By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - My dog killed a neighbors cat! Not sure what to do

TheLastStarFighter on 04 August 2017
Green098 said:

A lot of people here seem to give animals more rights than the law actually does here. I mean going by the law I can run down any dog or cat I see come my way and face no legal charges. (Not that I would I love animals and would never do such a thing but still you get the idea). Although technically in a few situations you shouldn't stop if you see a cat or dog on the road as it could cause a traffic accident.

Of course it really, really, really sucks when your pets die I've experienced it first hand, but if your such an animal rights activist why should your only solution be to kill it because it killed this? People are trying they say how valuable this animals life is yet they want another animals life gone. The dog can't help it, just like a cat can't help it, animals kill. If someone killed a human I wouldn't even be calling the death penalty unless it was such an extreme situation.

The dog didn't attack any human here, and it looks like it could of had quite the haul if it did want to from all the people seeing what's what. Dogs are known to be hostile towards cats, and just because it killed cat does not mean it's gonna hunt down any kid it sees on the street.

While charges of sort will faced here (nothing major), as long as it doesn't happen again, I don't think they're going to kill the dog over it.

What you're saying isn't accurate. If an animal enters a roadway, you don't have to stop.  The animal killed was on its owners property. If you drove your car onto someone's yard, scared them and killed their cat you could be charged with dangerous driving, animal cruelty and other charges. This dog entered another property and killed an animal. Typical course of action is to destroy the dog, and the dog's owner typically sued for damages by the person suffering the loss.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 04 August 2017
JakDaSnack said:
DonFerrari said:

Have you put your name on a extermination list so you don't do these horrible things human does?

So you think killing innocent lives is a solution?  Disgusting...

Nope I don't, but you seem to think human beings are inferior to other species and you were born a human yet isn't considering removing you from causing problems to other species.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Green098 on 04 August 2017
TheLastStarFighter said:
Green098 said:

A lot of people here seem to give animals more rights than the law actually does here. I mean going by the law I can run down any dog or cat I see come my way and face no legal charges. (Not that I would I love animals and would never do such a thing but still you get the idea). Although technically in a few situations you shouldn't stop if you see a cat or dog on the road as it could cause a traffic accident.

Of course it really, really, really sucks when your pets die I've experienced it first hand, but if your such an animal rights activist why should your only solution be to kill it because it killed this? People are trying they say how valuable this animals life is yet they want another animals life gone. The dog can't help it, just like a cat can't help it, animals kill. If someone killed a human I wouldn't even be calling the death penalty unless it was such an extreme situation.

The dog didn't attack any human here, and it looks like it could of had quite the haul if it did want to from all the people seeing what's what. Dogs are known to be hostile towards cats, and just because it killed cat does not mean it's gonna hunt down any kid it sees on the street.

While charges of sort will faced here (nothing major), as long as it doesn't happen again, I don't think they're going to kill the dog over it.

What you're saying isn't accurate. If an animal enters a roadway, you don't have to stop.  The animal killed was on its owners property. If you drove your car onto someone's yard, scared them and killed their cat you could be charged with dangerous driving, animal cruelty and other charges. This dog entered another property and killed an animal. Typical course of action is to destroy the dog, and the dog's owner typically sued for damages by the person suffering the loss.

Ok yes I didn't mean that I could willy nilly kill what ever animal I could see with my car only if it was on the road. But I don't see what point there is killing the dog over it. Not like it was the dogs fault, it's what animals do. I wouldn't want a cat killed for killing a pet hamster or rabbit. Any any payments should really just be to cover the cost of any vet fees or something like that as well as maybe a little compension but nothing substantial.

But who I was mostly directing my post to, were the people acting as if the dog now has the thirst for blood and will hunt down any living thing it sees, and the owner should be put to prison, as well as treating the person with absolutely no sympathy.



ArchangelMadzz on 04 August 2017
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

I'm not changing the subject. I bolded that part of your message as that's what I'm applying to. The species does matter. 

I don't think he was being disrespectful when he said that he obviously knows it's said and said he feels bad for the owner and wouldn't mind paying for any damages, or new cat etc. 

You are though. Your original reply was about criticizing a position I didn't take on hierarchies, and your 2nd reply was "WHATS SO HARD ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT A DOG KILLING A CAT IS LIKE A CAT KILLING A BIRD". Both of them had to do with hierarchies, but they're individual points, and completely different from one another.

"Really so a dog mauling a cat and a dog mauling a 5 year old girl is the same thing?"

