Bad Campground Neighboor

Vulcaneer wrote:


Sorry... I didn't read your post that way. If the dog is "non threatening" why would you issue the "warning" you are about to defend yourself?

I know you are feigning genuine confusion to get my goat...again, but if you really can't figure it out, no amount of explanation will help. Fortunately, I don't need your agreement or permission.

The law protects the criminal.

I don't agree. But that doesn't mean people can just run amuck, there has to be valid safety/threat. But again, you're baiting... :R

Vulcaneer;

example: A road rage incident. A big man comes at you holding a 2X4. He strikes and damages the mirror on your truck with his board. You get out (empty handed) of the truck to confront him. Do not touch him. Not even a finger on his chest. If he pushes you, you have a right to defend yourself. If he doesn't touch you, you have no right to escalate the conflict.

That's not entirely true. If you can show that a reasonable person would be in fear of their life or of significant harm or that someone else is in danger of death or great harm an individual may use deadly force in almost every state if not all states, (sorry Canadians, I'm unsure of where you'd stand).

If you've climbed out of your truck or car, picked up a 2x4, taken out my mirror and now stand in front of me and aren't apologizing profusely and offering to pay for the damage then it's possible you'd be looking down the barrel of a gun.

Every situation is different and each has it's nuances and twists but, in the end, if you treat every situation like the person in the OP then you are a part of the problem... Bad men and good men and all that...

DiskDoctr wrote:

I was talking about the dog being the threat in the above scenario, but, yes, the same would apply to ANY threat to my family.

diskdoctr wrote:
Now, a jerk next to us who refuses to control his (non-threatening?) Dog may be granted the, "I am about to defend myself" warning after the second time.

Sorry... I didn't read your post that way. If the dog is "non threatening" why would you issue the "warning" you are about to defend yourself?

The right thing to do is complain to the owner. And if that does not get results, then call in the authorities. Have them deal with the bully. They know how to deal with him and not put you in jeopardy. Of course, if you want to handle it yourself, you are one your own. You could end up wishing you hadn't handled it that way. Even though you may think you are right. The law protects the criminal.

Vulcaneer wrote:

DiskDoctr wrote:
If there is a threat, I fully intend to meet it with overwhelming force until the threat is resolved.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to agree with you, I think this might be a legal problem. A mere threat is not actionable. However, an action upon you may be defensible.

example: A road rage incident. A big man comes at you holding a 2X4. He strikes and damages the mirror on your truck with his board. You get out (empty handed) of the truck to confront him. Do not touch him. Not even a finger on his chest. If he pushes you, you have a right to defend yourself. If he doesn't touch you, you have no right to escalate the conflict.

Actually happened to me. But he did touch me...rather violently...It didn't end well for him. And it was an expensive court case. But in our state, the plaintiff has the right to reimbursement of court costs. So he ended up in the hospital, and with about $250,000 in legal costs. Important fact...good thing there was a video camera to show the facts of the case.

So as much as you want to display your testosterone, it is best to not let any conflict become direct contact. Not only for legal entanglements. But also for the media embarrassment, and fallout on your family and job, etc.

I was talking about the dog being the threat in the above scenario, but, yes, the same would apply to ANY threat to my family.

Any father who wouldn't, isn't.

While I appreciate your personal experience, we're not talking about chest pounding and punching a guy in the nose because he lips off. A big part of successfully eliminating a threat is understanding what is actually a threat, quite different than hurting one's feelings.

One must understand the difference and align his actions as appropriate.

I didn't read all 8 pages of this thread. The campground neighbor was very impolite and there are rules about keeping your pets leashed. She should have called the campground office or even the police and complained. As for the rules on pit bulls, there are nothing wrong with pit-bull. I have some friends that have them and they are very gentle and well behaved dogs. It all depends on how they are raised. It's unfair to blame the breed of the dog for the owners problems.

DiskDoctr wrote:
If there is a threat, I fully intend to meet it with overwhelming force until the threat is resolved.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to agree with you, I think this might be a legal problem. A mere threat is not actionable. However, an action upon you may be defensible.

example: A road rage incident. A big man comes at you holding a 2X4. He strikes and damages the mirror on your truck with his board. You get out (empty handed) of the truck to confront him. Do not touch him. Not even a finger on his chest. If he pushes you, you have a right to defend yourself. If he doesn't touch you, you have no right to escalate the conflict.

Actually happened to me. But he did touch me...rather violently...It didn't end well for him. And it was an expensive court case. But in our state, the plaintiff has the right to reimbursement of court costs. So he ended up in the hospital, and with about $250,000 in legal costs. Important fact...good thing there was a video camera to show the facts of the case.

So as much as you want to display your testosterone, it is best to not let any conflict become direct contact. Not only for legal entanglements. But also for the media embarrassment, and fallout on your family and job, etc.

et2:

There's a fine line between stupidity and bravery.

Indeed. Unfortunately we witness far too many instances of the fine line between good sense and a distinct lack of intestinal fortitude.

et2 wrote:
There's a fine line between stupidity and bravery.

I agree.

To be quite clear,there is a Big difference between reporting a dog running loose and defending your family.

The first is up to the authority, who may or may not take action. In the case of the second? Make no bones about it, if I feel my family is threatened (I can usually tell the difference between bravado and a genuine threat), I do not back up a single step.

If there is a threat, I fully intend to meet it with overwhelming force until the threat is resolved.

A friendly dog trying to say hi to everyone can be annoying and I may say something about it, but if it were a perceived threat, there are no warnings given.

Now, a jerk next to us who refuses to control his (non-threatening?) Dog may be granted the, "I am about to defend myself" warning after the second time.

If a ranger comes by, I would likely mention it, if it continued to be a problem. In our experience, they are usually friendly and helpful, but I wouldn't rely on them to defend me in a confrontation as the OP seemed to fear may have happened.

Sharing space requires flexibility and tolerance from everyone. There is a hard line when safety is a concern. But you do need to pick your battles. It's not the same as rolling over when faced with a bully.

It's about making smart choices and showing extra patience when possible.

Hope this clarifies my earlier response.

“Then A guy and his wife brought a pitbull and was camping next to her. She was always afraid of dogs,guy insisted on letting dog run free and onto her site. Her boyfriend asked guy to keep dog on his own site. This guy cursed them out using the blank you word and said im from NY this is my campground. My cousin packed up and left.I cant believe a state park would allow pitbulls ,maybe he didn't tell them. I told her she should have reported this guy to the rangers. But their camping was ruined and they left. “

Well as all rants go this one is from a one sided view of a situation, but is farther one step removed and relayed with a second bias to top the first…

Much gets lost in the translation of a rant and its spin… even more the second time around…

It seems there is contributing facts from all the parties to the problem… first and foremost the apprehension of the cousin about dogs… the reported refusal of the neighbor to control his dog and his insistence to allow it to run free… the manner in which the cousins boyfriend told the neighbor to keep the dog out… then the apparent quick departure from the CG opposed to any resolution…

I still have to wonder who is most at fault… no excuses, certainly the dog owner should always have the dog leashed (by rule, if nothing else) but was this truly a irresponsible dog owner or a simple case of the dog that escaped that control… while ultimately it was the dog owners fault even if it was a brief escape of his pet, to me it seems there was a shared responsibility of the problem driven by apprehension and fear, not allowing enough time or effort to resolve the problem…

The problem made worse by the OP’s apprehension of what is called by some as a pit-bull and the negative reputation they must carry, deserved or not…

Better communication might have resolved the entire problem without escalation, and if not allowing the park authorities to handle the problem would have in almost all cases…