sheeats Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Haven't seen much on this in Houston. Although it happened outside of Austin, Damian Mandola is quite the fixture here. He founded Carrabba's, D'Amico's and Damian's Cucina Italiana:http://blogs.houstonpress.com/eating/2009/07/farm_living_isnt_the_life_for.phphttp://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/07/0707mandola.htmlGood fences make good neighbors. When will people ever learn that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Good fences make good neighbors. When will people ever learn that?Sounds like the fences and improved fences weren't enough. I say good for Damian.If after your dog repeatedly enters your neighbors property, kills their pet... you're just asking for it if you can't control them and keep them to your property. The Maddux's should consider themselves lucky their dogs didnt escape their property to kill a kid.I love dogs.. but I wouldn't be against killing one, or calling the pound to have them captured ( and put down if needed) if the neighbors dog repeatedly violated my property and killed my pet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMME Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Calling the pound would be the appropriate thing to do. Trapping and delivering to the pound would be the appropriate thing to do. Those dogs were killed through no fault of their own. THey were being dogs.OK, they need to watch for bobcats, wild boars, coyotes, etc. If that had happened to my dog, and I was afraid it would happen again, I would build an airtight perimeter fence around my house. Not just around the property, around the house, where I could keep an eye on my children and my dogs all the time. A true dog owner first wouldn't pay for a frigging dog when there are so many in need of adoption, that's an ego need. Secondly, a true dog lover would never ever be able to kill a dog for being a dog. The owners of the dog, maybe. Sue them, definitely. But kill innocent dogs for being what they are...never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Secondly, a true dog lover would never ever be able to kill a dog for being a dog. Dog-lover is relative. Dog lovers really don't love dogs that kill the dog they love.Does reporting a dog to animal control lead to some sort of 3 strikes rule or equivalent. If i report my neighbors dog so many times, and they have to come out and capture them every time.. How long before repeat offenders are put under? Or forced to be given away, where they might or might not be successfully given away.. and if not, put under.What happens after they are captured the 10th time, they once again escape their property and kill my replacement dog?Dog-loving is relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 If that had happened to my dog, and I was afraid it would happen again, I would build an airtight perimeter fence around my house. Not just around the property, around the house, where I could keep an eye on my children and my dogs all the time. If that happened to you... as the violator or the violatee ?If the former, why should you be forced to contain your kids and dogs to your house and not enjoy the full run of your property?If the latter... they tried, but didn't try hard enough. But same with the former.. why shouldnt their dogs be allowed to have the full run of their property?Your solution isnt very reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I find fault with both of them, but frankly, I find the Mandola's apparent solution to be most reprehensible.Gotta love the neighborliness of big city folk on their ranches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 alleged solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 alleged solution Perhaps, but just to be on the safe side, how about I not eat at any of their restaurants? Because, now 'I live in fear' that I might be patronizing a dog killer's establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 You're still a lawyer, arent ya... whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? But you go right ahead and miss out on some of the best italian in the city anyways. Me... As long as the dog doesnt end up in the meata-balls, i could care less... You say Dog killer. I say alleged revenge seeker of a dog lover. .... which may i add, it was within his legal right to shoot the dogs once they entered his property since they had already killed his pet. Mind passing the veal picatta since you won't be eating it ? Perhaps, but just to be on the safe side, how about I not eat at any of their restaurants? Because, now 'I live in fear' that I might be patronizing a dog killer's establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Calling the pound would be the appropriate thing to do. Trapping and delivering to the pound would be the appropriate thing to do. Those dogs were killed through no fault of their own. THey were being dogs. OK, they need to watch for bobcats, wild boars, coyotes, etc. If that had happened to my dog, and I was afraid it would happen again, I would build an airtight perimeter fence around my house. Not just around the property, around the house, where I could keep an eye on my children and my dogs all the time. A true dog owner first wouldn't pay for a frigging dog when there are so many in need of adoption, that's an ego need. Secondly, a true dog lover would never ever be able to kill a dog for being a dog. The owners of the dog, maybe. Sue them, definitely. But kill innocent dogs for being what they are...never! The dogs were killed through a fault of their owner. A true dog owner would've restricted the movement of their dogs onto their neighbors' property, especially after the incident with the poodle. Whether that kind of aggressive behavior against the poodle was excusably dog-like or not, the neighbor ought to have realized that excessive reactionary behavior is very human-like, and understood that their dogs were at risk from a potential predator, and therefore taken steps (like improving a fence) to protect their dogs from themselves. If the owner was unable to take protective steps, then the owner needed to either re-evaluate his position as a dog owner or come to expect that there may be a dark day in the cards for one or more of his animals. Now that the dark day has come and gone, the neighbor needs to accept what happened and not be so damned pissy about it. As for Mandola, he's an asshole, but that's just typical human behavior