"A cat that kills a bird is completely different to a cat that kills another cat. How is that difficult to understand?"

They're too seperate points and while they both lead back to hierarchy, it's a definite shift in goal posts. Either way it doesn't matter, because of course you completely misunderstood anything I said and failed to read my original comment. Clearly. You know I don't know about you, but I take topics of death and animal rights pretty seriously. Maybe you should read someones comment before you misrepresent their point? Because I never said what your original post said, and your 2nd post I literally agreed with in my original comment.

" I don't think he was being disrespectful when he said that he obviously knows it's said and said he feels bad for the owner and wouldn't mind paying for any damages, or new cat etc. "

His entire attitude in this thread has been to justify something because of the perspective of an animal. There's nothing wrong with taking the power chain of the animal kingdom into consideration, but he has practically acted like he didn't even care about the death of the cat. The troubling thing isn't that he's saying the dog shouldn't be put down, the troubling thing is that he is so quick to defend it without showing any remorse for the cat. You can take one or two sentences he wrote but look at the context and how he carries himself - it's clear that no real sympathy is felt for the owner. Anyone can say "I'll fix that with money - i'm super duper sorry!" But when your dog kills a cat, you shouldn't treat the situation like you accidently drove your car into another person's car. You should treat it with respect and care. I'm sure he's going to reply to criticizers of his post with "oh no I was super sad!" or "I apologized super hard!" but ultimately all we have to go on is his demeanor which isn't a good sign and it's easy to defend yourself past-tense. I'm sure you'll say something like "We can't judge OP just based on what he's typed" in which case i'd say : Why did he even bring this to VGChartz in the first place? No one has a definitive answer and this entire discussion is pretty pointless.

In the end, the heirarchy of the animal kingdom is a valid reason to give some leaway to the dog, but to human beings cats and dogs have practically the same relevance. The reason why nobody cares if a cat kills a bird is because a wide majority of people don't care about birds. If more people cared about birds maybe cats would get put down after killing birds. A dog killing a cat is ok for the dog but not okay for the people in society who own the cats. From the perspective of nature it's fine but for society a dog and a cat are about the same from a priority perspective, and the owner should have put more care in thinking about how the owner feels instead of being instantly defensive because "nature says it's okay". His original post is just so unbalanced as a whole.

I don't want to make this into a big argument because this isn't the thread for it, but I feel like I have to justify my feelings on this for no reason because someone(you) wants to be argumentative for no reason. Seems like if you just read my post we would have agreed a lot.

..
You said:

"Putting more value on one species than another is ridiculous"

So I responded:

"Really so a dog mauling a cat and a dog mauling a 5 year old girl is the same thing?

Bruh. "


Literally the only part of your argument my comment was made at. I didn't even say if I agreed or disagreed with your overal message, just pointed out a statement that I disagreed with. 

"A cat that kills a bird is completely different to a cat that kills another cat. How is that difficult to understand?" 

And yes those are two parts of the exact same points. Because I'm putting more value on the cat than I am the bird, Which relates to your original statement.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

AngryLittleAlchemist on 04 August 2017
ArchangelMadzz said:

..
You said:

"Putting more value on one species than another is ridiculous"

So I responded:

"Really so a dog mauling a cat and a dog mauling a 5 year old girl is the same thing?

Bruh. "

Yes - a complete misrepresentation of what I meant? I obviously didn't mean a human to a cat. I meant dogs and cats.

And also "A cat that kills a bird is completely different to a cat that kills another cat. How is that difficult to understand?" 

Is something you wouldn't have used if you read my original comment, since I said that the dog should get leaway due to this being a fairly sane thing in the animal kingdom. Again all your pointing out is that you failed reading comprehension. I'll admit "putting more value on one species than another is ridiculous" sounds wayyy too general, which is why you easily twisted and turned it into what you wanted it to be. But I feel like most people would get that I was talking about cats and dogs since, ya know ... that's what we're talking about?

My original comment was in this context :

" It would be different if the dog attacked another dog or person. " 


Putting more value on cats than dogs is ridiculous."

I forgot to erase Person, which caused you to start an argument for no reason, even though I think it was fairly obvious I wasn't taking that position.



Around the Network
JakDaSnack on 04 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
JakDaSnack said:

So you think killing innocent lives is a solution?  Disgusting...

Nope I don't, but you seem to think human beings are inferior to other species and you were born a human yet isn't considering removing you from causing problems to other species.

