She didn't eat it; she has a date at the dog park with that Doberman and...you know, as girls do, she was just getting her war paint on....

Couldn't fit all that in the title. Yes, it is just a portion of the story, we don't know who was in the right. The couple shouldn't have been eating in the dog park. I don't know the laws for the state, but here you can go sans mask outside.

IF she did pepper spray them for breaking a dog park rule and eating without masks (kind of hard to eat with them), then she is a nutjob.

IF she sprayed him for attacking her, then she is perfectly in the right.

This is just the video that was available.

LA TImes article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-27/video-shows-woman-reportedly-macing-or-pepper-spraying-man-for-not-wearing-mask-eating-at-dog-park

Eating outside? In a dog park? Edit: In a dog park with a posted "no food" policy? Without masks in a state where masks are mandatory in public?
Somehow I think this isn't telling the whole story. When it starts, the man is standing up, touching her, not calmly eating. I need to see the 2 minutes before she sprays them to decide who's the nutjob here. Almost always it's the anti maskers who rush up and cough on people after being called out, that's assault with a deadly weapon, mace is perfectly reasonable as a defense.
Edit: After reading a few reports, it seems the sprayees can't keep their story straight...in some interviews they say she came up to them ranting, out of nowhere, yelling about food and masks, spray in hand, and just started spraying them. In other interviews, they say she came up yelling, went to her car to get the spray, then returned and just started spraying. Not a good sign.

I'm withholding judgement. It's sounding fishy.

We need a national policy, enforced, like most countries that got control of the Trump virus, with heavy fines or arrests for being unmasked in public spaces. Sadly, thanks to a lack of leadership, we have instead a top leader claiming masks don't work, the virus is a hoax, go about your business, and no national plan at all.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by oritteropo.

Thanks for the note (shakes fist at the toaster for not mentioning it!)

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dog-often-takes-a-bus-to-go-to-the-dog-park-by-himself

Sorry it's a dupe http://videosift.com/video/Dog-often-takes-a-bus-to-go-to-the-dog-park-by-himself

>> ^dannym3141:

...
I believe that a sane dog's temperament is dependent upon the owner, not its size or breed (within reason - i wouldn't immediately assume something like a dingo could be raised domestically).


I'm glad you qualified that. Some dogs are bat-shit demented when they first pop out and hit the ground.

http://www.funnyplace.org/stream/doritos-dog-park-20506/

>> ^NetRunner:

But there is a point, and a benefit. One I've pointed out to you several times. Just because you deny the benefit exists, or simply fail to appreciate it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

The subtext was "to me", as in there's no benefit "to me". If you want to argue semantically how services I don't want are a benefit, that's fine, because Mussolini built roads so I guess you could argue also in favor of fascism that same way.

I don't "need" a license no matter how many services the government wants to manufacture for my benefit. LA City Council recently okayed a multibillion dollar contract to build a hotel. Yes, a hotel. And I don't want to pay for that either, but surely you could reach deep into your sophist repertoire and tell me how that too is a benefit to me.

Again. I don't see any benefit (to me!) for having to pay to register my dog yearly. It's just another tax.

>> ^NetRunner:

Who's they? I'd bring my dog to work, but my work won't let me. I'd bring my dog to restaurants, but restaurants won't let me. I'd take my dog shopping with me, but the shops won't let me. I'd take my dog to the arboretum, nature preserve, or conservatory, but none of those privately owned parks would let me.
Oh, you're not really talking about your movement (with dog, anyway) being restricted, you're just grousing about how "they" probably can pretty easily enforce the license law. Indeed they can.


Not sure why you're bringing up shopping malls and restaurants. It's irrelevant to anything we've discussed. The dog parks and beaches are common areas paid for already by my taxes. I have a right to access them, but then sometimes the police lock the people into the parks and block the beach exits to check the licenses.

I seriously have no idea why you're bringing up restaurants and nature preserves. You seemed to have a separate narrative running in your head at all times.

>> ^blankfist:

My point was it's pointless for me to register with the city. And there's no added benefit to do so.

But there is a point, and a benefit. One I've pointed out to you several times. Just because you deny the benefit exists, or simply fail to appreciate it, doesn't mean there isn't one.

But then again, you weren't really interested in the answer to "why do I need a dog license?" in the first place, nor any of the other questions.

You just wanted to try to assert that none of these questions have legitimate answers. This one does.
>> ^blankfist:

And they lock people into dog parks and beaches designed for dogs and check your license. If you don't have one, you get a ticket. I have no idea how much the fine is for not registering, but I'm sure it's steep as is every ticket in this city.


Who's they? I'd bring my dog to work, but my work won't let me. I'd bring my dog to restaurants, but restaurants won't let me. I'd take my dog shopping with me, but the shops won't let me. I'd take my dog to the arboretum, nature preserve, or conservatory, but none of those privately owned parks would let me.

Oh, you're not really talking about your movement (with dog, anyway) being restricted, you're just grousing about how "they" probably can pretty easily enforce the license law. Indeed they can.

@NetRunner, I adopted the pet from an animal rescue. The chip was added free of charge. I then gave them a voluntary donation for all the work they do rescuing animals from the pound, because I like those kinds of charities.

So, no, not ripped off by some evil capitalist - because these particular evil capitalists save the lives of animals the city would put to sleep otherwise, and I'm glad they make a fair living at it. Attacking them is a strawman.

My point was it's pointless for me to register with the city. And there's no added benefit to do so. All it is is another yearly tax. And they lock people into dog parks and beaches designed for dogs and check your license. If you don't have one, you get a ticket. I have no idea how much the fine is for not registering, but I'm sure it's steep as is every ticket in this city.

>> ^EndAll:
At least don't let your dog shit on the sidewalk. Take him to a dog park, where there's inevitably a whole shit-ton of shit anyways.


That's a given, I don't allow the dog to shit where people walk.

Also: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/dog_finds_absolutely

At least don't let your dog shit on the sidewalk. Take him to a dog park, where there's inevitably a whole shit-ton of shit anyways.