If your neighbor is abusing it's child and you go remove the child from them, you have taken the law into your own hands. So what if you notified the authorities and they didn't do what you wanted them to do in what you consider a timely manner; you have kid-napped that child!
The thing is, if you call authorities about an abused child, and they do nothing, or are slow in responding, they are in huge trouble. Tammy Grimes called the humane society, and her police department's humane officer, and they did nothing. Do you think anyone Ms. Grimes contacted will be even repremanded? From what I've experienced, I doubt it.
I think it is one hell of a slippery slope when "your cause" allows your actions to be above the law.
How many scream and cry about fictitious loss of rights over the Patriot Act but don't hesitate to take away the legal rights and due course of others for "their cause"? How many think its good when criminals walk away because the criminals rights were violated? Giving any extremist group the rights over a society to enforce "their cause" while taking away legal rights to privacy and private property without due course is not worth what is being saved.
Oh, and I have seen animals in the described condition and worse "rescued", also animals from extended abuse suffering every day of their lives after being "rescued". Now I would say that is a terrible place for a society to be. But then there are some that do think animal life is equal to human life, or more honestly more valuable.
But then speaking out against such a purely emotional "cause" as animal rights automatically makes a person a dick.
Children and animals have to rely on us to help them when in trouble. Anyone that would prosecute for that ain't worth the same consideration towards them IMHO.
Duct: All we need to do is call the authorities and they’ll come running over to correct the situation huh? Perhaps you live in that perfect world that the Walgreens commercial shows.
I could take your post and substitute “the law” for “the cause” and see an entirely different perspective.
There are ignorant, even evil things done, legally, under full protection of the Constitution, in the name of the law.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As far as animal rights go it is hardly an emotional cause. Of course there are extremists. Just as there are extremists under “The Law” that you so vigorously defend.
Animal rights is a purely emotional cause? So in other words God appointed me the mega superior human who since I am so much smarter than a dumb animal I have the right to torture, abuse and bully something that I perceive as lower than me.
We are supposed to respect His creation. He put certain animals here in part, as a blessing for us. Yes we can eat them, we can use them for work, we can love them as companions and protectors. But whatever we use them for, we are to respect His Creation.
We are the ones with the brains, we are to use them wisely. We don't walk through a bears den and expect the bear to bow down and kiss our feet do we? Nor do we act like a big bad a@@ and blow the bear away because WE ARE THE HUMANS. GRUNT! Nor are we to try to make friends with dangerous creatures, like Timothy Treadwell did. Even if we had full authority over animals, as Adam did, we are still to use wisdom and respect with His creatures and creation.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to take my dumb animal out to the dog park or she'll kick my a** in.
I'm half asleep. This post probably makes no sense.
Enjoy calling your pet "your" as there are all ready places that it is illegal to claim ownership of animals. In those liberal extreme communities you are a guardian or a person of responsibility and the pets belong to the local government. Great for protecting animals rights, but if you tick me off I can call authorities and have your home invaded and your pet removed while they review your guardianship of "their" animal. I would say a very slippery slope to be on. Yet in these havens of liberalism meth-labs operate and neighbors call in about the constant flow of traffic through a residential area, everyone knows what they are doing behind boarded up windows yet there is no probable cause for enforcement to go in.
Bears? I missed eggs for breakfast. But, a man is guiding a large group on a nature horse-packing trip into a wilderness area when a sow grizzly stands and starts attacking pack-string and peoples' lives are threatened. Two mules go over a cliff and are laying there busted to pieces suffering. Man shoots the bear which happened to be only 75 miles out of its legal habitat. People were very close to following the fate of those mules when this man acted, man lost everything he owned to pay fines and also was given a jail sentence. Just one of numerous stories you don't read about or see on your nightly news. Why, because it goes against those animal rights extremists. Not one bear scratch was found on any human!
So invoke God, I will point out what my "take" is. The a$$ in that story wasn't more valuable than the man, the man became of less value than the a$$ because he was going to do what?
