Tuesday, 22 November 2005 - 7:01 PM EST

Thats really messed up that the dog got killed for nothing. But ya i think they should have laws especially if its for killing someone elses dog who wasnt doing anything because people get close connections with their animals...its always sad when my family loses a pet. Thats what i personally believe

Thursday, 24 November 2005 - 12:19 AM EST

Well the only problem with the law is that a clause must be put in saying that there must be proof that the dog killed. Dogs are smart animals, and who is to say that the dog did not know the cat. Ok that sounded stupid, but hopefully someone understood what I meant. Who is to say that the dog and cat did not belong to next door neighbors and were friendly. The dog could have found the cat dead and was going to bring the cat back to the neighbor. All I am saying is that there is a need for proof, and if there is than kill the dog.

Saturday, 26 November 2005 - 7:21 PM EST

I agree with Bleu. There really was no proof that the dog had any intention of harming the man and the children. There should be laws against people who kill animals for no reason. For most families with pets, the pet becomes part of the family, so killing someone’s dog could be like killing their son. There should have to be some kind of proof that the dog was going to harm a person, or another animal.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 7:19 AM EST

Here's my take on it. No one should be able to just shoot a dog without a good reason, but if the dog is attacking anyone then thats when it is okay to do so in my opinion. People should face charges for murdering animals if they had no real reason for doing it.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 9:19 AM EST

i absolutely agree with chad. at times, animals can be vicious. in that case, it should be okay for one to protect themselves. But it is never okay for someone to just randomly shoot an animal for the hell of it. a murder is a murder.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 2:19 PM EST

I believe that people should not be faced with criminal charges for murdering an animal only when the cause of the killing was due to self-defense. An animal endangering someone can result in the same thing as if a person is endangering someone: death. I believe that people can protect themselves from death, or others from death by self-defense measures such as killing. This in my opinion holds true for animals as well.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 3:00 PM EST

I think that animal cruel is wrong. A person should be charged with animal murders but not like a person the murders another person. I think that only animals that have some intelligent should be animals considered to have rights. If the dog was attacking or about to die anyways and the killing was for a good cause then I don’t think the person should be charged.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 3:21 PM EST

Charges should depend on the way in which the animal is killed. Self defense is vastly different than "cold blooded murder" Laws that deal with the murder of a person by a person should be conducted similarly to that of a human/animal interaction.

Monday, 28 November 2005 - 11:56 PM EST

In The Conservative, I read how the main canadate for the Democrat up for running is Hillary Clinton. In the article is talked about who is looking to be canadates for the Republicans. The first is the obvious choice Dick Cheny. The second is Jeb Bush. The final is Rice. My question is who do you think will be the Republicans choice to represent the elephants in the 2008 election against the [donkey]'s are putting up against them.

Rice '08


In New york the number 1 bumper sticker is "run hillary run". The democrats put it on their back bumper. The republicans put it on the front of their cars.

Rice '08

Monday, 5 December 2005 - 2:53 PM EST

I saw on the news yesterday about the man who got thrown out of the stadium for holding up a sign. The sign said fire Millan. This country was supposedly built on the constitution, and the constitution does include something about freedom of speech. Is it still constitutional to be thrown out of somewhere for simply expressing yourself.

Monday, 5 December 2005 - 2:57 PM EST

I agree with Bleu but why was the man carrying a gun anyway. I mean if you are out with your kids you wouldn't think someone would be carrying a gun around. That is the real question why does that man have a gun?

Wednesday, 14 December 2005 - 6:40 AM EST

no it does not

Friday, 14 April 2006 - 7:36 AM EDT

The guy said it was self-defense, so it was not murder. Besides, there was a cat in the dog's mouth, so if it was murder, the dog was the one who murdered first. One must protect his children by any means neccessary, even if it means killing somebody.

Monday, 22 May 2006 - 7:33 AM EDT

If someone kills someone in self-defense, he or she does not have to do jail time. This should be the same with killing animals. Animals are not as likely to be tamed as people are, so killing animals in self-defense is neccessary to keep someone from getting hurt.