and we shouldn't shun him for being who he is...right? A true dog owner first wouldn't pay for a frigging dog when there are so many in need of adoption, that's an ego need. Different breeds have different characteristics, and those characteristics are highly predictable even if you get one as a pup whose personality doesn't yet show through. If you want to ensure that a dog has a temperament to be family friendly, or to be a good working dog, or to tolerate and enjoy various recreational activities, or to get along well with other dogs, etc., then breed can be very important. Some people also pick a breed based on their tolerances for allergies. I, myself, don't pick friends on the basis of who is the neediest person I can find, but on the basis of how well we're going to click. Same with pets, and breed is relevant to the decision. I guess you could consider that egotistical, but if so, then what's wrong with egotism? I would be inclined to believe that people who maximally enjoy their pets are going to tend to take better care of them in a relationship that is mutually beneficial and extremely healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Me... As long as the dog doesnt end up in the meata-balls, i could care less... I'm a firm believer that one should eat what they kill.That reminds me, does anybody know of a restaurant in Houston that serves rattlesnake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 You're still a lawyer, arent ya... whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? But you go right ahead and miss out on some of the best italian in the city anyways. Me... As long as the dog doesnt end up in the meata-balls, i could care less... You say Dog killer. I say alleged revenge seeker of a dog lover. .... which may i add, it was within his legal right to shoot the dogs once they entered his property since they had already killed his pet. Mind passing the veal picatta since you won't be eating it ? Actually, it is my experience in criminal law that would cause me to make them prime suspects. The dogs' lives were threatened prior to their deaths, they had plenty of motive, all 3 dogs were killed, making it unlikely that it was accidental, and all 3 carcasses were found together in a trash heap. Further, the dogs were reported to be on the property, and then the call was canceled. And, the owner of the dogs was not notified that the dogs were again trespassing...something that would be expected, since the Mandola's were so upset about the previous trespass. Circumstantially, it is very likely that the dogs met an unnatural demise. Now, that said, the Mandola's were within their legal right to kill the trespassing dogs. However, I am aware of no law that requires me to approve of every legal action that a person takes. While I doubt I would be impressed with a neighbor who takes to his helicopter to look for his dogs, neither am I impressed with neighbors who threaten to shoot everything that they legally can. I don't think I'd want EITHER of these people as neighbors. They don't sound very neighborly at all. As for his restaurants, it is an empty threat, as I haven't eaten in one of his joints in over 5 years. Anyone trying to keep their weight somewhere south of 200 pounds (as I am) wouldn't go near the place. You can't boycott a place you never go to anyway. EDIT: I need to be clear that I am not excusing the action (or inaction) of the developer in not making sure his dogs did not trespass again. He was an irresponsible owner. I just believe the apparent or alleged response on the other side of the fence is ALSO reprehensible, even if legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 As for Mandola, he's an asshole, but that's just typical human behavior and we shouldn't shun him for being who he is...right? Alleged asshole. Though he does did own a poodle... wouldnt have pictured him with a poodle. I hate poodles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Alleged asshole. Though he does did own a poodle... wouldnt have pictured him with a poodle. I hate poodles. I hate poodles too, and agree with you that Mandola owning one shocks the senses, but I have to agree with Red that the circumstantial evidence indicating that he called the shot is extremely compelling. Not quite as compelling as that OJ killed his wife, but more compelling than that Michael Jackson molested children. So I'm personally ready to render judgment. He is an asshole. Unless there was a legitimate, material, and immediate threat to my family, property, or animals, the shooting was ethically unjustified; entrapment or another non-lethal deterrent would have been preferable. I admit that I could be wrong in passing ethical judgment. I know that it's happened before and will happen again, but whether I am correct or not really doesn't bear any consequences. It should be clear after so many posts on HAIF that I have little sense of shame. I'd be a whole lot more conservative on arriving at a legal judgment if I were on a jury his trial, though. Red is correct that what is legal is not always ethical and that what is ethical is not always legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So I'm personally ready to render judgment. He is an asshole. Unless there was a legitimate, material, and immediate threat to my family, property, or animals, the shooting was ethically unjustified; entrapment or another non-lethal deterrent would have been preferable.Red is correct that what is legal is not always ethical and that what is ethical is not always legal.Fair enough. And i agree that it wasnt the best move on his part, even though it was within his rights.I'm just not so bleedy heart over the other dogs in this situation since i see the neighbor as more to blame for the situation as a whole... also my stance is in no small part dictated by the Madduxs being painted as the victim in the story... oh woe is them, their dogs were murdered. Yah it sucks.. but your dogs started it and your failure to fix the situation led to this outcome. MAdduxs are no victim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Yah it sucks.. but your dogs started it and your failure to fix the situation led to this outcome. MAdduxs are no victim...Concur. I still think that the Madduxes and the Mandolas should've sat down together over a meal of St. Bernard...as co-chefs of a sort. At the very least, the meat should've been processed and donated to the homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.