As I said before, because the authorities didn't act in what that woman thought was a timely manner, rather than pursuing legal recourse she took it upon herself to be judge and jury and violate other peoples rights. So none of you would have a problem when I blow the gangster away when he is breaking into my home, right?
Ductape, (my apologies for the earlier name calling)
There something wrong with honest questions?
You aren't asking any honest questions here, pal. You come across an issue that you take to be an 'extreme liberal' one, and without any further thought, you attempt to rip it to shreds. To hell with the animals who are suffering at the hands of thoughtless twits. To hell with any attempt to limit animal cruelty just cuz the animals are the 'property' of the owners. And so to avoid some slippery slope of your own imagining, we gotta avoid taking the animals from their cruel owners, no matter how much they are being abused.
And all your comparisons in your posts here don't even come near comparatively this incident in question. All she did was rescue the dog from starving to death and keeping the owner from abusing it further, and you get your panties in a wad and act like the animal rights extremists are blowing up the WTC.
Yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, and all cloaked in the name of liberty and property. Crap like yours make me gag.
You aren't asking any honest questions here, pal. You come across an issue that you take to be an 'extreme liberal' one, and without any further thought, you attempt to rip it to shreds. To hell with the animals who are suffering at the hands of thoughtless twits. To hell with any attempt to limit animal cruelty just cuz the animals are the 'property' of the owners. And so to avoid some slippery slope of your own imagining, we gotta avoid taking the animals from their cruel owners, no matter how much they are being abused.
And all your comparisons in your posts here don't even come near comparatively this incident in question. All she did was rescue the dog from starving to death and keeping the owner from abusing it further, and you get your panties in a wad and act like the animal rights extremists are blowing up the WTC.
Yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, and all cloaked in the name of liberty and property. Crap like yours make me gag.
I fully applaud what she did. 100%!
Speaking of being full of crap
I haven't said it was right for animals to suffer, your all for rights being taken away to protect the innocent? So you are for the patriot act, right? No warrent needed to search or remove property?
We have authorities, animal control and they act in the cause of animals and are granted LEGAL rights for the animals.
they are sworn in by the town and state to act in authority and yes absolutely NO warranty is needed to remove an animal.
here it happens all the time.
sometimes they give a ticket or a warning and then the owner has to go to court and the judge decides but mostly they can and do remove all and every animal in the household not just the one being neglected or abused.
we have winter and if a animal does not have a certain amount of outside protection and it is a LEGAL amount of shelter or if the water is frozen they will and do commonly be taken without notice.
also in the summer. for heat same thing if the animal does not have water and /or food they are taken out and the person given a ticket to go to court to face the charges.
we have the news say when we can not allow the animals outside.
my friends dog bit her roomates boyfriend as he was beating her in defense and the dog was put up for adoption. In her own home by a man who was beating a women. it all happened in less than a month she had no chance of getting him back without lots of money. the police took the dog and the man he got his charges dropped but the dog is gone now.
she could of fought it But the jail cost over a hundred a day not to metion the court costs .
Not when that 'property', ie., in this case a living animal, is being abused to the point of suffering and death, O patriotic one. Hell, people have been intervening on behalf of suffering animals LONG before the Patriot Act was a gleam in John Achtuncroft's eye.
So spare us the long, tired refrain of "The Commies are taking all of our rights away!!" ... It gets old after a while.
Garth those are GREAT posts. I have to finish up an assignment I have now and can't jump in here but I had to at least step in here and say that. You are so right on about this subject.
Not when that 'property', ie., in this case a living animal, is being abused to the point of suffering and death, O patriotic one. Hell, people have been intervening on behalf of suffering animals LONG before the Patriot Act was a gleam in John Achtuncroft's eye.
So spare us the long, tired refrain of "The Commies are taking all of our rights away!!" ... It gets old after a while.
Your rights are still intact.
See any where I said commies, ya socialist!
I have been involved in legal removal of animals from abusive owners such as cock-fighting illigals. I once stopped a person from breaking the windows of a car with 3 dogs in it and the windows rolled up on a 90 degree day. Police popped the lock and towed the car after animal control took the dogs. Had it been a baby we would have broken the windows and taken the what ever followed with pride.
