Posted on 08/15/2011 1:36:52 PM PDT by chrisinoc
See response #38. That felloow can read with comprehension.
That’s scary. Wonder what the dogs in the kennel looked like after her “care.”
That’s not what the term “animal rights” is used to mean. You can be for animal welfare, but the term “animal rights” as it is used by the people who are in a position to make laws means you don’t get to have a pet, eat a steak or a lot of other things we all take for granted.
I read the first article and was puzzled because there seemed to be no rhyme or reason for what the perp did, so I clicked on the earlier article. Still have no clue what on earth this person had as a motive for her awful behavior, but there is a nice video of the dog if you scroll down and it’s worth watching, just to see this very lovely dog. It really pulled on my heart strings. And brought tears to my eyes, and I’m pretty tough.
http://ocpets.ocregister.com/2010/04/16/irvine-vet-tech-arrested-in-case-of-abused-dog/44193
I wish the article had more info. A horrible story, but what on earth could the motive have been. As you said, it sure doesn’t look like they couldn’t afford to feed the dog. I’m really baffled. Not that it matters but I really want to know why she would do such a thing (and apparently she has a child, which bothers me now).
How do you imagine they could uphold a sentence that she never own another pet?
In case you missed it, go check out the video on this page of Courage, very sweet boy! You have to scroll down a little.
http://ocpets.ocregister.com/2010/04/16/irvine-vet-tech-arrested-in-case-of-abused-dog/44193
Thank you thank you for making the distinction. AR is making huge footholds in many places and still people don’t get it.
for so long would remain. "We'll never really know the why," he said.
Mystery? My guess? The owner was an evil lowlife ...
I have no idea, but many sentences handed down are never carried out in our judicial system. Look at all the restraining orders that are broken every day. A sentence, such as “she could never own another pet”, could be turned into a jail term if she were caught abusing another animal. It would be a warning to others. I believe it wouldn’t be a first, either. I think that I’ve heard of such sentences imposed on people who starve horses.
I’d also like to see her prohibited from caring for children too, but that would be much harder to impose. She is one sick puppy — no pun intended.
And yet I don’t see why the subject was even brought up since the article is so clearly about animal abuse and the perp. Nowhere did I read anything here in the article about PETA or their cohorts and/or what they stand for. On the contrary, someone said they hoped justice would be done for the dog and another poster decided animals shouldn’t have justice. I strongly disagree and refuse to argue semantics about such an important issue as animal abuse. “Animal rights” was never the subject of the article here — pro or con. Animal abuse was and is — and it is NEVER excusable.
Loved the video. Thanks for the link.
Thanks for sharing that! :)
I was responding to post #6. If you don’t want to get involved in that topic I don’t think there is anyone forcing you. I’m not sure why you are posting what you are posting to me, I don’t think I stood up in favor of animal abuse.
I was responding to what you said (don’t know why you’re getting defensive) -— and you will notice I addressed the comment to “all” — not just you. Nowhere did I say that you “stood up” in favor of animal abuse. Don’t know where you’re getting that. I made a comment. I stand by it. I think the comment was clear on its own merits. There was never a need to bring “animal rights” into the discussion — which I addressed. Yes, you’re differentiation is accurate. Sorry the rest went over your head. Snarkiness not appreciated or accepted. If you don’t want anyone to respond to you, perhaps you should put that in your posts.
Should read “your differentiation”.
Hardly.
If one cannot protect an innocent animal, by serious jail time for those responsible, then we (the humans you think so highly off), are the worse of the food chain.
Oh yes, well written post.
I don't know how to say this so that you can understand it. I think animals should be protected, but not though thier own "rights".
Once they have "rights", we will have to find ways to allow them to practice the Bill of Rights. Next, someone will want their dogs to be married. Then there will be lawyers representing animals as individuals in court. It won't stop.
Yes, humans are set above animals. That is simply the way it works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.