cosgrojo Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 If it can be proved that she did this on purpose, then she should be held to the full extent of the laws in her area. Since these laws vary greatly from state to state, I cannot intelligently debate what they are in her area. If there is no intent, there is no case. If your dog gets out and I accidentally run him over with my car, I do not get prosecuted. I will fell horrible about it, but I will not get any sanctions, and I will not go to jail, regardless of whether I have beat the drum for animal rights. If she truly intended on causing harm to this dog, then she should be held accountable under the laws of that area. If not... it was an accident and it was not a human, so let it go. She may have pushed for jail time for other individuals who were in the same situations. It is wrong for her to have done that, and it is wrong for us to do it now. If the full extent of the story is that an honest mis-communication caused the accidental death of a dog, then there is no jail time or punishment that needs to be given. Just because she has pushed for things herself, doesn't mean that we need to push harder the other way. Makes us just as wrong as she was. It appears to be a freak accident. If gross negligence is found, then it is not from the articles presented to us. Let's not make stuff up for the purpose of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo_1387 Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 I have to agree with cosgrojo (that is a first ) Also, where are these news stories about persons getting years of jail time for accidentally leaving a dog in the car, and it subsequently dieing? Please show me one. Now, I can show you stories of persons accused of housing multiple dogs in unsafe places, puppy mills, fighting dogs, and far worse things than this woman did. Those are the people she is after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I have to agree with cosgrojo (that is a first ) Also, where are these news stories about persons getting years of jail time for accidentally leaving a dog in the car, and it subsequently dieing? Please show me one. Now, I can show you stories of persons accused of housing multiple dogs in unsafe places, puppy mills, fighting dogs, and far worse things than this woman did. Those are the people she is after. there are not any people getting jail time for leaving a dog accidentally in a car. Most don't ever get reported. the only reason why this one made the news is that the person who left their dog in the car happened to be the head of the spca. Coincidence? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted August 30, 2009 Author Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) If it can be proved that she did this on purpose, then she should be held to the full extent of the laws in her area. This isn't a matter of whether she intended to do it or not. Not everyone that ends up baking the family pooch in their car INTENDS to do it, but yet they get more than a "go forth and sin no more" absolution based on how 'bad they feel about the incident'. What she did resulted out of NEGLIGENCE and nothing more. And just like every other negligent pet owner, she DESERVES the same penalties! There was a police officer that accidently left his k-9 partner in the car while he had dinner and took a half hour nap. This happened in Arizona a few months ago. From what I read in the article he was facing jail time for his negligence. Here's what that police officer faced as far as criminal charges: If convicted, Lovejoy faces up to six months in jail, more than $1,000 in fines, probation and prohibition from owning another animal. Whether or not he was actually convicted, charges WERE filed, he now has a criminal record and that's going to follow him for the rest of his life. This lady needs the SAME treatment! *edited for content* Edited August 30, 2009 by Lone Star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosgrojo Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 This isn't a matter of whether she intended to do it or not. Not everyone that ends up baking the family pooch in their car INTENDS to do it, but yet they get more than a "go forth and sin no more" absolution based on how 'bad they feel about the incident'. What she did resulted out of NEGLIGENCE and nothing more. And just like every other negligent pet owner, she DESERVES the same penalties! There was a police officer that accidently left his k-9 partner in the car while he had dinner and took a half hour nap. This happened in Arizona a few months ago. From what I read in the article he was facing jail time for his negligence. Here's what that police officer faced as far as criminal charges: If convicted, Lovejoy faces up to six months in jail, more than $1,000 in fines, probation and prohibition from owning another animal. Whether or not he was actually convicted, charges WERE filed, he now has a criminal record and that's going to follow him for the rest of his life. This lady needs the SAME treatment! *edited for content* Officer Lovejoy killed his Partner... a police department employee. This lady killed the old, blind, atrophied family pet. It was officer Lovejoy's JOB to keep that dog safe. He knew he had the dog in the car. She claims to not have known the dog was in the car, and the dog had no special training that made it important. There is a difference between accidental negligence and gross negligence. She will be scorned for sure... but she will not be successfully prosecuted unless they can prove that she knowingly locked her dog in an unventilated car. Based on the information provided, you can not come to that conclusion. Your hatred for this lady's hypocrisy is coloring your opinion. You have made it clear that you think she should be prosecuted BECAUSE of the fact that she works for the SPCA... and that is not fair or appropriate. If the door to your house inadvertently popped open and your dog ran out into the street and got run over, should you then be prosecuted? No, but it was negligent of you to ensure that your door would not pop open. But if you took your dog for a walk and kicked it into traffic when a car was coming by... then yes because it is gross negligence with intent to harm. You are trying to make the punishment worse than the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
