Challenge to Libertarians
Re: Arizona. If you can be forced to put a “dangerous dog” sign in your yard, should you be required to post a “dangerous child” sign — if circumstances warranted it? Is there any real difference in the two types of ordinances? If something on your property is potentially dangerous to others, should the source of the danger — as opposed to the magnitude of the threat — make any difference?
This dog was declared “dangerous” for chasing a duck into a pond.
Photo credit: Nathan Husinger/Dallas Morning News
I can’t believe that the jury voted against the dog. What dog wouldn’t chase a duck. It’s in their DNA.
Ditto Vicki. A clear miscarriage of justice.
Here’s one distinction worth making. The dog can’t read the sign, but a child can. So the dog isn’t injured by the sign, but arguably the child could be.
So, I think the different standard arises not with respect to the parent, but because the child has rights that dogs do not.
I think you should get a discount on homeowners insurance if you post a dangerous dog sign.
Presumably, Beware the Dog! is a sign to warn electric meter readers (who have the legal right to enter a fenced in property to read the meter) and postal workers.
Interesting. Suppose your child is a psycho. Do you have a duty to warn potential victims? Probably. How far can the state go in forcing that warning? Probably not very far. Especially if the warning stigmatizes the child and could possibly make him even more dangerous than he otherwise would have been.
Years ago my (then) father-in-law was advised by his attorney to post “no trespassing” and “do not enter” signs around his property so that if he shot a burglar, the intruder could not use the defense that the homeowner’s intentions were not clear. This sign seems about as ludicrous.
Yea!! That darn dog; runnin around, causing chaos, doing dog stuff….. You know what? We should strip our houses of electrical wires too. My little cousin was shocked after he stuck a pair of tweezers in an outlet. He’s ok, wasn’t even really hurt, but that darn electricity! And let’s also replace all sidewalk concrete with nerf. I fell and scrapped my knee last summer and actually started to BLEED! I have been injured! I need to be safe when I walk down the street, even if the injury is my own fault……
The Plano ordinance is an unreasonable intrusion into private property rights, but to contest it, you would have to go to a court of record — which municipal courts aren’t, unless the judges are elected. But most city councils view municipal courts as revenue-raisers, and elections as inconveniences, so they appoint the judges. This fellow would have to go to district court to contest the law.
Have any of you seen “The Bad Seed”? It’s a classic. And after you see the movie, revisit this question and ask yourself, “What duty did the mother have to warn potential victims of her daughter’s homicidal tendencies”?
I think there is a difference between the mother of a psychopath having a duty to warn and the state’s having the right to require a warning without proof of any crime actually being commmitted.
Still the idea of requiring the little girl to wear a scarlet (what? an “M”?) letter makes for an intriguing moral dilemma. Think of the possibilites for a movie sequel.
Hahaha!
And I want an injunction against my neighbor’s cat, who I have witnessed stalking a bird. No cat lady should be allowed to skirt the system!
In other news, goats are suing in British high court to mandate a “Dangerous Human” sign be placed outside the homes of scary individuals.
How is this all that different from requiring sex offenders to register? Isn’t that sort of like requiring them to post a sign?
Beyond absurd. There are far more children I’d like to see muzzled and tricked out with a warning sign than dogs. I believe teenagers can be far more hazardous than cute blue-eyed puppies.
The dog should move to Boulder, Colorado. In Boulders, pets are not owned, they have guardians. As the pets therefore presumably have rights, they, or more likely their attorney who would be hired by their guardian, might have standing to object to the libelous sign.
Linda, it sounds like you live in the People’s Republic of Boulder.
My wife won’t let me put a sign in my yard that says:
IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? TRESPASS AND FIND OUT
A duck belongs in a pond, doesn’t it? Mr. Dunne should counter-sue Plano for allowing its ducks to leave the municipal land, enter his private property, and harass his dog!
BTW, do you think there’s a law against putting up a “Dangerous Dog” warning sign when you don’t even have a dog? I have one I put out to dissuade politicians during campaign season.
@ John
Clever idea.
@ Juan
Not a clever idea.
Plano, Texas. I’m surprised the dogs not on death row.