Real-life MMD:Dogs destroyed neighbour's signed ball. Should we replace it?

meher

magentalady wrote: »

Meher - I don't agree with you that the dog owners must be irresponsible just because their dogs played with a football and damaged it in the process. But even if I did, that's not really even what's being debated here.

In my opinion, asking the neighbour to purchase a brand-new signed ball to replace one that you were happy to give to your kids to kick about is completely unreasonable.

I know what you mean about not creating strawmen, but surely you can see that if you allow your kids to play with valuable items and drop them into your neighbour's garden then you have to take SOME responsibility for what happens to them?

thanks i appreciate what you;re saying, but i happen to think what is being discussed is individual perceptipn and not for someone else to decide what should be discussed

irresponsibility might not the moot point but it is very much part of the issue because this dog owner cannot absolve from the fact that they are responsible for the dog and its actions, much as we like to hand wave it off and conveniently park the blame on a little child instead

magentalady wrote: »

then kicking it around a garden and over the fence would already have severely reduced the value of the football. How much do you think a beaten-up, grass-stained football signed by Wayne Rooney is worth, exactly?

i cannot believe this logic - who are you and me to decide a value of an item, just because he was kicking it around in his own garden, does that mean that the value of the ball is reduced. i'm shocked to lengths folks go to evade responsibility

And they have to pay a price for what happened, they cannot just say, he is threateneing therefor i won't pay - he is entiteled to get angry but the dog owner cannot afford to reciprocate that anger because they are completely responsible for what happened and the loss is entirely the neighbor's child's. i like to speak up for justice for the subject that has suffered loss.

And missrlr, please don't measure me by your standards - you may call children, brat, clearly demonstrating what you think about children, but that's your personality, do not project that onto me. i'm only interested in justice - not the subject, dog or the child. i believe the dog owner is completely out of order, looking for excuse and justifications to avoid paying up. No resonsibility, no integrity and arrogance to boot. Disgraceful.

happyinflorida

No don't buy a valuable ball replacement.

Their child should not have been kicking a valuable ball around - especially kicking it so hard that it went over a 6 foot fence into their neighbour's garden, where there just happened to be 3 dogs.

It would be generous of you to offer to buy a replacement football but no way should you be made to buy a signed ball.

They and their child should learn a lesson from this.

If they want to go to court, let them. Counter claim for your time off work - take your wage/salary slips along with you to prove how much you earn and the judge should give that to you as this would be a ridiculous claim to even try and take to court.

Good luck with your neighbour - hopefully they'll move soon and if they carry on this way you might want to think about moving!

magentalady

meher wrote: »

the dog owner cannot afford to reciprocate that anger because they are completely responsible for what happened and the loss is entirely the neighbor's child's.

How is the dog owner responsible for the fact that a valuable item was kicked into his/her garden?

To put it another way and illustrate my view on this, is the owner responsible the dogs destroying a football? Yes, quite possibly. But is the owner responsible for the dogs destroying a valuable, signed football?

I can completely understand why you feel that the owners need to take some responsibility for their dogs' actions, but your suggestion that the neighbour and his son are 100% blameless for what happened to this valuable item is completely baffling to me. I do not mean to disrespect your opinion, I am just curious as to how you can justify that view.

coxeey

It can't be worth much if the kids have been playing football with it, even if is genuine. It probably isnt....ask to see the proof of purchase anyway.

Keep your eye on your dogs, if one has an adverse reaction you may need to take it to the vets and claim damages from your neighbour for allowing a ball to come in that your dog nearly choked on. He he he.
I wouldn't even get him another because that sets a precedent.

WinchesterBlue

Whilst I can see everyone's point here about not replacing the ball, there's one issue that's not been commented on.

Whilst your neighbour's approach is hardly neighbourly you need to be a little careful about going onto a war footing so to speak otherwise you could end up in a miserable conflict situation and we've all heard about such cases I suspect.

On the assumption that things haven't already escalated it'd hopefully be possible to agree a compromise although they'd need to drop the 'valuable' point because it isn't once the ball has been kicked about. Perhaps each pay half and you agree to get it so that they'll know its cash out time before delivery - you can them return it if the money isn't handed over.

You'll need to watch your dogs by the way and ask yourself what might have happened had the child been in the act of recovering the ball when the dogs got out.

meher

magentalady wrote: »

your suggestion that the neighbour and his son are 100% blameless for what happened to this valuable item is completely baffling to me. I do not mean to disrespect your opinion, I am just curious as to how you can justify that view.

Thanks, but you perhaps fail to see that whether the child is to be blamed or not is irrelevant here. This is like blaming the rape victim for wearing a mini or midi or being blamed for walking in the dark on their own when attacked, i know this is little too much but you get the jist surely. Children play with their toys and footballs and kites and many other gadgets and they may land on their neighbours garden - Normal. The neighbors dogs destroying it beyond recognition, neighbour refusing to address their grievance, arrogantly responding and aggravating their feelings - Abnormal.

RedGBarn

Do we know if Wayne Rooney is capable of signing his own name?

meher

RedGBarn wrote: »

Do we know if Wayne Rooney is capable of signing his own name?

actually one post i agree with, 'course very much on topic

i would understand if it was signed by that beautiful frenchman, yoann gourcuff, gift to womankind - i wouldn't weep over a single british footballers signature (neither would i pay a penny, in fact they would have to pay me :happylove:rotfl::p to let them vandelise my property with their signature)

magentalady

meher wrote: »

This is like blaming the rape victim for wearing a mini or midi or being blamed for walking in the dark on their own when attacked, i know this is little too much but you get the jist surely.

I'm sorry, WHAT?

I don't think you are getting my point here that a signed football with potentially high value (and I do mean monetary value here, not sentimental) should not have been used as a toy in the first place, but in any case, I'm done here. The idea that this situation is in ANY WAY comparable to a rape is just unfathomable and downright disgusting. 'A little too much'? You think?

I'm out.

meher

you're just overeacting, like many others who like to take a moral stand and look good for popularity sake by dissing other peoples views, which is quite a trend on these discussion boards because we do suffer some folks who post here to look for accolades they probably don't receive enough of

you misrepresent my post and that is not my problem, it is your problem in understanding basic principles, principles on a micro level - i stand by my views, sorry you cannot see conflicting views, in good faith

i look at the principle of blaming, dispassionately and it is the same in each incident, the victim is blamed and asked to excercise caution instead of making the aggressor pay for damages