under-dreaming Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I think that this thread title should rightfully be renamed to "Irony bites the hypocrite". I can't see any karmic action that would call for her dog's death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted August 30, 2009 Author Share Posted August 30, 2009 Officer Lovejoy killed his Partner... a police department employee. This lady killed the old, blind, atrophied family pet. It was officer Lovejoy's JOB to keep that dog safe. He knew he had the dog in the car. She claims to not have known the dog was in the car, and the dog had no special training that made it important. There is a difference between accidental negligence and gross negligence. She will be scorned for sure... but she will not be successfully prosecuted unless they can prove that she knowingly locked her dog in an unventilated car. Based on the information provided, you can not come to that conclusion. Your hatred for this lady's hypocrisy is coloring your opinion. You have made it clear that you think she should be prosecuted BECAUSE of the fact that she works for the SPCA... and that is not fair or appropriate. If the door to your house inadvertently popped open and your dog ran out into the street and got run over, should you then be prosecuted? No, but it was negligent of you to ensure that your door would not pop open. But if you took your dog for a walk and kicked it into traffic when a car was coming by... then yes because it is gross negligence with intent to harm. You are trying to make the punishment worse than the crime. Don't you think it was her JOB to keep that old dog safe? What she did was negligent and amounts to nothing more than animal cruelty. This is the same charge that Sgt Lovejoy was booked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosgrojo Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Don't you think it was her JOB to keep that old dog safe? Nope What she did was negligent and amounts to nothing more than animal cruelty. This is the same charge that Sgt Lovejoy was booked on. His was a crime, hers was an accident... a horribly preventable accident (like most accidents), but an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Don't you think it was her JOB to keep that old dog safe? What she did was negligent and amounts to nothing more than animal cruelty. This is the same charge that Sgt Lovejoy was booked on. You know LS, every time I think that perhaps you're starting to move in a direction where you'll post logically, to show some type of decent objectivity you end up pulling me up short with this kind of nonsense. I keep coming back at you hoping that you'll want to 'play smart' yet you seem to believe that if you can just add enough !!! to your posts that we'll suddenly begin to believe that they make sense. Not happening man. It was her job to keep her personal dog safe? Do you truly believe that you will find that stated somewhere in her employment contract? Me either. Her dog is her property. Maybe you don't like it, but there it is. And Cos has, over and over, attempted to show you that the law does, when it works correctly, revolve around intent. Show me, (tongue in cheek as I know you will simply ignore this sentence) where the story shows that she had any idea that the dog was even in her car. Where does it say that? My neighbor killed (with my help) my dog with the uncaged gopher poison he put in his garden. (this was a rural area that allowed his garden to be directly opposite my home. The lack of fencing was common and accepted in this environment.) Believing that he'd done it purposely I went over to punch him in the head. (Yeah, I know...But I'm older now) When I saw the shock on his face, as it had simply never occurred to him that a dog would eat something intended for a gopher, upon learning that he'd killed my dog I instantly lost my animosity (pun intended) toward him. Why? Because his remorse suddenly breathed life back into my pet causing him to dig his way out of his grave and came home? No, not really. Because it was obvious that 1) he was already punished more than sufficiently, 2) there is not a single thing to be gained by punishing someone for something that they didn't INTEND to do. Simple as that. Something that I truly, in the spirit of friendship, hope for you...Your posting history shows a very clear trend of you making an indignant post full of capitalized words and exclamation points, continuing to reply to each intelligent response with the same illogical argument that you used from the start, and then simply quitting when people won't agree that someone should be beaten or killed for the grave sin of doing something that offended you. You need to learn to say, "Oh hell, I didn't think of it like that.", "Hmmm...I guess you're right." or some such thing. And you need to stop hanging around with people that allow you to succeed with elevated emotion connected to no serious logic tree. It's making you weak, and I hope better than that for you. Being proved wrong is a gift LS. But being intelligent enough to recognize when someone has bettered your argument is sometimes difficult and takes practice, though it's well worth the effort. It's unfortunate Cos that we agree on this one... Thanks to all for your responses. Dwayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted August 31, 2009 Author Share Posted August 31, 2009 Dwayne, Just because you don't agree with my point of view, doesn't make it any less 'logical' or 'intelligent' than any point you do agree with. Whether or not this woman had an 'employment contract' to keep that dog alive is irrelevant. She was at the very least morally obligated as a pet owner to keep that dog alive, instead of baking it in the family sedan. Since she 'often took the dog to work with her', it's not like the dog being placed in her car was something new. I would also venture as far as to say that I'm pretty sure there was some sort of communication between her husband and herself about putting the dog into the car, or at least her intentions on taking the dog to work with her that day. While I can't show you specifically that she knew the dog was there, you by the same token, cannot prove that the husband placed the dog into the car without her knowledge. I can't see the husband just sneaking the dog into the car because he had nothing better to do, or wanted to set her up for something bad to happen. While I'm not a proponent of elevating domesticated animals to 'human status' (you'll never see me taking my pets to 'pet psychics' or setting up 'play dates' for them), I do passionately believe that as a pet owner it's your responsibility to keep them safe and healthy. I further believe that if you can't honor that responsibility, you don't need to have the little critters running around. If I did something like this, I would end up in jail on animal cruelty charges, no matter how much remorse I felt or showed, thanks to orgainizations like the SPCA. Just because she feels bad about what happened, shouldn't excuse her from getting charged just the same as I would. Agree with them or not, these are MY views; and I'm entitled to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts