2 ms·

That is not an answer. Did anything besides fetch happen at that park? I am asking to get at intent. It still appears the same to me. I have no new informat

That is not an answer. Did anything besides fetch happen at that park? I am asking to get at intent. It still appears the same to me. I have no new information.

giantg2 6y ago
Did you miss the part of the answer that says it's not just fetch?
- ddingus 6y ago
  Nope, but you missed the question of what happened in the park. :D Did anything other than fetch happen?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Then why did you say it was not an answer? The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant. Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash. That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions. Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Ahh! Here we go. Something other than fetch happened in the park! That still leaves the question of whether your activities outside the animal conflict were anything besides fetch and how those activities contribute to some articulable training regimen. The conflict changes the entire thing and it is relevant! Now someone has to answer the question about why your dog is not on a leash to the other dog owner. In my other comment, I spoke about fleshing this out some. That is what they need. Secondly, yeah path of least resistance is to not step up for you, report the call, and go through the motions. What incentive do they have to step up for you? How do they sell it to the other dog owner? After considerable, and entertaining by the way, discussion how your game is differentiated from any game of fetch remains unclear. In my view, this is likely the primary reason it went the way it did for you. That officer needed a clear, compelling reason to step up in your favor. Did not have it. I don't and have been looking for it, again as a general exercise. Nothing personal here man. Just found how this played out interesting.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      I said it was not an answer because it implied matters of intent and did not speak to intent directly, nor did it speak to either how your game of fetch is part of some articulable training, and or can be differentiated from any other game of fetch. You have said, "the actions we take" meaning either you and the dog, or you and others and the dog do something that is permitted, yes? I did not get clarity on what those actions were.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        The actions were the voice and hand commands as well as retrieving sticks and balls. All of this is moot anyways. After being subjected to pretrial restrictions under a charge they knew to be incorrect and was amended contrary to code, the case should have been dismissed.
        ddingus 6y ago
        It is moot. All I can say is your scenario does not include much that bolsters your case. Very surprised it went to trial. Was anyone, animal injured?
- ddingus 6y ago
  You also missed a direct question on intent; namely, "Reads to me like your intent was to play fetch and count on legal ambiguity. Was it?" So far we have nothing on the table to differentiate fetch play in the park from training as well.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    No. There's the letter from an official agency stating that the actions we perform are complaint with the law. Also, if there's no definition/differentiation then it goes to the defendant under the legal doctrine of lenity or even reasonable doubt. Hell, you can throw entrapment in there too if you got permission/clarification from the government and they later prosecuted you for it. You can throw in all the stuff you want about not having special equipment or a (non-existent) training license, but those facts alone would not be enough to prove guilt, especially when the majority of the people training don't have a training license nor special equipment. Remember, you're supposed to be innocent and the prosecution has the burden of proof. It seems that's not really the case when they take irrelevant facts that apply to the majority of people field training and use them to prosecute people.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      No, why? What was your intent? To train your dog? I am looking really hard to see a solid defense here. I do not have it yet. I think the law is shit, frankly. But, all I really have here is your game of fetch should be permitted because it is part of some other training regimen. So, what is that training and how does a game of fetch contribute to it? Put more simply, how is your game of fetch not like any other game of fetch? Now, you should also know I could give two shits about what you do with your dog. Probably a lot of the stuff I do with mine :D What you are battling here is people are not so inclined to see your position as genuine. I did not, and thought it worth a go as a general exercise. So far it has been interesting! Your actions and framing align most strongly with what I stated earlier, depending on ambiguity to get an off leash game of fetch in the on leash park. If I were stuck with that scenario and in need of the park, I would just make sure some meaningful and unambigious training happened, because fuck 'em. No joke. Someone, somewhere may just be wound up two clicks too tight. Most of what you appear to be depending on falls under wide discretion however, others wound up or not, your path is clear: Maximize their ability to defend discretion in your favor and it will land in your favor more than not. You appear to be trading on good will as if it were entitlement. That kind of thing fails often. Good will is not an entitlement. It can be garnered, cultivated, encouraged, but not expected or demanded. A nod to the spirit of the laws, some charm and consideration go a loooooong way. If you have to explain the technicality? Doomed. All this has gotten me out of a ton of vehicle and outdoors type citations and scenarios. I could revise my position given you can tell me either: Something other than fetch happened in the park , or how your game differs from the norm, or otherwise was necessary to do in that park and contribute meaningfully to a training regimen of some kind, any articulable kind. Otherwise a person would likely see you playing with your dog off leash. You gotta flesh something like this out a LOT more for it to play out favorably in my experience. I am not talking about licenses or any of that either. I am talking about giving them something solid that speaks to training. It is missing from this discussion and it absolutely should not be. I asked for it multiple times too: I had similar discussions with others many years ago. A few tweaks in how I go about things like this did result in a dramatic shift in good will coming my way. Good luck.

