It's legal for me to leave my car outside unlocked with the keys in it. Doesn't mean I'm not at fault if it gets stolen.
So because it's your fault would we just ignore the fact that your car was stolen.
So what was the point of killing the fawn then?
According to whom? I don't know the lady's actual intention. She could've genuinely feared for her life or maybe she just feared for her tomatoes. Or maybe after seventy-six years of living with deer she'd had e-****ing-nough and decided to fight back.
Don't think eating your plants is considered damaging your property and I don't see how a 25 lb fawn laying in her garden is a threat to her safety.
If you had a slice of pizza and I ate it would you be upset? Now imagine that you grew the pizza. Her garden is her property and other people or animals ****ing with it or eating it is damage.
As far as not understanding how it could be a threat to her safety? I once got tazed by an elderly lady at a Wal-Mart. She'd dropped something from her bag and when I went to return it she thought I was attacking her.
It's possible for her to percieve that the deer was dangerous, in fact, the deer might have been dangerous. Even a 25 pound deer can run pretty quick and might even be able to knock an elderly lady down.
You're using the term "damaging your property" very loosely, IMO.
Really? It was her property, the deer was eating it. What's not to understand.
Hmmm...I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I can believe that it would be legal to kill an animal that is a threat to your safety but I don't think you can just kill anything that walks on your property. Does that mean you can shoot your neighbor's dog cause he pees on your plants? Since peeing on them can potentially kill them....that's damage. I'm pretty sure you'd get in trouble for that.
I didn't say you could kill any thing that walked on your property I said that you can legally kill animals that are already considered pests if they are damaging your property.
The list in most places includes deer because they are notorious for eating personal vegatable gardens. In a situation where someone killed an animal like this (again, in my state) they would probably get a citation for hunting without a permit or out of season unless they could prove that the animal was on their property and that it was damaging their property.
FYI, the list also includes squirrels, birds, mice and other rodents, insects, and wild dogs or wild cats.
I'd like to know what this "damage" is that this fawn was causing. You're making it sound like it tore up her prize winning garden and caused thousands of dollars in damage. Also remember, she said she had been having problems with deer for some time, how do we know that THIS fawn was the one causing all the damage. Perhaps this was the first time the fawn was ever there. In which case, she killed the fawn for doing nothing. Just pointing out there are an awful lot of assumptions going on here.
Deer have been eating her foods that she owns and that she's growing. There is a deer in her garden. It is not unreasonable to make an assumption that this deer has participated.
You guys are acting like this fawn has a right to a fair trial and to stand accused of eating up her garden. That's simply not the case. The only thing she needs to do is to prove that her garden had been damaged by a deer and that the deer was on her property when she killed it.
She isn't being punished for anything yet. From what I can tell they are still deciding on what, if any, charges to bring her up on.
True, but the authorities know about it. She is being punished to the letter of the law, it just happens that the law hasn't decided yet.
So in other words..."What's the big deal? It's just an animal." Nice.
Please do not put words into my mouth. That's not at all what I said or meant.
What I said was that killing an animal that was damaging your property isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. Obviously we're all at a disadvantage not knowing the state laws, testimonies, or having any real evidence.
My main point, agreeing with Norman, is that it is okay to have empathy for a lady who was upset because her garden was getting eaten and ruined and who could've been afraided or startled by a wild animal in her yard.
It's understandable to be upset when any animal gets killed, especially by a human. However to read the story and immediately side with the deer without trying to see this from the human perspective is just strange.
I mean Christ before the end of the first page she'd been compared to Micheal Vick (it was recanted later, but doesn't change that it was made). We're talking about a human being that killed a deer. An activity that stand-alone with no other information is not necessarily illegal. Hell I've got a cousin who had killed 3 of them before he was out of junior high school.
I'm just saying that it would've been nice to start this thread with people considering her reasons as "possibily" valid instead of dismissing her method of killing and reasons for killing off hand just because they don't like the idea of a cute little deer getting it's skull bashed in.
I don't defend hurting an animal of this sort (though I would defend killing a predatory one) but once the deed is done, an wild animal underneath a few feet of terra firma isn't going to raise anyone's eyebrows.
