Poisoned dog treat notices.

[ZR]

http://i0.wp.com/shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/leslieville-dog-signs.jpg?crop=0px%2C56px%2C696px%2C464px&resize=720%2C480&quality=70&strip=all&ssl=1


Global News saw multiple posters taped on the outside of a large commercial building at Leslie and Mosley streets, between Lake Shore Boulevard East and Eastern Avenue. Global News attempted to speak with a representative of the building, but no one was available for comment.
A 55 Division spokesperson told Global News that police were called about the posters Wednesday afternoon and officers will be taking reports.
The spokesperson said police haven’t received reports of the treats being found or dogs sickened as of Wednesday evening.
Anyone with information is being asked to call police at 416-808-5500.

[mavrrrick]

WOW

[RedSN]

somebody is in a lot of shit.

[Old Fart]

^^^LOL...but only if they left treats! Maybe just a warning on paper.

[92redragtop]

Hmm, so if someone lets their kid be a nuisance we poison the kids? This seems to be their logic.

[StAnger]

Fucking people make me sick.

[WTF]

it's an interesting tactic if they didn't put any poisoned treats in the grass...but just hung up the signs

[5.4MarkVIII]

Hmm, so if someone lets their kid be a nuisance we poison the kids? This seems to be their logic.

I think this is more on the line of hanging a sign that says "trespassers will be shot"

Only illigal if you actually shot them, no?

[RedSN]

^^^except the poster says: "we have dropped small treats in the grass..."

It's more of a confession of an illegal act than a warning of an illegal act.

[92redragtop]

I think this is more on the line of hanging a sign that says "trespassers will be shot"

Only illigal if you actually shot them, no?

OK, but the perpetrator is also the trespasser in your example - in this case the dog's owner (or parent for equivalency purposes) is responsible for picking up after their pet (this is a by-law as well which establishes precedent for the owner to be held responsible) which is not dissimilar for a parent to be responsible for their child. I'm drawing the equivalency by the perpetrator threatening the well-being/health of the dog and not the owner who is ultimately responsible (would be similar to threaten the child and not the parent).

[5.4MarkVIII]

OK, but the perpetrator is also the trespasser in your example - in this case the dog's owner (or parent for equivalency purposes) is responsible for picking up after their pet (this is a by-law as well which establishes precedent for the owner to be held responsible) which is not dissimilar for a parent to be responsible for their child. I'm drawing the equivalency by the perpetrator threatening the well-being/health of the dog and not the owner who is ultimately responsible (would be similar to threaten the child and not the parent).

I see the point there.
Either way hopefully it was just a bluff

[Ponyryd]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with it, at least there was a warning instead of just having poisoned the dog. Not sure what kind of inconsiderate moron doesn't clean up after their dog.