A right to kill?

I am undergoing a momentary lapse of sanity this morning. While there are few things in this nutty world that confuse the hell out of me, I do feel the occasional need to smack my head into a brick wall in hopes of achieving enlightenment into what I would otherwise consider to be an obvious display of blatant ignorance. With that said, this sad little story caught my attention in a very disturbing way: It appears that a man in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Florida determined that his automobile was no longer capable of continuing its life in an efficient and self-sustaining manner, saying that it "outlived its usefulness," and therefore, decided to put it out of its misery by firing five rounds from his .38 into the vehicle's hood. As a result, he was arrested by Broward County sheriff's deputies. While the firearm must have been legally registered and because of limits in current law, the authorities could only charge him with discharging the weapon in public.

However, it confuses the heck out of me to think that if this guy wanted to, he could have just gone to the Florida courts to get the proper legal permission. Why not? The courts seam to have no problem with allowing those having legal ownership of something the prerogative to make important decisions over it such as those involving weather or not it should live or die. Considering the fact that the state of Florida has no problem with allowing a woman "owned" by her husband to be put out of her misery because he believes she has outlived her usefulness and proves so in court should make doing so to one?s car no big deal what so ever. Right?