But you are ignorant as to what is going on removing rights across this country, now go be a good guardian to the governments pets will ya?
You aren't asking any honest questions here, pal. You come across an issue that you take to be an 'extreme liberal' one, and without any further thought, you attempt to rip it to shreds. To hell with the animals who are suffering at the hands of thoughtless twits. To hell with any attempt to limit animal cruelty just cuz the animals are the 'property' of the owners. And so to avoid some slippery slope of your own imagining, we gotta avoid taking the animals from their cruel owners, no matter how much they are being abused.
And all your comparisons in your posts here don't even come near comparatively this incident in question. All she did was rescue the dog from starving to death and keeping the owner from abusing it further, and you get your panties in a wad and act like the animal rights extremists are blowing up the WTC.
Yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, and all cloaked in the name of liberty and property. Crap like yours make me gag.
I fully applaud what she did. 100%!
Amen and Amen Garth!!!
In all threads regarding animals D*cktape always has an "attitude", I wonder were you ever arressted for abusing one and you are still mad about it, were you bitten by a dog as a child, scratched by a cat as you bullied an old lady? Was a relative a rodeo clown who was stomped by a bull? Just curious about your "flame throwing" attitudes -- you always seem to have, when bringing up animals?
Rottie, I love that passage from numbers!
Ductape
We posted at the same time, okay then, what is your beef with animals if you have been so helpful to them?
I once stopped a person from breaking the windows of a car with 3 dogs in it and the windows rolled up on a 90 degree day
Why did you stop that? In this state, you can break the windows after 10 minutes or if the animal seems to be in distress, similar in California. Seems like a good law to me.
I dunno, while I am often known in here as one of the bleeding heart liberals, supportive of vegans, lover of dogs and other critters, the planet earth and worldkind in general, I do to some degree understand the points I THINK Ductape is making.
Before I flap my jaws on this, there is something I need to have clarified. I did not watch the video posted, but I did read the links to the text articles. What is this lady charged with? I am under the impression from what I read, that the charges revolve around her NOT RETURNING the dog. Is that correct? Is she charged with anything concerning her initial rescue and care?
I've voiced this other places but what the heck....
Animals are not to be put above human beings. Having said that though they are also not to be tortured by humans just because we can either. There has to be a balance here obviously.
So I am not in favor of giving an animal a right above that of the human being but for goodness sake if we human beings can't keep our crap together and not torture the things then maybe a tad of what they are tasting would knock some dadgum sense into us.
From what I understand, she isn't returning the dog because the dog because of the endangerment to his life and health. Now perhaps she should then turn the dog over to the animal control that is in another county or someone who she can trust who won't wind up returning the dog back to his abusive owner.
Not when that 'property', ie., in this case a living animal,
As a side note, in most places, pets are considered nothing much more than property, under legal definitions. While they do have more protection than, say, a couch, an owner has little that they can recover from a court if a dog is stolen, or negligently operated on by a veterinary surgeon.
I learned this when we considered our options upon learning my son's dog was initially cut open on the wrong side of his pelvis during surgery to repair the other side after if was hit and rolled over by a truck. Seems the xray was mislabeled "left or right". Fortunately, that cut did not produce longterm difficulty, and the actual repair was done wonderfully and the dog has recovered. The mistake only added to the dog's discomfort during recovery.
We learned that although we could sue for negligence and things, the award would be basically limited to the amount that was paid for the dog minus the amount the dog could be sold for after the negligence, just like anyother property. Since the dog was a "rescued" dog, that meant virtually nothing. We did make sure that we were not charged for the extra sutures and operating table time, and the hospital did give free followup care, xrays and labwork to somewhat compensate for their mistake. We are quite thrilled with the success of the procedure in the end, and this 80 pound dog is able to leap a good 2 feet of the ground again. Summer rockclimbing will still be his recreational joy.
Well she can't keep the dog since it isn't hers because that moves into theft and there has to be ways of working this out for all concerned without laws being broken or abused. Even the pieces of crap abusing them have their rights in all this as much as that itself can make your head explode.
