That's weird, well I guess that I never really asked, so I don't know.Matt Oliver said:
Massachusetts represent!
Poll: would you kill a dog or pay $
- Thread starter Matt Oliver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Massachusetts represent!
we are the biggest pains in the world FTW we earned our nickname which i can't say and i'm tots one of emomega_peaches said:
Just correcting your grammar here. It isn't 'would of'. That's a pretty common mistake. It's 'would have' or 'would've'. I think it comes from the fact that 'would've' and 'would of' sound almost exactly the same when said aloud.Matt Oliver said:
Your dad is retarded, the driver behind you is at fault for a rear end incident, failure to maintain a safe distance.
I dont think youre legally required to do anything with the dog, I think your dad is full of shit.
I mean, I think the person rear ending you could make some kind of argument out of how it was all your fault, due to your lack of 'dealing' with the dog. I doubt the law says anything about that and if anything would come to a specific scenario where someone was even behind you and could possibly rear end you in the first place.
So I choose neither, wait and shoo the dog away or for their owner to bring them away and if anyone has a problem with that, then fuck 'em they can wait.
I mean, I think the person rear ending you could make some kind of argument out of how it was all your fault, due to your lack of 'dealing' with the dog. I doubt the law says anything about that and if anything would come to a specific scenario where someone was even behind you and could possibly rear end you in the first place.
So I choose neither, wait and shoo the dog away or for their owner to bring them away and if anyone has a problem with that, then fuck 'em they can wait.
While you're not legally required to hit an animal in a car, in Australia, at least, you can't endanger human life for that of an animal's.
For example, if stopping for the dog would possibly have somebody run into the back of you, you have to run it over.
In this case, I would run it over, but if there's no chance that I'm endangering someone's life, I'd stop for it.
For example, if stopping for the dog would possibly have somebody run into the back of you, you have to run it over.
In this case, I would run it over, but if there's no chance that I'm endangering someone's life, I'd stop for it.
Legally required? That can't be true. I'm sure your dad is exaggerating. Though if it were me, I'd pull over and check the dog for a collar. If it had a tag, I'd call the owner and tell him/her that their freaking stupid dog was insisting on circling my car and they better come and rescue the darn thing and keep a better eye on it or someone really will run the stupid mutt over one day. If there is no tag on the collar or signs of a collar being there but not anymore, I'd take it to the pound. If there is no collar, I'd get back into my car and whatever happens next is not my problem. After all, it could be running out into the middle of roads and circling cars because it's crazy (and quite possibly rabid). If it actually does belong to someone, their fault. They should have gotten their dog a collar.
Taking a life and causing a family a lot of heartbreak vs a chance of getting run into. Tough choice.
I'm going to be all edgy and say that causing death and pain is worse than a chance of losing money.
I'm going to be all edgy and say that causing death and pain is worse than a chance of losing money.
This was basically my first thought.toue said:
In the United States, the person at fault in a rear end collision is the person in the back, even if it is in reality 100% the fault of the person in front. The police WILL blame the person in the back, saying such things as "You were following too close" or"You were not paying attention."
A buddy of mine was in an accident on the highway on the way to work. The guy in front of him was texting and dropped his phone, reached down to get it, and swerved over about half a lane. He realized what he was doing and, instead of going back to his lane, slammed on his brakes.
If he had not admitted fault to the police, it would have been my buddy's fault for rear ending the dumbass.
OT- Absolutely not. Even if it would be my fault in an accident for stopping to not kill a dog. I like dogs.
Yah, that's not a law in MA or anywhere else as far as I know. Also in MA if the dog had an owner the owner would have been at fault if you hit the dog and it did damage to your car.
You're dad is wrong in good old Massachusetts the person who does the rear ending is always at fault no matter what. You could have slammed on your brakes being an asshole and if someone hit you it would be their fault.Matt Oliver said:
Not so much legally required, I think. It's more along the lines of human life > dog life and if the road was busy, you would be expected to kill the dog rather than stop.
And, based on my own experience, I'd much rather pay than kill the dog. My dog of sixteen years was hit by a car last September, and I was devastated. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
And, based on my own experience, I'd much rather pay than kill the dog. My dog of sixteen years was hit by a car last September, and I was devastated. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I've never driven straight into an animal and never would. Besides, it's the person who runs into you who is seen as at fault, unless they can prove extenuating circumstances. Chances are, the person behind you has time to stop without hitting you. If they don't, they've either seen you and decided ramming you from behind is a good idea, or they've been driving dangerously close to you.
No - you don't have to kill the dog. The law makes exceptions for these things. And even if I did, I wouldn't - I'd pay a fine. There's a trick to getting dogs to move away - just honk the horn loudly and drive slowly, ever so slowly away, whilst picking up speed gradually. Dogs have pretty fast reaction times (well, most of the dogs I've had have had good reaction times), so they'll move out of the way.
But yeah - don't kill the dog unnecessarily. I'm not a vegan, vegetarian or PETA person, but if you don't have to kill something, then don't. I understand what your Dad is saying, and I agree that a Dog's life isn't worth as much as a Human's life, but a Dog can still feel pain and I think that saving the dog's life is more than worth the fine.
But yeah - don't kill the dog unnecessarily. I'm not a vegan, vegetarian or PETA person, but if you don't have to kill something, then don't. I understand what your Dad is saying, and I agree that a Dog's life isn't worth as much as a Human's life, but a Dog can still feel pain and I think that saving the dog's life is more than worth the fine.