|
|
These people left dogs outside in the heat (not in cars) and the dogs died, so they were arrested:Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/16429/NY/US/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-heat-car.html
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/loca...als-say/nPmg6/
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/...tr-ar-1968085/
There is no way this should go without a criminal investigation.
Epic post by Paul Myerberg on Twitter about Tech XX's passing.
Paul Myerberg @PreSnapRead
To those responsible for Tech XX's passing: I have a certain set of skills. When I find you, I will read aloud 4,000 words about New Mexico.
On what basis do you assert that a police report should have been filed? Some of you guys seem to be completely ignorant of how the criminal justice system works in this country. Here's a simplistic breakdown:
Step 1: a law is passed
Step 2: the law is violated
Step 3: police obtain evidence establishing probable cause of the violation
Step 4: an arrest occurs or a ticket is issued
Step 5: a trial takes place
At this point, I haven't seen any evidence that any law was broken. All signs point to this being an unfortunate accident. Accidents--even those involving simple negligence-do not rise to the level of criminal activity.
He means when Tech XX went "missing" the police would have had a report filed of possible theft. That is a crime when false.
All horrible examples--each involved the dogs being left in a car or tied to a pole all day. Based upon what I know about the situation, and based upon what I know about bulldogs, there is no possible way this kid's actions rise to the level of criminal negligence.
The only thing I know that could be an issue is if there was a falsified police report. There could easily be trouble for the employee if resources were used to be out looking for him under a false report.
Unless the kid filed the report or gave an official statement in the report, then I don't see how this could come back on him.
The first one, was five hours: "At approximately 12:40 the SPCA received an anonymous call from someone who witnessed the dogs outside for most of the morning and it didn't look like the dogs weren't doing well," said Gina Browning, a spokesperson for the SPCA.
The dogs' owner, 27-year old Aisha Luper is being charged with two-counts of animal cruelty in court today. She says she put the dogs outside at 7:30 this morning and fell asleep."
The second was in a car.
The third and fourth: "When we got to the house, we found a pit bull with mange. The dog was tied to a pole without access to food or water. Treatz knocked on the door but no one answered, despite that, she decided to take the dog anyway for its safety."
The fifth: "The animal was tied to a post with no shade and no water," Adkins said. "The thing that went wrong in this case is that the witnesses watched this dog in distress for over an hour and were attempting to make contact with someone. They tried to call the animal shelter. They tried to call the humane society. The animal shelter (wasn't open at the time)."
We don't know the outcome of any of those prosecutions.
Obvously, you would like to live in a police state.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
You are correct. If the kid lied to the police and caused the police to tie up police time, he may be culpable.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
From what I understand the kid claimed it was stolen while trying to hide the body. In any case the criminal part of it comes from the cover up not the actual death itself.
It's only a crime if a falsified police report was filed by the employee, or if the employee gave a false statement to the police in the course of the investigation.
If the employee lied to Dr. Sexton, and then Dr. Sexton turned around and filed a police report based upon this false information, neither would be criminally liable since: a) the employee did not file the false police report; and b) Dr. Sexton did not know, at the time of filing the report, that the provided information was false.
It needs to investigated either way to determine IF there is some culpability there.
Yes, I am serious.
Obviously, any incident injuring a human is worse than an incident injuring a dog. But that's not my point. The point is, people are prosecuted all the time for negligent actions. Being really super sorry for your negligent actions does not automatically make things ok. There are laws against animal cruelty for a reason. Are you saying these laws should not be enforced if the violators of the laws are really sorry about what they did?
Maybe there were laws broken in this instance (either in the negligent killing of Tech XX or in the cover up), and maybe there were not. But that is not for me or you to decide. All I am saying is that it should be looked into by the relevant authorities and any applicable laws applied without prejudice or favor.
That's not an entirely accurate statement. The Constitution of the United States requires the government to follow the due process of law before depriving a person of their life, liberty, or property. Criminal statutes must therefore clearly define all crimes and criminal conduct, and cannot be vague or prevent understanding of conduct prohibited by law. If we, as citizens, cannot determine if certain activity constitutes a criminal violation, then the statute is impermissibly vague and unconstitutional. In other words, whether a criminal violation has occurred in this instance is something that you and I should be able to decide (although not formally--obviously the DA has the power to decide to bring charges and the court system adjudicates guilt and innocence).
Anybody heard how long Tech XX was left in the heat and if he had access to water during this time?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
