My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Apparent fatal dog attack in California | Main | Updates: Two dog attack fatalities in one day in separate incidents »

August 24, 2010

Comments

Tom K

I think that the individual owner is more likely to do right by his or her animal than are the so-called humane societies. The law doesn't deter people who are determined to abuse animals or who are mentally ill, and most people go further than the law provides in providing comfort and care for the animals.

There is a basic theory that the individual will behave in a more caring and responsible manner than will a government agency or a business.

Forcing these agencies to respect our property rights may be the only remedy that will work. They don't respect the laws that are on the books. It can be legal for someone to do something and then the animal control retard will come along and since he hasn't read the book anyway he makes something up on the spot, which makes him a useful idiot, and almost everyone who has been victimized has been victimized illegally. In a situation like that the law means nothing but the right to sue.

Giving them any money, any property, any legal powers gives them the power to lie, cheat, and steal. I would rather disarm the humane authorities completely (wouldn't be the first time this was done, either) because citizens with no oversight do a better job than they do. Getting better results for the animals is worth letting the abusers go entirely.

It is not worth destroying all of our ability to care for the animals to go after the abusers, which is where we are heading rapidly. A lot of the animals still exist in anywhere from adequate to excellent conditions simply because most, at least so far, most of these humane agencies attack sporadically and they do not sweep neighborhoods.

I know this is getting long again, but if the humane authorities were stripped of all powers to injure people, those that were left would have to be organizations that provided needed help for emergency situations. Some humane societies have actually conducted raids after being asked for help. Those who did that should be punished harshly. Those who would have no right to participate in any form of law enforcement.

Due process includes reliable and professional law enforcement. I think I'm repeating myself but I consider a case to be invalid if that reliable and professional enforcement is absent and every punishment levied against the victim to be a crime against that person.

There is also the crime of animal abuse, and abuse against someone else's living property, that should definitely be illegal and harshly punished. Killing dogs that don't need to be killed, for the sake of power and money, and that power and money being used to further injure human society, I shouldn't have to explain what is wrong with that.

But charging intruders on a man's property with felony property destruction would be recognizing his property rights. I'm unclear even on how what appears to be a suspension of anyone's rights seems to be accomplished, apparently someone just does it by some kind of magical gestures and someone who is at the very bottom rung of law enforcement has the power to erase the effect of the United States Constitution, effortlessly, and people call him a hero for doing it. Our holiest of holies set aside for an animal that the humane society is probably going to kill anyway.

Brent

"There is a basic theory that the individual will behave in a more caring and responsible manner than will a government agency or a business."

Re-read this post and look at the additional photos Donna posted on your blog. Clearly this is not always the case -- and I think it is fair and necessary that we have laws that impact this -- as in this case.

"Forcing these agencies to respect our property rights may be the only remedy that will work"

Keep in mind, these rights are essentially the right from warrantless seizures and the right to due process if you are to lose your property. In this respect I could not agree more. But the right to treat the animals as you please is not a right that is currently granted by the laws anywhere - nor should they be.

"But charging intruders on a man's property with felony property destruction would be recognizing his property rights"

I completely agree -- which is why I am a firm believer that it is crucial that we fight for due process in all cases (which was done in this case). This is VERY different than the 'perceived right' of someone to destroy their own property if they choose.

Tom K

If we do not have some right to destroy our own property, living or non-living, then obviously we can't dispose of excess or broken possessions or even dead bodies.

We also can't eat meat if that is the case.

Limiting what a person may do with his property should be considered an extreme thing, not something done routinely and cavalierly. One of the things that we should have, mandatory, in our libraries is a set of examples of "humane" societies that have attacked people for accepted farming practices.

In a perfect world we could restrict people from "egregious" cruelty, as was once attempted in Missouri, but after that was set up everything became egregious, from accepted slaughtering practices down to hair and dirt in a freshly changed water dish, and we let it happen.

Even if we can't make it a free for all, we have to have strong means for keeping it away from *them*.

Brent

Tom,

For the final time, you are guaranteed only 3 property rights in this country. You are guaranteed the right to own it, you are guaranteed that it cannot be searched without cause, and you cannot have it taken from you without due process.

That's it.

Virtually ever form of property is regulated in some way. If you don't like the way it's regulated, then by all means, fight to make it better. But the laws are there...and as a lawful society, you either abide by them, or you suffer the consequences.

No pieces of property are viewed exactly the same way and even animals of different species are viewed differently in eyes of the law.

If you don't like it, change it. But don't pretend that you have some overarching right to do whatever you want with your property because you think it should be so.

And I think we are far better off accepting very reasonable limitations on property ownership than denying that they have the right to put restrictions on it.

Because if we don't, then *they* will be in the position to write what those restrictions are...not us.

Tom K

If the restrictions were reasonable and were enforced reasonably I would be all for it. As it stands, for over a century humane laws have been worse than useless because they have enabled a gang of thieves.

And I'm sorry, what position does it look like we are in and they are in?

Brent

What restrictions do you find unreasonable?

I would agree with the enforcement side of things...which is why we need to put the focus on the rights we really do have (which involve due process and seizure laws).

Again, none of this applies at all to the original article....

Tom K

There is such a long list of restrictions that are unreasonable that it's easier to list the restrictions that I find reasonable, and those aren't even restrictions.

Provide basic care, food, water, shelter, and that is all. Everything else is deliberately designed to help the gang of thieves profit.

Take away everything that lets a gang of thieves profit. All of Pennsylvania's new laws are contrived for the profit of the Pennsylvania SPCA and that profit is obtained by stealing and reselling dogs. They were knocked back in 1965 and it took over 40 years for them to come back from that, and now they are as horrible as they were before.

No felony charges for what a person does with his own property. Yes to felony charges for stealing and/or destroying valuable property including and especially under color of law.

No to confiscations before a real trial and due process have occurred. Those confiscations are used to steal animals to sell for the benefit of the thieves. There is no need to enable thieves. These people prepare to sell the dogs before the confiscation, let alone before the trial, and laws have been made to coerce owners to give their animals up to the theft rings. Any competent judge could stop this and if he doesn't, in a very real way he is not even a judge anymore.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)