Quin Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Well, this guy is a dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scenario Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Another health update from the owner... "Wednesday is out of surgery and doing fine. They will call me once she is coming out of the anesthesia The abscess was so large they had to cut away a good chuck of her intestents too. The bullet perforated her diaphragm and that entry point was healing well already. They said she is one lucky lucky dog! Hang in there Wednesday!" Dory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) Another health update from the owner... "Wednesday is out of surgery and doing fine. They will call me once she is coming out of the anesthesia The abscess was so large they had to cut away a good chuck of her intestents too. The bullet perforated her diaphragm and that entry point was healing well already. They said she is one lucky lucky dog! Hang in there Wednesday!" Dory A dog's gastrointestinal system works much differently than ours. Most of their digestion occurs in the stomach as opposed to the intestines, and so hopefully losing quite a bit of her intestines won't pose a large problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Oddly if the dog was a pit bull there would be a much different conversation. The dick that shot the dog probably has a pit bull. What a douche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) 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. This is correct. A similar circumstance happened with my black lab (not a shooting, but a serious injury that led to the dog having to be put to sleep) and we actually had to deal with our neighbors home owners insurance company. The amount awarded didnt cover the bills that accumulated before she was put to sleep but it was something and it helped. Also, let me know if they set up any sort of method for making donations because Id be willing to contribute a little if it helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) It just seems like you are doing the exact opposite of what you did with the Penn State thing, just as SSK mentioned... With the PSU thing, there had already been a lengthy investigation. With this, nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:10 PM) With the PSU thing, there had already been a lengthy investigation. With this, nothing. At the beginning of this "lengthy" investigation, very little of the actual body of facts was known. It was not dissimilar from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:44 PM) At the beginning of this "lengthy" investigation, very little of the actual body of facts was known. It was not dissimilar from this. The first we heard of the PSU thing there was a Grand Jury report. In this instance, you have a small town paper covering a story after they talked with exactly two people. There is quite a bit of difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:39 PM) The first we heard of the PSU thing there was a Grand Jury report. In this instance, you have a small town paper covering a story after they talked with exactly two people. There is quite a bit of difference. No, there really isn't. In both cases there was basically one side presented. And mind you, the paper tried to give the asshole a chance to speak and he had no comment. Again, it's not like we are going to get much more coverage of this event, so "waiting for the facts to come out" basically precludes any discussion on the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 07:34 AM) No, there really isn't. In both cases there was basically one side presented. And mind you, the paper tried to give the asshole a chance to speak and he had no comment. Again, it's not like we are going to get much more coverage of this event, so "waiting for the facts to come out" basically precludes any discussion on the incident. Hey, whatever you say. I'm going with a Grand Jury report being on a slightly different level than The Mayberry Times and the report of one side of an incident. You can think whatever you'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) Hey, whatever you say. I'm going with a Grand Jury report being on a slightly different level than The Mayberry Times and the report of one side of an incident. You can think whatever you'd like. The Grand Jury report is just the Prosecution's most favorable case being presented. It is the same situation as you hearing one party's side of the story. In both cases, they can present only the most favorable evidence available. Edited January 26, 2012 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) The Grand Jury report is just the Prosecution's most favorable case being presented. It is the same situation as you hearing one party's side of the story. In both cases, they can present only the most favorable evidence available. And to even have a Grand Jury, there needs to be evidence gathering in the first place. With this, we got a woman saying "this is what happened even though I didn't see it". Are we done here yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Based on the one side of the story the guy is a dick. There are several possible stories that this guy could tell that, if true, would completly turn things around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scenario Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 Not sure I understand what story a guy could tell that would justify shooting somebody's pet Labrador. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 12:24 PM) And to even have a Grand Jury, there needs to be evidence gathering in the first place. With this, we got a woman saying "this is what happened even though I didn't see it". Are we done here yet? What? Give me a break. You're comparing a high-profile case about potential child rape to a local story about a dog being shot by a drunken hillrod and expecting the same amount of evidence gathering. What kind of evidence gathering would you suggest we collect before it is safe in your opinion to commentate (which by the way, I find f***ing ironic as hell since that sure as hell doesn't hold you back from commenting or speculating on any other matter)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Not sure I understand what story a guy could tell that would justify shooting somebody's pet Labrador. Makes absolutely no sense to me. The dog had attacked his child before. Fought with his dog. Chased his cat. Caused his horse to bolt. Appeared rabid. I am not saying it happened in this case, but we have one side of the story. I promised after the Duke Lacross case I would not rush to judgement again. Based on what we know the guy is a sadistic scumbag. But we only know one side of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) What? Give me a break. You're comparing a high-profile case about potential child rape to a local story about a dog being shot by a drunken hillrod and expecting the same amount of evidence gathering. What kind of evidence gathering would you suggest we collect before it is safe in your opinion to commentate (which by the way, I find f***ing ironic as hell since that sure as hell doesn't hold you back from commenting or speculating on any other matter)? I don't believe he brought up the PSU case to compare. That was done for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) I don't believe he brought up the PSU case to compare. That was done for him. No, we brought up his reaction to both. He then explained that away by comparing the situations. Either way, the point is, the one is an extremely high-profile situation in which we knew more facts would come out. The other is a local story about a pet dog, which will most likely not be reported about again. I'd say jumping to conclusions about Joe Paterno in a child sex scandal and jumping to conclusions about some random guy who shot a dog are slightly different things, wouldn't you? Edited January 26, 2012 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) What? Give me a break. You're comparing a high-profile case about potential child rape to a local story about a dog being shot by a drunken hillrod and expecting the same amount of evidence gathering. What kind of evidence gathering would you suggest we collect before it is safe in your opinion to commentate (which by the way, I find f***ing ironic as hell since that sure as hell doesn't hold you back from commenting or speculating on any other matter)? You can commentate all you want. The guy was a drunken hillrod who probably also ate the dogs and butt raped men resembling Ned Beatty whenever the chance presented itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Come on, the man just died let the body cool before making accusations like that ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 05:41 AM) Come on, the man just died let the body cool before making accusations like that ;-) For a second, I actually thought Ned Beatty died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Isn't there a little Ned Beatty in all of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 11:37 PM) You can commentate all you want. The guy was a drunken hillrod who probably also ate the dogs and butt raped men resembling Ned Beatty whenever the chance presented itself. So you just decided to come into the thread to uphold the scales of justice then, right? GMAFB. This is a friend of Scenario's. What is the point of you coming in to stick up for this fool that shot his friend's dog? Edited January 27, 2012 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 07:36 AM) So you just decided to come into the thread to uphold the scales of justice then, right? GMAFB. This is a friend of Scenario's. What is the point of you coming in to stick up for this fool that shot his friend's dog? Because the guy might be in the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 28, 2012 -> 05:56 AM) Because the guy might be in the right. And suddenly you're the Perry Mason of soxtalk. Full of s***, Milk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.