continue to hurt his business/avid hobby. Maybe the owners shrugged it off and said they can't do anything about it. Did you read the rest of the article? The dogs have collars on which vibrate when they leave their owner's yard. They do not understand why the dog left their yard. The reason the guy knew something was amiss in the first place is because the dog was not there. It almost seems as though the dog was lured onto the other guy's property by something (gee whiz, what could it have been??).

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:02 PM) cst_Cowley cst_Cowley @gordonbeckham You're going to look great in a Red Sox uniform. #starttherumors 3 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply He's such a monstrous cocksucker.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) Before crucifying that other guy, I'd like to hear his side of the story first. Obviously shooting the dog is going to be extreme no matter what and there were probably other measures to be taken, but who knows how many prior incidents took place? What exactly do you mean by "prior incidents"? The dog being on his property? And secondly, does he really need to smile sadistically when the owner of the dog asks if he shot her dog? I think that is evidence enough that the guy is a pretty disturbed asshole.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) I know two other people from that town whose dogs have 'disappeared' in the last few months. I don't believe this was that scumbag's first rodeo. He's a deer hunter who hunts on his own property and doesn't want other people's dogs to scare them away. The fear factor for the dog's owners in this situation is that they just moved there a year ago and they RAISE dogs. Not very comforting to think you have a next door neighbor who will shoot them. Understood...however, the stigma of being known as a dog-killer can be pretty damaging as well. Ask Mike Vick.

Suing is not going to accomplish anything. The legal remedies are simply not strong enough. What would be better is making EVERY effort possible to make it clear that THIS particular man shot your dog. Most people consider their animals a part of the family and an incredibly huge number of Americans are animal owners. I would not want to be known as someone who shot a dog and then smiled about it simply because he was on my property.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) NO. In the situation you are in, explain to them the better offer. They'll probably congratulate you honestly. They know they are essentially a feeder program anyway. I think, especially given this economy and this day and age we are in, that nearly everyone with a clue would understand if you had to pull out due to a better offer, especially given that you are a recent college grad, they have offered you an internship, and in the meantime, you have been offered a full-time position. The entire point of an internship is to get you valuable experience so that you are more attractive to an employer and you might receive an offer for a full-time position down the road. Turning down a full-time position so you can remain at an internship is sort counter-intuitive to the entire process. As long as you were respectful about it, and gave them as much notice as possible, no one is going to hold that against you. s*** happens.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:16 AM) LOL DAMMIT YOU BEAT ME Great minds, my friend, great minds.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) They're sometimes a little more focused, though, instead of trying to appeal to every single voting bloc in a little over an hour. Sometimes they lay out actual policy goals instead of "let's [bring jobs back home/reform taxes/better education/reduce deficit/reform immigration/be awesome]! send me a bill that does this, I'll sign it!" Hmm, if they would have gotten into actual details of how to fix all the problems the speech would take days instead of an hour...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:08 AM) I would like to state that myself and Milkman were the first to post on this site, sometime around May 2011, that Ozzie was not trying to win anymore. We were called idiots for a month or two. You guys were, are, and will continue to be called idiots for far larger reasons than that...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) The joke is on us as White Sox fans, who continued to pay our hard-earned money to watch games in 2010 and 2011. Also, it's hard to blame everything on Ozzie, as the players KW gave him sucked. It was s*** from top to bottom. Never have I been less excited for a season to start. I will, however, be sure to attend 5/26 for my Robin bobblehead! Paying hard-earned money to watch your favorite team play a sport you enjoy does not per se imply any support of Ozzie Guillen or a FO or even the particular players on the team. While I do believe in "putting my money where my mouth is" and "hitting them where it hurts" when it comes to supporting or not supporting an organization, I'm not going to let one or two people ruin my enjoyment of my favorite sport and the Summer pastime.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) Sometimes they get a little more specific than "send me a bill that does a thing, I'll sign it!" and sometimes they're a single issue, more or less, like 2003 and Iraq. It works as a campaign starter, but it won't be remembered as some great speech or for putting forth some bold new initiatives. My guess is they were somewhat deliberately vague so he could still enjoy the "rah rah" stuff without creating ammunition for the Republicans during the lead-up to the election. I read the transcript this morning to see his statements on clean energy (as energy is my field) and I was pretty surprised to see how little substance there was on the issue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) After thinking about it a little more, it's a pretty empty speech. Lots of populism, lots of applause lines, but really, it won't go anywhere policy-wise. What SOTU speech is any different?

I think this is the most accurate and eloquent statement I have seen to date in regards to events that have occurred over the past two years. It sums up exactly how I feel about Ozzie.

Just read the transcript of the speech. Very well done. Just wish I could believe in the process, even in the slightest degree. One thing I do know, neither Romney or Gingrich has a chance to beat Obama.

Mr. Dennis Haysbert.