Nope, I never said anything about inferior vs superior beings, I was referring to value, and I was referring to overall species and their overall impact.  Not once did I say the solution was to kill lives, that was you.  You seem to think that I should kill myself, which is incredibly disturbing.  Which is only adding to my argument lol, a cat would never suggest I end my life, now would a dog or a hamster.  Yet YOU would, interesting....



Something...Something...Games...Something

KingofTrolls on 04 August 2017
RolStoppable said:
Accept that your dog will be put down for what he has done. Punch your friend in the face for leaving the gate open.

Put down the friend and punch the dog in the face.



FloatingWaffles on 04 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
SvennoJ said:
Since you live in the states they could sue you for pain and suffering in small claims court and probably get awarded for your negligence. Plus the judge would be yelling at you since the dog could easily have caused a car crash while chasing a cat. The dog is probably safe though, although he might have to wear a muzzle or be chained while outside.

I keep my dog on leash all the time, even though it's just a small breed. It's more likely he'll get grabbed by coyotes on the trails than him causing any harm, yet why risk it. Dogs don't know any better than to give chase, ignoring everything else. Squirl! I don't understand people that let their dog loose than spend 10 minutes calling them, begging them to come back... Anyway you have a fenced yard, put a lock on the gate and a sign to always close it and lock it again.

Or a spring to keep the door shut even if someone forget to lock it.

Hiku said:

Talking to his neighbours and asking them to give suggestions may be a good idea, as it shows sincerity in wanting to make amends.
They may suggest things like putting a muzzle on the dog whenever it's outside, or always on a leash when not observed, etc.

Yes, that would be fair and considerated. If you like your pet you can assume the other guy liked his as well and think what would you appreciate being done if it was your pet being killed.

FloatingWaffles said:

Just based on this paragraph alone it seems pretty obvious you couldn't care less about what happened to your neighbor's cat and only care about whether your dog will be put down because of it,  and if that's the case than that is a disgusting attitude to have and you shouldn't have had a pet in the first place then. 

1. You write "or get him a new cat or something" as if it's something that can easily be replaceable like a new shirt. For all you know he could have had that cat for so many years and lived most of his life with it and grown a huge bond with it during that time. Well that bond and love he had with it are gone now because of your dog, him getting a new cat isn't going to just fill that empty spot since it's not the same. 

2. You wrote in another post in this thread that you "know your dog would never attack any person or child" but the fact of the matter is that you don't know this. If your dog is gonna kill a cat then it could easily try again with anyone else it sees. It reminds me of how I think I remember there being something about how if a bear in a circus attacks or kills a human then they put it down because it will see how easy it was to do and will try it again. 

3. @ bolded: Fucking hell, I already mentioned before in this post but talk about you not giving a shit about a cat being dead because of your dog. You basically say that just because you see cats as worth less than dogs and that is why you don't think your dog should be put down because of it. Just because you think less of cats doesn't mean your neighbor feels the same way. It reads like you're trying to make it seem like the neighbor is being unreasonable for perhaps being upset that you killed his pet, which he has every right to be or to say that your dog should be put down. 

It's your dog and you are 100% responsible for its actions since you chose to adopt it and be its owner, and since a cat is now dead because of it that means you cannot ensure that you can keep control of your dog or how it behaves. 

Personally I think once an animal kills something like another pet or attacks something or someone to the point where it almost killed them then it should be put down since it presents a risk that it will attack another thing again in the future, perhaps a person or small child after already attacking one thing and seeing how easy it was.  So yes I think your dog should be put down then. 

1- Yes he could. And one day the cat would die and he would probably get a new one either way. The new cat can't be used as reparation, but also can't be said as if nothing would ammend.

2- Any animal (human included) can potentially kill others, so they may kill bear because a bear that drinked human blood is said to be more propense to kill again, but just basing that something can attack X because attacked Y is flawed. You are assuming he doesn't even know his dog and saw how it get along with humans, kids, dogs, etc... he even said his dog doesn't like cats.

3 - he does give a fuck if you read his replies.

and 4 - it was his father's dog and he seems to terminate the dog, so he isn't totally sincere in the thread.

5 - So if someone kill a person pet should he be killed as well? Or if he kills another human being?

Namiirei said:
Dude, it's 120% your fault, and your responsability.

Add to that, for some people, their pet is the same as another member of the family (it is for me), you'r lucky the cat owner seems like a somewhat cool guy, another one would 100% sue you, punch you in the face or something else.

