Cat poop or wild animal droppings? Warning; pile picture!

Some people simply have to deal with certain aspects of case law as part of their work.

Statements should then be formulated not as claims, but as opinions or suppositions.

Can we call you a hobby lawyer because you know how to interpret the road traffic regulations?

I would rather call myself a professional lawyer. And not because I deal with it, but because I have learned it. I'm not targeting anyone personally here either, but for several years now it has been a real problem that people believe Google and rudimentary German skills can replace professional training. By the way, this applies equally to doctors and many other professions where the "customer" believes they are the smarter one.

One could of course also take a DNA sample and thus narrow down the owner of the remains.

Hello kaho This is not so far-fetched. A cease and desist lawsuit can easily cost one to two thousand euros. To prevail in such a case, a DNA analysis would not be the worst method. Because, and practice shows this: Cat owners deny any guilt in most cases. Their own cat has never in its life peed in the neighbor's garden, nor would it catch a bird. Only half-dead ones. Mice and rats yes, but birds: never. Steven

[QUOTE="Fuchur, post: 269705, member: 42376
I would rather call myself a professional lawyer. And not because I deal with it, but because I have studied it.[/QUOTE]

Hello Fuchur

I think your meaningless interjection will not help us here either. You could certainly do it, but the "help" is not constructive.
You yourself know that, even lawyers, with the catastrophic legislation, have rather arrived in the realm of guesswork.

Steven

Steven

And that is exactly where you are very likely wrong. a) There is no danger to your property in the real sense.

Hello Knallkörper

but that is exactly the starting point.
The cat just sits in my garden like that so that it can relieve itself.
I do not want that. I see my beautiful lawn in acute danger. Slingshot out and shortly after the danger is averted.
What is correct: Afterwards, a lawyer should explain to the cat owner that property damage (injury or death of the cat) due to justified necessity is not punishable.

Steven

As long as the danger is present, it can also be averted in other ways, through a water hose, loud shouting, or driving away.

And exactly that is not correct. I assume that, analogous to the right of self-defense, the justification of necessity must also be evaluated. If several equivalent means are available. So, let's say: loud shouting, water hose, slingshot. Are they equivalent? No. Loud shouting might not bother the cat. So, shortly afterwards, the damage occurs. Water hose: Does it reach that far at all? Probably not: damage occurs. Slingshot: works effectively to prevent the damage from occurring. So the slingshot fits. Steven

How is a justifying necessity supposed to work with equally valued goods? Object (lawn) versus object (animal). The protected legal interest must significantly outweigh the other. It is stated in the law.

And self-defense against animals does not exist at all, since animals cannot attack in the legal sense.

Unfolding the last 10 pages here is too tedious for me and probably not productive either.