Comments on: “Disabled woman who couldn’t afford to take pet to vet is convicted of felony and jailed”

By: roberta

roberta — Mon, 06 May 2013 22:00:24 +0000

Wow, talk about overkill in prosecution, frankly they should have just offered to help her out and take care of the dog (by offering people help when they can’t afford it then people would call for help but how will they want to if they know they will be charged and sent to jail and fined exorbitant amounts of money?) This seems more about persecution then prosecution, they seemed to deem the dog more important than the spirit of the law, there was no malice on her part hence no crime. Poor lady, I am sure she loved that dog otherwise she would have just abandoned it somewhere rather than face being charged with the crime of being poor.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Fri, 03 May 2013 22:26:19 +0000

If the dog was suffering significantly, and the evidence on that appears to conflict so I don’t know whether or not that was the case, putting the dog down may well have been “better care for the dog”.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Fri, 03 May 2013 12:54:29 +0000

To me there are two points to take away from this.

1:The dog was killed. Is this better care for the dog?

2: People, acting through government, wish to require other people to do things that cost money. G*d forbid that anyone who thinks that something that should be done would reach into his own pocket.

Bob

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 03 May 2013 01:17:58 +0000

“Well, yeah. If you can’t afford to take care of a pet, you probably shouldn’t have one.”

What do you consider ‘take care of’? Must that include regular visits to a vet? The dog was 14 years old. Average lifespan for that type of dog is 9-12 years. Should you be requied to put an old dog to sleep? Will you be allowed to do it yourself of must you pay a professional killer to do the job for you. (Carefull on that last one. I have read of people arrested for doing just that. i.e. Killing a pet instead of having a vet do it.)

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 02 May 2013 15:16:33 +0000

now, the question is: what will the additional fines be when she doesn’t pay the $1000 (assuming its not reduced or eliminated)?

By: Small Government Guy

Small Government Guy — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:25:58 +0000

John Burgess-

Good post. As I observe more and more animal “rights” being legislated, I have thought the same- progressives keep making the cost of owning an animal prohibitive. Soon only those of means will be able to legally have a pet.

Also, I wonder how she will come up with $1,000 on her income. And, if she decides she wants another dog, she will simply take in a stray and be unable to take it to a vet for fear of legal prosecution. Well, unless valuable police time is taken up “monitoring” her.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Thu, 02 May 2013 05:32:19 +0000

Nicholas:

It appears you are conflating the expert witness (who spent $10K on her own pet’s care) with the defendant (who couldn’t afford veterinary care).

By: Anonymous Nicholas

Anonymous Nicholas — Thu, 02 May 2013 03:33:17 +0000

This sounds like an unremarkable application of laws against animal cruelty and neglect. She had $10,000 to spend on pet care but not $225 to spend on euthanizing the suffering dog? I don’t buy it and neither did a judge and jury and neither should you.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:04:25 +0000

Holy crap! That sentence is abhorrent beyond words. Why didn’t the prosecutor as for Old Sparky to be fired up?

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 01 May 2013 22:59:01 +0000

Meanwhile, his wife gets a third trimester abortion, and Obama says “God bless you.”