When actually needed? A dog that has attacked a human is when it is actually needed as the law states. Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth ... excluding the attack on the girl is not the whole truth.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
When actually needed? A dog that has attacked a human is when it is actually needed as the law states. Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth ... excluding the attack on the girl is not the whole truth.
Youre describing revenge and vigilantism concerning this event. Both of which are frowned on. The attack happened, the girl was rescued and the dog was no longer presenting itself as a threat. Replace the dog with a person and your position sounds like a lewk ranting.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I wouldn't be so sure that the dog was no longer a threat - after all, the dog was the one outside and not locked away. A free-roaming, aggressive dog who has already severely injured a child?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It was killed while hiding in its kennel, which had a locking door.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I think the appropriate action would have been to call animal control if the dog was not presenting an immediate threat.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
The law considers that dog a threat even if it was hiding after the attack.
Hope is the denial of reality
Which is why the law requires a dog which has participated in that kind of an attack be put down in the first place.
And OG, the dog wasn't in the kennel until AFTER he'd went outside after it with the gun, according to the source you linked. The law might require you to change your course from committed on actions against a potential threat when dealing with a human when the context indicates the threat level might have just dropped during the confrontation but as human/animal communication is so very imperfect, the same is not required with them. Whence comes this Lewk-style "fry the felon" sensibility of yours? Are you just that much of a dog person?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The law considers the animal a possible threat that is to be addressed by the professionals. It does not take a south park style "its coming right for us" attitude towards cowarding animals.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-04-2015 at 05:00 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This has nothing to do with the guy being a felon. He would be facing new felonies for his actions even if he wasn't already one. My problem is with the guns solve everything attitude people have. Are you suggesting the dog knew what the gun was, or was he responding to his owners attitude or stance? Do you think the dog would have reacted differently if it was a bat or shovel? The child was saved, the owner reacted and the dog was in a position that made it securable without harm. Any further actions above and beyond that by the owner were wrong. Hence the arrest and charges.
What laws are you reading for death of a pet being a felony? The ones i found list felonies for only service animal and fighting ring offenses. But I'm mobile and research is slightly more difficult.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-04-2015 at 05:09 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I find your notion that an animal has equal rights as a human absurd.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Which is why you went out of your way in your first post to say "this felon is going to pay some kind of price." Pull the other one, OG.
Of course he didn't know the gun meant he was going to get killed and was responding to attitude and stance. So? The guy had no way of knowing it would respond with flight rather than more aggression until he'd already gone out there to shoot it and the law does not expect the same caution and care with an animal that it does for preserving human life. If it was still acting in a way that could reasonably be perceived as aggressive when the guy committed to going out the door and potentially placing himself in danger in a confrontation then it ceased to matter if it subsequently broke off and ran once the confrontation had started.Are you suggesting the dog knew what the gun was, or was he responding to his owners attitude or stance?
The dog remained a threat, to anyone going out in the yard and (possibly) to others if there was any way for it to get out of the yard. It doesn't matter if the person and his child himself were secure so long as they remained inside.Do you think the dog would have reacted differently if it was a bat or shovel? The child was saved, the owner reacted and the dog was in a position that made it securable without harm.
The Arizona statute, 13-2910.What laws are you reading for death of a pet being a felony? The ones i found list felonies for only service animal and fighting ring offenses. But I'm mobile and research is slightly more difficult.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
context, my original post was referring to the original article and its discussion. he was being charged with a felony for being a felon, and from whats been presented so far, its a worthy charge. As the conversation shifted and new info was made available it was no longer about being a felon but about over reacting after a threat had passed.
These are the felony guidelines
8. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment that results in serious physical injury to the animal.
9. Intentionally or knowingly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment.
10. Intentionally or knowingly interferes with, kills or harms a working or service animal without either legal privilege or consent of the owner.
11. Intentionally or knowingly allows any dog that is under the person's custody or control to interfere with, kill or cause physical injury to a service animal.
13. Intentionally or knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a service animal with the intent to deprive the service animal handler of the service animal.
This is the more likely misdemeanor violation he is being charged with:
3. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal.
Arizona has some of the must lax animal cruelty laws in the nation.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Bullshit. It's not like the charges ever changed. You shifted, because your ground was untenable.