I personally think your dog need to die, or at least be severely restricted in his movements.
If it happen once again and he attack another cat, or worse, a kid, you will have a hard time explaining why you let a dangerous dog like this one alive.

If your father kill someone do you suggest he is killed since he killed someone that another one loved?

JustThatGamer said:
It's a tough situation, sorry but personally if somebody's dog killed one of my cats I wouldn't rest until that dog was dead, it's not 'just' a cat it's someone pet, companion or even part of the family.

If someone of your family kills a pet or another human and is killed in vengeance would you also accept it?

FloatingWaffles said:

@ bolded: The OP already said he sees cats as lesser beings than dogs and admitted that he's biased which is why he doesn't think his dog should be put down for it, so this makes no sense. 

Nope... he said it's natural that dogs hunt cats (which are smaller) as much as is natural that cats hunt birds and mices. He said he is biased because it's his dog, not because dogs are better than cats... improve your interpretation skills.

shikamaru317 said:

Some of the responses in this thread, on both sides of the spectrum, make me feel like mankind is hopeless. We have people suggesting that the cat's life is as valuable as a person's (it's not) and suggesting that dog that will kill a cat will also kill a toddler or infant (that is extremely unlikely given that the dog has never shown any proclivity towards violence against people). We have people suggesting that the OP deserves jail time or to be punched in the face (all he did wrong was forget to check his gate after a friend left who didn't know to lock the gate, something that could have happened to anyone). We have people suggesting that the dog did nothing wrong and even praising the dog for killing the cat. We have people insulting the intelligence of both cat and dog owners. 


Mankind is so screwed.

Yes you are right... I want to know what would these people do in the same situation... and if they will accept any punishment if their child did something wrong since they would be responsible for the child.

5 - This is a flawed logic you're trying to propose because animals don't have the same logic and thinking that humans do. Animals don't know right from wrong like most humans do. They don't have the same understanding as humans. If a human kills another human or a pet it's not the same thing as a pet doing it because humans are capable of cooperation and understanding that, they made that choice (and it was a horrible choice and they should face the charges of their crimes obviously) to do what they did despite how shitty it would be. Where as if a pet does it they don't know or learn that it's wrong, which is why they may think it's fine to do it again in the future after seeing how easy it was the first time and how maybe nothing happened to them for it. So at that point once they attack or even kill someone they are a risk that need to be put down imo because they don't know not to do it again.

And he literally said "I don't think a dog killing a cat is worth putting a dog down. It would be different if the dog attacked another dog or person. He would be put down immediately". That implies that he thinks because it was a cat that his dog shouldn't be put down, but if it was a dog or a human then it should. That says that he thinks cat are lesser beings and aren't as big of a deal if they get killed as opposed to another dog or such. Improve your response skills. 



smroadkill15 on 04 August 2017

I went and apologized to the wife of the family who owns the cat. No one else was home. I really do feel bad about the the whole situation and she could tell I meant everything I said. She was understanding and thankful for me coming over and apologizing. The real challenge will be the husband because he was way more upset when it happened. I gave them my phone number and told her if there is anything I can do let me know.

Before this, I called the local pet control and they said the best thing you can try to do is make amends with the neighbor. It seems like to me there is no law about putting the dog down for killing a cat. I'm sure I'll hear back from them at some point because the neighbor did report it last night.



DonFerrari on 04 August 2017
JakDaSnack said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope I don't, but you seem to think human beings are inferior to other species and you were born a human yet isn't considering removing you from causing problems to other species.

Nope, I never said anything about inferior vs superior beings, I was referring to value, and I was referring to overall species and their overall impact.  Not once did I say the solution was to kill lives, that was you.  You seem to think that I should kill myself, which is incredibly disturbing.  Which is only adding to my argument lol, a cat would never suggest I end my life, now would a dog or a hamster.  Yet YOU would, interesting....

Errr having less value is being inferior. Not kill lives, but you kill yourself since you value humans so little. A dog can't speak. And I may be crazy, but I think I saw you saying the dog should be put down.

Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope I don't, but you seem to think human beings are inferior to other species and you were born a human yet isn't considering removing you from causing problems to other species.

Technically if he really did want to wipe out humans for being inferior (which he clearly doesn`t), then he should be the last one that gets wiped out, not the first.

You are technically right, but he also should be the example... and he killing himself first we wouldn't lose other people besides him.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."