Follow me on Twitter: @Gamedogs

Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds."
~ Orison Swett Marden

We have 14 guests and no members online

November 7, 2007

I'm happy to report and cheer for another defeat of the extremists and their agenda. A dog is property and cannot be "saved" or "rescued".

If the dog in this story is really 19 years old it couldn't have been treated that badly by its owner; I applaud anyone that has cared for the same dog for almost 20 years! Most 19 year old dogs, on a chain or otherwise, will tend towards looking kind of rough anyway. By about 13 or so they start going downhill even with great care, especially the larger breed dogs (it's a shepherd/mix according to the story).

Be sure and take a moment to review THIS DOCUMENT. It shows that this woman runs a group that has "rescued from chaining situations" animals and collected over $60,000 for doing so. If any of you live in this area (Tyrone/Altoona, Pennsylvania) and you or someone you know had a dog disappear off of a chain or from a closed backyard in the last few years I suggest you contact your local police with a copy of this article and ask that they investigate whether this woman was involved. If you need any assistance in this regard, please email me. She has clearly admitted to doing this numerous times, thank goodness this terrorist and thief was finally caught! Clearly she is but an individual example of these extremists and how they want to keep pushing the envelope. She seems to think that taking people's property, either off of a chain or from a backyard is justified if she doesn't approve of their methods or situation. If there is some real problem, that's what animal control is for (who by the way in this situation knew of her crime and did nothing initially), not vigilante Aristas. Let's be sure we hold these thieves and extremists accountable when we can!

I have also reviewed THIS DOCUMENT from another extremist group stating the following "In addition, many jurisdictions ban chaining or tethering of dogs. Chaining is cruel and causes dogs to become frustrated and neurotic. Dogs such as Doogie are often forgotten at the end of the chain, with poor vet care and no social interaction. Chaining dogs also makes them more aggresive. Best Friends looks forward to working with local authorities on a model ordinance banning chaining of dogs and the studies showing the link between chaining and dog agression. It is a community safety as well as cruelty issue." Once again these extremists break the law then offer to help fix the situation by penalizing the law abiding citizens that they've terrorized. I plan to write this judge and point out the factual inaccuracies and situational unfairness of those representations. I hope any of you that can make polite reasonable comments will do so as well.


Also, please be sure and vote in the poll!


Judge: Dogs are property...

Ruling means Tammy Grimes can’t argue she was justified in ‘rescuing‘ sick animal

By Phil Ray
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

POSTED: November 6, 2007



Poll

Is the judge right, are dogs legal property? Yes, just like a car.
73%

Yes, but people should be able to take other dogs if they're in danger.
20%

No, dogs have equal rights as people.
6%

Read/Post a comment


A popular bumper sticker says ‘Dogs are people too,‘ but that is not the case under Pennsylvania law, according to a Blair County judge.

Judge Elizabeth Doyle stated in an opinion filed Monday that dogs are ‘personal property,‘ which means they can be stolen.

Doyle’s ruling means Tammy Grimes of Bellwood can’t argue to a jury that she was legally justified when she took a 19-year-old Shepherd mix from the yard of its owner in East Freedom last year.

Grimes, the founder of the dog rescue organization Dogs Deserve Better, says she took the dog because it appeared to be mistreated.

‘Testimony that the defendant sought to present at trial to justify her actions would not be admissible for that purpose [justification],‘ Doyle said.

‘The court cannot, and will not, however, enact a pre-trial ban on all prospective testimony about the defendant’s actions,‘ Doyle said.

Defense attorney Phillip O. Robertson and District Attorney Richard Consiglio interpreted the judge’s ruling to mean Grimes will be allowed to tell her side of the story.

Grimes was charged with theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property for taking the dog from the yard of Steve and Lori Arnold.

A neighbor complained the pet was lying in the yard for a couple of days and even called 911 to report what she considered mistreatment of the dog.

Grimes and Robertson wanted to argue to the jury that she legally was in the right for taking the dog to rescue it from harm.

Doyle stated the defense of justification comes into play when a person believes he or she must act to prevent harm to himself or another.

The word ‘another‘ refers to human beings, not pets, the judge said.

Pennsylvania’s Superior Court has ruled that a person can’t sue for ‘loss of companionship‘ because of the death of an animal, an indication the courts do not consider a dog or other pets in the same category as a person, Doyle said.

She wrote, ‘Many Americans love dogs and lavish upon them material substance and tender loving care.

‘Judges are not immune to such feelings, but must set them aside to follow that law.‘

In her ruling, Doyle also stated that the prosecution can place a witness on the stand who contends Grimes encouraged her to steal dogs from owners’ properties to rescue them.

Other pretrial questions concerning the defense’s use of videotape of the sickly dog and the prosecution’s use of an expert witness won’t be resolved until the time of the trial, Doyle said.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/501636.html

^