That is not an answer. Did anything besides fetch happen at that park? I am asking to get at intent. It still appears the same to me. I have no new information.

giantg2 6y ago

Did you miss the part of the answer that says it's not just fetch?

ddingus 6y ago
Nope, but you missed the question of what happened in the park. :D Did anything other than fetch happen?
- giantg2 6y ago
  Then why did you say it was not an answer? The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant. Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash. That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions. Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Ahh! Here we go. Something other than fetch happened in the park! That still leaves the question of whether your activities outside the animal conflict were anything besides fetch and how those activities contribute to some articulable training regimen. The conflict changes the entire thing and it is relevant! Now someone has to answer the question about why your dog is not on a leash to the other dog owner. In my other comment, I spoke about fleshing this out some. That is what they need. Secondly, yeah path of least resistance is to not step up for you, report the call, and go through the motions. What incentive do they have to step up for you? How do they sell it to the other dog owner? After considerable, and entertaining by the way, discussion how your game is differentiated from any game of fetch remains unclear. In my view, this is likely the primary reason it went the way it did for you. That officer needed a clear, compelling reason to step up in your favor. Did not have it. I don't and have been looking for it, again as a general exercise. Nothing personal here man. Just found how this played out interesting.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    I said it was not an answer because it implied matters of intent and did not speak to intent directly, nor did it speak to either how your game of fetch is part of some articulable training, and or can be differentiated from any other game of fetch. You have said, "the actions we take" meaning either you and the dog, or you and others and the dog do something that is permitted, yes? I did not get clarity on what those actions were.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      The actions were the voice and hand commands as well as retrieving sticks and balls. All of this is moot anyways. After being subjected to pretrial restrictions under a charge they knew to be incorrect and was amended contrary to code, the case should have been dismissed.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        It is moot. All I can say is your scenario does not include much that bolsters your case. Very surprised it went to trial. Was anyone, animal injured?
ddingus 6y ago
You also missed a direct question on intent; namely, "Reads to me like your intent was to play fetch and count on legal ambiguity. Was it?" So far we have nothing on the table to differentiate fetch play in the park from training as well.
- giantg2 6y ago
  No. There's the letter from an official agency stating that the actions we perform are complaint with the law. Also, if there's no definition/differentiation then it goes to the defendant under the legal doctrine of lenity or even reasonable doubt. Hell, you can throw entrapment in there too if you got permission/clarification from the government and they later prosecuted you for it. You can throw in all the stuff you want about not having special equipment or a (non-existent) training license, but those facts alone would not be enough to prove guilt, especially when the majority of the people training don't have a training license nor special equipment. Remember, you're supposed to be innocent and the prosecution has the burden of proof. It seems that's not really the case when they take irrelevant facts that apply to the majority of people field training and use them to prosecute people.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    No, why? What was your intent? To train your dog? I am looking really hard to see a solid defense here. I do not have it yet. I think the law is shit, frankly. But, all I really have here is your game of fetch should be permitted because it is part of some other training regimen. So, what is that training and how does a game of fetch contribute to it? Put more simply, how is your game of fetch not like any other game of fetch? Now, you should also know I could give two shits about what you do with your dog. Probably a lot of the stuff I do with mine :D What you are battling here is people are not so inclined to see your position as genuine. I did not, and thought it worth a go as a general exercise. So far it has been interesting! Your actions and framing align most strongly with what I stated earlier, depending on ambiguity to get an off leash game of fetch in the on leash park. If I were stuck with that scenario and in need of the park, I would just make sure some meaningful and unambigious training happened, because fuck 'em. No joke. Someone, somewhere may just be wound up two clicks too tight. Most of what you appear to be depending on falls under wide discretion however, others wound up or not, your path is clear: Maximize their ability to defend discretion in your favor and it will land in your favor more than not. You appear to be trading on good will as if it were entitlement. That kind of thing fails often. Good will is not an entitlement. It can be garnered, cultivated, encouraged, but not expected or demanded. A nod to the spirit of the laws, some charm and consideration go a loooooong way. If you have to explain the technicality? Doomed. All this has gotten me out of a ton of vehicle and outdoors type citations and scenarios. I could revise my position given you can tell me either: Something other than fetch happened in the park , or how your game differs from the norm, or otherwise was necessary to do in that park and contribute meaningfully to a training regimen of some kind, any articulable kind. Otherwise a person would likely see you playing with your dog off leash. You gotta flesh something like this out a LOT more for it to play out favorably in my experience. I am not talking about licenses or any of that either. I am talking about giving them something solid that speaks to training. It is missing from this discussion and it absolutely should not be. I asked for it multiple times too: I had similar discussions with others many years ago. A few tweaks in how I go about things like this did result in a dramatic shift in good will coming my way. Good luck.