Hap, good for them to do what they could about their mistake.
From what I understand, she isn't returning the dog because the dog because of the endangerment to his life and health. Now perhaps she should then turn the dog over to the animal control that is in another county or someone who she can trust who won't wind up returning the dog back to his abusive owner.
If indeed the "charges" (I still have not seen what they are), are related to her refusal to return the dog, then she is out of line, and COULD be charged I would think with possession of stolen property. Her simple remedy is indeed to turn the dog over to authorites, who indeed MIGHT return the dog to the rightful owner of the property, but likely not with out further investigation. The lady mentioned has NO right to the dog. If that is done, I am confident the animal control people, or whoever is responsible in this location, will keep a watchful eye on the critter in the future. I have rarely met such people who do not later do drivebys and "neighborly" inquiries. They are generally very dedicated people.
I do not know anything regarding who the owners are, if there are kids at the home who are missing their companion or anything else related to the owners of the property. Nothing is mentioned about whether the actual legal owners of the dog have also been charged with an infraction. None of us know what might have been learned by them during this process, and it is possible there is no more danger to the dog at that home. Then again there might be, but the law should be followed and allowed to run its course. The lady has no legal right to KEEP the dog in ANY case.
Basically, it seems to me that much has been made of this story without us knowing many of the necessary truths relating to it. I cna not make much of an assessment without that information.
I think this love of nature (including animals) over the love of the creator can only continue to cause unrest among men. It wasn't designed that way which seems to dictate it can't be forced to fit.
I love dogs and horses. Both are capable of making my stress and concerns melt away while with them. The look in their eyes and the warmth of their companionship can be more precious than a humans can to me at times.
A dog seems to love you regardless, although a horse will remember his abuse longer than a dog will, in general they are more intelligent is my personal experience so seem more capable of being leery of a human being once they've been abused.
Still in all I think animals have a special place in our lives and one that should be respected rather than abused. Also I bet 90% of the people that would abuse an innocent animal would also abuse a human being as well.
In all threads regarding animals D*cktape always has an "attitude", I wonder were you ever arressted for abusing one and you are still mad about it, were you bitten by a dog as a child, scratched by a cat as you bullied an old lady? Was a relative a rodeo clown who was stomped by a bull? Just curious about your "flame throwing" attitudes -- you always seem to have, when bringing up animals?
Rottie, I love that passage from numbers!
This is not about animals, this is about extremes, that is my "beef". I see many dangerous laws and civil rights being eroded in the name of animal rights. Like the guardian and no owner laws. You wish to talk about warm and fuzzy animal stories, there is no "beef" about that. Do you lack the ability to separate the two subjects because you don't see the extremes you push?
Ductape
We posted at the same time, okay then, what is your beef with animals if you have been so helpful to them?
Why did you stop that? In this state, you can break the windows after 10 minutes or if the animal seems to be in distress, similar in California. Seems like a good law to me.
Again I have no "beef" with animals, people that put animals above humans and animals above the laws that govern society I have a "beef" with.I stopped the people because breaking the window here is still a criminal act and should be. Your cited laws show the erosion of law putting animal rights above property rights. Waiting for the law kept the owner of the dogs the criminal as it should be. I question anyones "balance" if they at least don't consider criminal trespass and theft wrong.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
12
25
18
Popular Days
Mar 4
59
Mar 3
26
Mar 6
15
Mar 5
10
Top Posters In This Topic
RottieGrrrl 26 posts
excathedra 12 posts
ChattyKathy 25 posts
Ductape 18 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2007
59 posts
Mar 3 2007
26 posts
Mar 6 2007
15 posts
Mar 5 2007
10 posts
excathedra
ohmygosh wow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Ductape said:
The thing is, if you call authorities about an abused child, and they do nothing, or are slow in responding, they are in huge trouble. Tammy Grimes called the humane society, and her police department's humane officer, and they did nothing. Do you think anyone Ms. Grimes contacted will be even repremanded? From what I've experienced, I doubt it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
I think it is one hell of a slippery slope when "your cause" allows your actions to be above the law.
How many scream and cry about fictitious loss of rights over the Patriot Act but don't hesitate to take away the legal rights and due course of others for "their cause"? How many think its good when criminals walk away because the criminals rights were violated? Giving any extremist group the rights over a society to enforce "their cause" while taking away legal rights to privacy and private property without due course is not worth what is being saved.
Oh, and I have seen animals in the described condition and worse "rescued", also animals from extended abuse suffering every day of their lives after being "rescued". Now I would say that is a terrible place for a society to be. But then there are some that do think animal life is equal to human life, or more honestly more valuable.
But then speaking out against such a purely emotional "cause" as animal rights automatically makes a person a dick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Children and animals have to rely on us to help them when in trouble. Anyone that would prosecute for that ain't worth the same consideration towards them IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Chatty: Agree completely.
Duct: All we need to do is call the authorities and they’ll come running over to correct the situation huh? Perhaps you live in that perfect world that the Walgreens commercial shows.
I could take your post and substitute “the law” for “the cause” and see an entirely different perspective.
There are ignorant, even evil things done, legally, under full protection of the Constitution, in the name of the law.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As far as animal rights go it is hardly an emotional cause. Of course there are extremists. Just as there are extremists under “The Law” that you so vigorously defend.
Animal rights is a purely emotional cause? So in other words God appointed me the mega superior human who since I am so much smarter than a dumb animal I have the right to torture, abuse and bully something that I perceive as lower than me.
We are supposed to respect His creation. He put certain animals here in part, as a blessing for us. Yes we can eat them, we can use them for work, we can love them as companions and protectors. But whatever we use them for, we are to respect His Creation.
We are the ones with the brains, we are to use them wisely. We don't walk through a bears den and expect the bear to bow down and kiss our feet do we? Nor do we act like a big bad a@@ and blow the bear away because WE ARE THE HUMANS. GRUNT! Nor are we to try to make friends with dangerous creatures, like Timothy Treadwell did. Even if we had full authority over animals, as Adam did, we are still to use wisdom and respect with His creatures and creation.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to take my dumb animal out to the dog park or she'll kick my a** in.
I'm half asleep. This post probably makes no sense.
Edited by RottieGrrrlLink to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
PS. I wasn't calling you a d*** That wouldn't be nice. I said you were d***ing with me. There is a difference.
I'm editing the word myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
In NY animal abuse/neglect is a felony charge.
We also have the law of the death penalty, if you get three felonies you can be sentenced to death.
I would guess a large farm with many counts of abuse convincted would be up for the death penalty if prosecuted as such!
so yes the life of an animal is more important than a human life in NY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I thought the death penalty was ruled unconstituional in New York, several years ago. Has this changed? Or am I wrong?
Ok, car warming up, now I really am taking RottyGrrl to the park. This thread has got me all discombulated or whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Enjoy calling your pet "your" as there are all ready places that it is illegal to claim ownership of animals. In those liberal extreme communities you are a guardian or a person of responsibility and the pets belong to the local government. Great for protecting animals rights, but if you tick me off I can call authorities and have your home invaded and your pet removed while they review your guardianship of "their" animal. I would say a very slippery slope to be on. Yet in these havens of liberalism meth-labs operate and neighbors call in about the constant flow of traffic through a residential area, everyone knows what they are doing behind boarded up windows yet there is no probable cause for enforcement to go in.
Bears? I missed eggs for breakfast. But, a man is guiding a large group on a nature horse-packing trip into a wilderness area when a sow grizzly stands and starts attacking pack-string and peoples' lives are threatened. Two mules go over a cliff and are laying there busted to pieces suffering. Man shoots the bear which happened to be only 75 miles out of its legal habitat. People were very close to following the fate of those mules when this man acted, man lost everything he owned to pay fines and also was given a jail sentence. Just one of numerous stories you don't read about or see on your nightly news. Why, because it goes against those animal rights extremists. Not one bear scratch was found on any human!
So invoke God, I will point out what my "take" is. The a$$ in that story wasn't more valuable than the man, the man became of less value than the a$$ because he was going to do what?