Yep, those are the felony guidelines. Did you bother to look up the definition of terms? Specifically, "cruel mistreatment."These are the felony guidelines
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
charges did change (or at least the known charges did). original article only mentioned the felony possession. the next article listed the extra charges, causing more research and thought into why those would be applicable.
mistreatment for animals is generally an ongoing affair, like locking them in cages to small. physical injury would be an immediate action, like beating or shooting them. If the prosecution wanted to go for overkill, seems they would have gone for the felony charge if you're thinking its more applicable
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-04-2015 at 07:55 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The next article. The one you provided, because you got around to doing digging. Because your position was untenable. There's a reason the personal pronoun stays the same throughout, there, OG. Your narrative rings hollow.
And. . . just why would you be talking about whatever you think "mistreament for animals" is generally when we're talking about what it is specfically defined as in Arizona, a specific definition which immediately demonstrates your "general" understanding of referring to an ongoing affair is invalid here?mistreatment for animals is generally an ongoing affair, like locking them in cages to small. physical injury would be an immediate action, like beating or shooting them. If the prosecution wanted to go for overkill, seems they would have gone for the felony charge if you're thinking its more applicable
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
This is just one giant miss from you. That link that was found while trying to find the previous felony charge, even asked that question. Yes the focus shifted after finding more information on the event, causing more questions and googling, but thats why i found the link originally. This became far more than a felon using a gun when he wasn't legally allowed to (hammer and nail comment).
And let me clarify what I meant by generally. Arizona follows the general use of mistreatment. If that wasn't obvious from separate parts of the statue referring to injury and mistreatment independently there is nothing written in the statue to say that Arizona has a special definition for mistreatment. And it seems to have been applied here correctly, ignoring if the dog was a threat or not. Shooting a dog is injury, not mistreatment.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Sound and fury signifying nothing. This passage doesn't do a damn thing to rebut me, it just repeats your prior post.
Arizona does have a specific definition of "cruel mistreatment." You plainly didn't read the full statute. Your claims of what he did all fall under the terms defined as "cruel mistreatment." Shooting the dog would be an injury. Shooting the dog multiple times and killing it is "cruel mistreatment" And intentional or knowing "cruel mistreatment" is one of the things classifying it as felony animal cruelty, as per the guidelines you already posted.And let me clarify what I meant by generally. Arizona follows the general use of mistreatment. If that wasn't obvious from separate parts of the statue referring to injury and mistreatment independently there is nothing written in the statue to say that Arizona has a special definition for mistreatment. And it seems to have been applied here correctly, ignoring if the dog was a threat or not. Shooting a dog is injury, not mistreatment.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If you replace dog with person of course it's different. But a dog is not a person. The law makes it crystal clear that a dog that has attacked a person can be put down. To disregard the fact it's a dog is to disregard both the truth and the law.
You are categorically wrong. Attacking a human is a death sentence for a dog. Once a human is viciously attacked a dog can and should be put down. It is not a case of securing the dog until it attacks a human again. Dogs are not people.
Don't forget "felony being a felon near a gun"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
2. "Cruel mistreatment" means to torture or otherwise inflict unnecessary serious physical injury on an animal or to kill an animal in a manner that causes protracted suffering to the animal.
The animal was shot. Nothing in the articles suggest it was drawn out or caused protracted suffering, and it obviously wasn't torture. It was a rash and quick action from trigger pulling to death. Killing the animal here was not cruel mistreatment.
An actual example of cruel mistreatment.
The man who allegedly shot and attempted to bury his roommate’s dog (alive) after he became angry at it for “making a mess” at their home.
Another one
The report stated that Beadles does not own a gun so he “put it out of its misery” by kicking and stomping its head.
Notice the addition of suffering? Like I said Arizona has some ridiculously lax abuse laws, near instant death by firearm (or at least a death where suffering would be hard to prove) isn't harsh enough to be a felony.
No its not. Dogs go after people all the time, a lot of its instinctively, being stepped on while sleeping is a common cause. Not to mention dogs guarding properties and such. We don't know the whole story here aside from the fact that a dog is strong enough to puncture the bone of a 4 year old. Both articles linked to so far only mention the head wound. I'm not saying this dog would have been saved, not at all, but the US has a process for dealing with these situations, and taking a gun to your dog (while a felon, in a city, 8 feet from your neighbors property) after the fact isn't part of that process. Animal control would have come to decide the fate of the dog, or the owner would have taken the dog to the vet for humane euthanasia.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-05-2015 at 03:37 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote