Local woman allows dog to defecate on grave

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Unlike a dog pooping in a cemetery, Vancouver rioting was not a victimless crime.

Not the point, but i'll roll with the punches.

If there is a crime, there is usually a victim- no matter how insignificant.

The person who was buried there (or family) has paid THOUSANDS of dollars to be respected in peace at a burial site that is free from dogs. They are the ones who are the victims.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

A lake serves as a resting place for someone, much like a cemetery. They serve the exact same purpose in this instance.

A lake serves a resting place for a someone who wants to have their "resting place" be in that specific lake. Now maybe they requested that all the fish and wildlife in the area be terminated, so their resting place isn't soiled by animal poop, but I've never heard of that happening.

A cemetery, on the other hand, is a place, usually in the middle of town and with a fence around it, a gate, and a sign that says "no dogs". See! There is a difference!

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Or you are talking about a lady who goes for a walk with her dog in a quiet area. I think that the assumption that is being made is that she is bringing her dog out to explicitly "crap on another person's grave". If she was doing that, then I would agree, but if it is just that she was talking her dog for a walk and enjoys the tranquility of the cemetery then I don't see the major issue other than breaking a minor rule related to no pets being allowed.

Find another quiet area. That quiet area isn't for dogs. And don't dogs generally go to the bathroom when they are out for a walk?

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If a stranger takes rover out for a walk and rover take a dump on the grave and the person then picks up the dump and carries on their day, I don't think it is a big deal at all and uncle gus can't be reached for comment at the current time.

Fair enough, I guess. I gotta admit I'm kind of a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff. Last night I got pretty drunk and when I was walking home, I took a piss on the war memorial on Memorial Drive. I probably could have waited and just used the toilet at home or even taken a leak in the back alley, but why bother? I mean hey, they're all dead, right? What's the difference?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by krynski

Not the point, but i'll roll with the punches.

If there is a crime, there is usually a victim- no matter how insignificant.

The person who was buried there (or family) has paid THOUSANDS of dollars to be respected in peace at a burial site that is free from dogs. They are the ones who are the victims.

And how were these victims being harmed?

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

And how were these victims being harmed?

She is not going to bang you.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Find another quiet area. That quiet area isn't for dogs. And don't dogs generally go to the bathroom when they are out for a walk?


Fair enough, I guess. I gotta admit I'm kind of a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff. Last night I got pretty drunk and when I was walking home, I took a piss on the war memorial on Memorial Drive. I probably could have waited and just used the toilet at home or even taken a leak in the back alley, but why bother? I mean hey, they're all dead, right? What's the difference?

But lets say you were walking your dog (off leash no less) and your dog took a crap beside the war memorial and you cleaned it up after... I don't think anyone would have a problem with the situation.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by DOOM

She is not going to bang you.

The dead lady? I would sure hope not.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by krynski

How about the pictures from Vancouver stanley cup final? Should those not be permissable in court? Should those people not be prosecuted for the actions they caused?

So we can not use valid examples from the past? Sure, I used a more influential example, but do you want me to tell you a story about my friend? I don't think you would be very moved by that.

Accountability and whistleblowing are at it's all-time highest, especially with cameraphones and the internet. Things that were acceptable in the past simply are not. I don't care how "good" these people are, if someone does something socially deviant, they are held accountable. If someone I know gets put in the spotlight, it's their fault. I do not care if I have a relationship with them or not.

What you feel and what I feel from poop on a grave may be entirely different. To me, s*** happens, but I would not allow my pet to defecate on anyone's grave, let alone property. It is up to the community to decide what is acceptable or not. A reasonable punishment (whether monetary or media) is not up to me or you to decide.

Remember the fundamentalism of our government. It is the people, elected by the people, to represent the people. If discussing anything on a public forum regarding this "poop" issue is not in the interest of the people, we would not be able to discuss it in this forum.

Surely you can tell the difference between a bylaw offense and criminal offense. Is it that important to catch the dog poop lady that internet vigilantes need to get involved? Nobody was hurt and no one's property was damaged. No insurance companies need to pay damages. No one is going to be out of a job because of it (except maybe lazy enforcement officers that are letting this heinous act go un punished!).

Again, I am not saying that what she did wasn't wrong, just that it doesn't deserve the attention or outrage that it is getting.

[Alberta_Beef]

I am with Pylon, I will eat some crow too.

CBC caught the same woman. Continue shaming her, because this is obviously a common occurrence for her.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Again, I am not saying that what she did wasn't wrong, just that it doesn't deserve the attention or outrage that it is getting.

Who are you to decide this?

I may not care very much, you may not care very much. It's not for us to judge who cares about it, but to respect their opinions and wishes. After all, they are paying good money for a tiny piece of land that is supposed to be taken care of in a particular manner.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

And how were these victims being harmed?

Troll

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by krynski

Troll

So in other words, they are not being harmed in any tangible or objective means, unless someone being subjectively disrespected in death now constitutes being harmed? The lady had a minor bylaw infraction of having a dog in a park (and a cemetery is considered a park by the city) in which dogs are prohibited.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Also does it bother you that animals evacuate their bowels in the lake that your dad's remains were scattered?

Until there is leash laws for fish, ducks and other wild animals, this is a different issue.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So in other words, they are not being harmed in any tangible or objective means, unless someone being subjectively disrespected in death now constitutes being harmed? The lady had a minor bylaw infraction of having a dog in a park (and a cemetery is considered a park by the city) in which dogs are prohibited.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I said one word: Troll

It's pretty clear that by saying "Troll", I am only saying you are a troll.

So in other words, you could other wise interpret it as: "You are a Troll" or "You are behaving like a Troll"

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

And how were these victims being harmed?

They have paid for a product that is being negatively impacted by someone. If you don't think urine or poo on a stone or plot is worse than without, there is something wrong with you.

You might not know this, but the person paying for the burial is not always the person being buried nor is the person in the ground necessarily the victim.

This young lady is either a 'subscriber' to this cemetery and is knowingly breaking rules or is basically desecrating something of which she has no authority. I would not doubt that the dog is also pissing on grave stones - is she also washing them?

I am willing to bet she has no business there and is simply using the land for which it has a clear intended use and instead is walking her dog there. She is using it as a fenced in off leash park. I assume that if someone went in cleaning up after her and did a good enough job documenting their cleanup, they would have a pretty good case against her.

Perhaps every dog in the area should go there from now on as their off leash park as well? This is a pretty bad debate - she has no business there with that dog.

[Turner]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

They have paid for a product that is being negatively impacted by someone. If you don't think urine or poo on a stone or plot is worse than without, there is something wrong with you.

You might not know this, but the person paying for the burial is not always the person being buried nor is the person in the ground necessarily the victim.

This young lady is either a 'subscriber' to this cemetery and is knowingly breaking rules or is basically desecrating something of which she has no authority. I would not doubt that the dog is also pissing on grave stones - is she also washing them?

I am willing to bet she has no business there and is simply using the land for which it has a clear intended use and instead is walking her dog there. She is using it as a fenced in off leash park. I assume that if someone went in cleaning up after her and did a good enough job documenting their cleanup, they would have a pretty good case against her.

Perhaps every dog in the area should go there from now on as their off leash park as well? This is a pretty bad debate - she has no business there with that dog.

Don't waste your time.

[Violator]

To the people that say its a dumb idea to post it toss off.

If somebody caught kids boozing it and kicking over headstones we would all be up in arms over the incident and scream bloody murder. Of all the places to take your dog for a walk this seems like the stupidest place to let your dog do its business. If your not ready and able for responsible dog ownership which includes having a suitable place for it to go to the bathroom then maybe you should not have pets that need to go outside.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

They have paid for a product that is being negatively impacted by someone.

Actually, it was only about 20 years ago that dogs were prohibited from the cemeteries at the top of the hill, before that dogs were permitted. I used to cut through there all the time to get to the escarpment above Roxoboro park where I liked to walk. When they prohibited dogs they also closed off the gap in the fence to the escarpment so now (different dog) I go through the park at the bottom of the hill. Most of the graves are over 100 years old, so no they didn't buy the plots on the expectation that dogs wouldn't walk across the grave sites and possibly do what dogs do.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Actually, it was only about 20 years ago that dogs were prohibited from the cemeteries at the top of the hill, before that dogs were permitted. I used to cut through there all the time to get to the escarpment above Roxoboro park where I liked to walk. When they prohibited dogs they also closed off the gap in the fence to the escarpment so now (different dog) I go through the park at the bottom of the hill. Most of the graves are over 100 years old, so no they didn't buy the plots on the expectation that dogs wouldn't walk across the grave sites and possibly do what dogs do.

Age of the plot is irrelevant.

It is not just a matter of someone breaking a bylaw here. Desecration of a grave is a crime and I think that a pretty good argument could be made that this is indeed that.

And it matters not if you agree with burial or are for cremation instead. It was the wishes of the deceased that they be buried and as such their wishes should be respected...and we have laws and bylaws in this country to ensure that is indeed what happens.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by redforever

Age of the plot is irrelevant.

It is not just a matter of someone breaking a bylaw here. Desecration of a grave is a crime and I think that a pretty good argument could be made that this is indeed that.

Okay, I'm willing to bend a bit to the "faux outrage" side of this argument, especially now that it seems she's still doing itm but there's no way in hell that an argument could be made that a dog's poop on the snow on top of a grave could be considered desecration of a grave under the criminal code, let alone a "pretty good argument".

That's a stretching it the length of the Trans Canada highway, lol.

Maybe one of our CP cops could weigh in, but I'd imagine there's no way in hell this could be considered a criminal act.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by redforever

Age of the plot is irrelevant.

It is not just a matter of someone breaking a bylaw here. Desecration of a grave is a crime and I think that a pretty good argument could be made that this is indeed that.

And it matters not if you agree with burial or are for cremation instead. It was the wishes of the deceased that they be buried and as such their wishes should be respected...and we have laws and bylaws in this country to ensure that is indeed what happens.

I doubt there is a court in this country that would convict someone for desecration of a grave because of that.

That would be like charging a panhandler with fraud because they had a fabricated sob story, or someone whose dog pees on a fire hydrant with vandalism.