As I said before, because the authorities didn't act in what that woman thought was a timely manner, rather than pursuing legal recourse she took it upon herself to be judge and jury and violate other peoples rights. So none of you would have a problem when I blow the gangster away when he is breaking into my home, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ductape, (my apologies for the earlier name calling)
You aren't asking any honest questions here, pal. You come across an issue that you take to be an 'extreme liberal' one, and without any further thought, you attempt to rip it to shreds. To hell with the animals who are suffering at the hands of thoughtless twits. To hell with any attempt to limit animal cruelty just cuz the animals are the 'property' of the owners. And so to avoid some slippery slope of your own imagining, we gotta avoid taking the animals from their cruel owners, no matter how much they are being abused.
And all your comparisons in your posts here don't even come near comparatively this incident in question. All she did was rescue the dog from starving to death and keeping the owner from abusing it further, and you get your panties in a wad and act like the animal rights extremists are blowing up the WTC.
Yeah yeah yeah, we heard it all before, and all cloaked in the name of liberty and property. Crap like yours make me gag.
I fully applaud what she did. 100%!
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Speaking of being full of crap
I haven't said it was right for animals to suffer, your all for rights being taken away to protect the innocent? So you are for the patriot act, right? No warrent needed to search or remove property?
Edited by DuctapeLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
We have authorities, animal control and they act in the cause of animals and are granted LEGAL rights for the animals.
they are sworn in by the town and state to act in authority and yes absolutely NO warranty is needed to remove an animal.
here it happens all the time.
sometimes they give a ticket or a warning and then the owner has to go to court and the judge decides but mostly they can and do remove all and every animal in the household not just the one being neglected or abused.
we have winter and if a animal does not have a certain amount of outside protection and it is a LEGAL amount of shelter or if the water is frozen they will and do commonly be taken without notice.
also in the summer. for heat same thing if the animal does not have water and /or food they are taken out and the person given a ticket to go to court to face the charges.
we have the news say when we can not allow the animals outside.
my friends dog bit her roomates boyfriend as he was beating her in defense and the dog was put up for adoption. In her own home by a man who was beating a women. it all happened in less than a month she had no chance of getting him back without lots of money. the police took the dog and the man he got his charges dropped but the dog is gone now.
she could of fought it But the jail cost over a hundred a day not to metion the court costs .
serious stuff here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Not when that 'property', ie., in this case a living animal, is being abused to the point of suffering and death, O patriotic one. Hell, people have been intervening on behalf of suffering animals LONG before the Patriot Act was a gleam in John Achtuncroft's eye.
So spare us the long, tired refrain of "The Commies are taking all of our rights away!!" ... It gets old after a while.
Your rights are still intact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Garth those are GREAT posts. I have to finish up an assignment I have now and can't jump in here but I had to at least step in here and say that. You are so right on about this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
See any where I said commies, ya socialist!
I have been involved in legal removal of animals from abusive owners such as cock-fighting illigals. I once stopped a person from breaking the windows of a car with 3 dogs in it and the windows rolled up on a 90 degree day. Police popped the lock and towed the car after animal control took the dogs. Had it been a baby we would have broken the windows and taken the what ever followed with pride.
But you are ignorant as to what is going on removing rights across this country, now go be a good guardian to the governments pets will ya?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Amen and Amen Garth!!!
In all threads regarding animals D*cktape always has an "attitude", I wonder were you ever arressted for abusing one and you are still mad about it, were you bitten by a dog as a child, scratched by a cat as you bullied an old lady? Was a relative a rodeo clown who was stomped by a bull? Just curious about your "flame throwing" attitudes -- you always seem to have, when bringing up animals?
Rottie, I love that passage from numbers!
Ductape
We posted at the same time, okay then, what is your beef with animals if you have been so helpful to them?
Why did you stop that? In this state, you can break the windows after 10 minutes or if the animal seems to be in distress, similar in California. Seems like a good law to me.
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I dunno, while I am often known in here as one of the bleeding heart liberals, supportive of vegans, lover of dogs and other critters, the planet earth and worldkind in general, I do to some degree understand the points I THINK Ductape is making.
