by Rattigan350 39 Replies latest members private
A year about you commented on this story
Please link the other time you commented on this. I spent a few minutes trying to find it and I don't see a topic where you revealed this. So it must be buried in comments.
I would like to see how you think you said the same thing and got different comments.
And you said "you were "expecting" your wife to wait until you got home to introduce your killers to this girl". I didn't say anything about them being killers. I just expected her to do what was done before when the others took care of them. The whole basis of introducing her to them and them to her is for safety. That is prudent. If I didn't like the actions and reactions, I would have said no. And if there was trouble I would have stopped it. And without me there where would the safety be? Bypassing that lead to the result. Without proper supervision and enough training, it was bound to be problematic. A person does not get on a horse and become a good safe rider without training and supervision. A person does not get in a race car and make full speed runs without making slow speed runs and supervision and training.
I used the term "killers" to show how serious it should have been. By saying "And if there was trouble..." and "without me there where would the safety be?" and "bound to be problematic" indicate that you know there might be trouble. In other words, you know they are killers, you know you should have handled it better.
We are not talking about a non-rider hopping onto a horse without help, we are not talking about a novice taking the wheel of a race car. We are talking about walking and feeding some dogs. Obviously, you feel they are more than just some friendly dogs, but need special handling like horses or race cars. So you should know they needed special handling and you should stop acting like it's your wife's/the girl's/unfortunate circumstances' fault. You trained "killers" and should make sure they are handled as such.
So let me get this straight:
If I have my fenced in back yard totally packed full of buried land mines, and the UPS man goes thru the back gate to drop off a package at the back porch, it's HIS fault for being blown to bits when he steps on one of the land mines?
Get a clue you simple-minded moron. Stunning ignorance and lack of responsibility. I bet you were a model JW, huh? Probably a boot-licking MS who never achieved Elderhood because you were too dumb to grease the CO's palm with a green handshake? Let me guess, you were too busy washing windows and polishing floors to be home with your dogs when they tore apart an innocent girl? I don't know what should be done first: Your dogs put down, or you to be sterilized.
I used to live 2 hours from the nearest Cong. When we used to attend meetings, we stayed with a brother and and sister who had five grown husky dogs. They used to gang up on my two little children (then 3yo &5yo) and one had bit my 3yo and they all almost attacked my 5yo had we not intervened.
A pack of dogs is dangerous without it's leader(you) around.
This is puzzling. I'm not going to comment on the context that you all have adequately talked about. I'm going to try to answer the question that the OP is asking, which, I believe, is what were the grounds for the disfellowshipping and upheld appeal.
If the girl had been killed outright, then if it was clear that OP was negligent in having dogs that are known to attack people such that OP knew or should have known that the dogs were dangerous, he could be disfellowshipped for manslaughter and the associated bloodguilt.
However, here we are talking about a near-death. The girl could easily have died but did not. She was gravely injured and was severely traumatized. So the grounds mentioned previously would not apply specifically. If, though, the elders met with OP and discussed the situation and it became clear that OP knew or should have known that the dogs werr dangerous AND OP defended this and showed wanton disregard for the value of life in this case (as his comments here seem to indicate), I would think the elders would have a good case to disfellowship on the grounds of "brazen conduct". To be clear, the bad attitude about disregarding safety and the value of life would have to be extreme before disfellowshipping would be justified, in my opinion.
Are these comments helpful?
CC
So basically, Rattigan was DFed for being - arguably - "criminally negligent" and "unrepentant" for it?
I have heard of instances like this.
x
On a semi-related note, I've often thought (lately) that if I were unjustly DFed, it might give my loyal JW Mom pause.