Before I flap my jaws on this, there is something I need to have clarified. I did not watch the video posted, but I did read the links to the text articles. What is this lady charged with? I am under the impression from what I read, that the charges revolve around her NOT RETURNING the dog. Is that correct? Is she charged with anything concerning her initial rescue and care?
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I've voiced this other places but what the heck....
Animals are not to be put above human beings. Having said that though they are also not to be tortured by humans just because we can either. There has to be a balance here obviously.
So I am not in favor of giving an animal a right above that of the human being but for goodness sake if we human beings can't keep our crap together and not torture the things then maybe a tad of what they are tasting would knock some dadgum sense into us.
Why do we have to get so extreme?
(edited because I had to)
Edited by ChattyKathyLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
From what I understand, she isn't returning the dog because the dog because of the endangerment to his life and health. Now perhaps she should then turn the dog over to the animal control that is in another county or someone who she can trust who won't wind up returning the dog back to his abusive owner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
As a side note, in most places, pets are considered nothing much more than property, under legal definitions. While they do have more protection than, say, a couch, an owner has little that they can recover from a court if a dog is stolen, or negligently operated on by a veterinary surgeon.
I learned this when we considered our options upon learning my son's dog was initially cut open on the wrong side of his pelvis during surgery to repair the other side after if was hit and rolled over by a truck. Seems the xray was mislabeled "left or right". Fortunately, that cut did not produce longterm difficulty, and the actual repair was done wonderfully and the dog has recovered. The mistake only added to the dog's discomfort during recovery.
We learned that although we could sue for negligence and things, the award would be basically limited to the amount that was paid for the dog minus the amount the dog could be sold for after the negligence, just like anyother property. Since the dog was a "rescued" dog, that meant virtually nothing. We did make sure that we were not charged for the extra sutures and operating table time, and the hospital did give free followup care, xrays and labwork to somewhat compensate for their mistake. We are quite thrilled with the success of the procedure in the end, and this 80 pound dog is able to leap a good 2 feet of the ground again. Summer rockclimbing will still be his recreational joy.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Well she can't keep the dog since it isn't hers because that moves into theft and there has to be ways of working this out for all concerned without laws being broken or abused. Even the pieces of crap abusing them have their rights in all this as much as that itself can make your head explode.
Hap, good for them to do what they could about their mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
If indeed the "charges" (I still have not seen what they are), are related to her refusal to return the dog, then she is out of line, and COULD be charged I would think with possession of stolen property. Her simple remedy is indeed to turn the dog over to authorites, who indeed MIGHT return the dog to the rightful owner of the property, but likely not with out further investigation. The lady mentioned has NO right to the dog. If that is done, I am confident the animal control people, or whoever is responsible in this location, will keep a watchful eye on the critter in the future. I have rarely met such people who do not later do drivebys and "neighborly" inquiries. They are generally very dedicated people.
I do not know anything regarding who the owners are, if there are kids at the home who are missing their companion or anything else related to the owners of the property. Nothing is mentioned about whether the actual legal owners of the dog have also been charged with an infraction. None of us know what might have been learned by them during this process, and it is possible there is no more danger to the dog at that home. Then again there might be, but the law should be followed and allowed to run its course. The lady has no legal right to KEEP the dog in ANY case.
Basically, it seems to me that much has been made of this story without us knowing many of the necessary truths relating to it. I cna not make much of an assessment without that information.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I think this love of nature (including animals) over the love of the creator can only continue to cause unrest among men. It wasn't designed that way which seems to dictate it can't be forced to fit.
I love dogs and horses. Both are capable of making my stress and concerns melt away while with them. The look in their eyes and the warmth of their companionship can be more precious than a humans can to me at times.
A dog seems to love you regardless, although a horse will remember his abuse longer than a dog will, in general they are more intelligent is my personal experience so seem more capable of being leery of a human being once they've been abused.
Still in all I think animals have a special place in our lives and one that should be respected rather than abused. Also I bet 90% of the people that would abuse an innocent animal would also abuse a human being as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.