E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Connecticut legislator has proposed a bill that would allow the appointment of an advocate to act on behalf of an animal during court proceedings.
Connecticut State Rep. Diana Urban proposed the bill, known as HB 6310, "An Act Concerning Animal Advocates in Court Proceedings." It would permit a veterinarian with the Department of Agriculture to be appointed as an advocate for an animal whose welfare or custody is the subject of a civil or criminal court proceeding.
"HB 6310 would give the option for an advocate in court for an egregiously injured animal," said Urban, a Democrat from North Stonington, Conn. "This would enable the animal's injury to be identified as a red flag for future violent behavior. We are putting together a public/private partnership with the state Department of Agriculture and nonprofit rescue groups including Connecticut Votes for Animals to be available to speak for the animals in court."
Also on NBCConnecticut.com: New backlash over Conn. state budget
Urban was joined at a news conference Thursday by Asa Palmer, a North Stonington high school student who discovered two of the cows on his family farm shot in the face in January. One of the cows had to be euthanized.
"If this was in place today, Asa Palmer could request an advocate for his young cow, 'Angel,' who was shot in the face and left with her jaw hanging off," Urban said.
Two men have been charged with shooting Palmer's cows.
The bill, which is awaiting action in the legislature's Judiciary Committee, has the support of other lawmakers.
Also on NBCConnecticut.com: Caregiver charged after elderly woman is found on snow bank
"Much like our children who cannot advocate on behalf of themselves, innocent animals that are abused or worse, killed, deserve that same right," said Rep. Brenda Kupchick, a Republican from Fairfield, Conn. "Violence of any type is unacceptable and we must do whatever we can to give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves."
It was not clear if or when the Judiciary Committee would take action on Urban's bill.
Leave a Comment:
How ffffing stupid can we get.
Breeze, I am beginning to think there is no bottom to the stupid. We need less government not more. I really need to get on the boat and just leave this god forsaken place!
Next a advocate for plants ...is there no end to the government's need to create a agency for everything, when the current agency's are run by incompetent czar's appointed by incompetent white house !
I wonder which advocate should speak for the rat I just trapped.
dick- Do you know that you just admitted to animal cruelty and once the advocate has their say it will be upgraded to HOMICIDE! /sarc
Really how many completely useless bills/laws are going to be set up without any common sense what so ever?!?!? Any chance of any part of the government going to look at REAL issues facing the American people whether on state or federal level? (crickets chirping from every government office)
And I was just having this conversation with Kaybeetoys, and she called ME crazy.
It started like this...
"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980
To which I replied: It is a comment on group or mob mentality. It is also a comment on how those who only know an urban environment become detached or divorced from the true realities of life; e.g.,
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". --unknown
So what say you all...? ;-)
And what is the Population density of Conn.?
State Rep. Diana Urban. Democrat (duh)
Since most people who live in rural areas spend their time working at ranching, farming etc., they don't have the time that city people do to spend on dumb as*ed sh*t like lawyers for animals-they are far too busy being self - reliant, and solving their problems by themselves, not calling the repair man,plumber,mechanic etc.
City people can't do anything for themselves-they have to rely on others-rural people very rarely have to rely on others t fix anything,or solve a problem.
Rural people do not have the "mob mentality" like city people do-that is due to not being confined to small spaces with other people for their whole lives-even rats become hostile and violent when confined in too small of a living area with too many other rats-that is taught n sociology 101-so there's the proof.
A rural person would never ask to see statistics-they just want to know if something works or not-those of us who live in a rural area are less prone to violence, we are healthier both physically and mentally, and yes, we are generally far more intelligent than a person who lives in a city apartment, and works in a office cubicle-like the rats-they become hostile, and sociopathic.
Us rural dwellers work outdoors a lot, we are far, far more self-sufficient, we are not cooped up in a small area, we don't spend much time watching TV, on the internet, playing video or internet games, so yes,our minds are clearer and sharper,we actually pay attention to our surroundings-
The city people have no clue what goes on around them,no clue who their neighbors are,they just keep their heads down,shuffle back and forth to work,go to the grocery store once a week,and hide out from the other city people by staying in their tiny apartments and watching the brain rotting crap on tv.
The city people are truly the "sheeple"
@ Starvin Larry
Well said, thank you. and you bring up several good points.
and in a future news story....
Does anyone really need to wonder why governments go broke?
Breeze you just can't fix stupid. Once stupid always stupid. Pretty soon animals are going to have more rights than we do. I don't have a problem wiht punishing people for animal cruelty but itis the definition that bothers me. some cruelty is very evident but other times it isn't so clear. I am afraid this might djust be a lawyer thing to make more money!
Does anyone need further proof that the inmates are indeed running the asylum? All this from a state where their governor gags when forced to say the word "Christmas".
DumbFarmBoy, Though your moniker appears to be an attempt at self deprecation... it has failed miserably in that regard. Your Call Sign it appears is more literal then humorous!
Arguably, assigning an advocate to those who have no voice... it would appear... to have legal precedence (I am being patronizing and by degree condescending). That said (back to you), your attempt at reinforcing the divide between city and country illustrates all to well the falsehood that low intelligence is the inevitable and inverse affect of higher population density.
My Country Cousin... you embody all that is wrong with rural America. You are Reactionary (a person who is defined not by what you are for but rather who or what you are against). Whereas cities are engines of change, new paradigms, higher education, synergism, experimentation and a civilizing affect... the opposite can be said of the intellectual wasteland between.
I live in a blue dot in a sea of red... but the dots are getting bigger with every passing moment and represent an ever growing and greater percentage of our Nation's aggregate population. We are the future! I and those like us are proudly urban! I live in a place where the arts flourish, centers of research and education dominate, one can here several languages in one day, great architecture is being built, where difference and common cause are more then compatible they compliment each other.
How is it then that respecting the value and personhood of a fellow creature is a thing to be disdained? Even the denizens of Double Wides, those afraid of competing in large cities and those like yourself who suffer from self inflicted ignorance deserve some legal representation... why then would you deny this to your superiors?
I think it's a great idea.
It's past time that wanton cruelty to animals got the attention of the courts. As for me, I can't see how the idiotic fool calling himself a judge allowed Michael Vick to own another dog once his "probation" period was up.
Those of you who are making fun of this should take a stroll through a pasture where some "enlightened, intelligent, proudly urban" neanderthals out for drunken joy rides have done target shooting at cattle, horses, and sheep. Lots of times they use bows to keep it quiet; ever seen an animal quietly suffering with an arrow sticking out of its eye socket?
They ran out of buffalo and had to resort to domestic, fenced livestock.
How do I know they were urban cowboys? Many of them have been caught, when they ran their vehicles into the ditches after laughing hysterically at the animals they stampeded into the fences.
Sometimes, the stupidity of our alleged representatives in government beggars the imagination.
If I ever meet Rep. Urban, I'll ask her if I should expect a summons from the next of kin of the steak I had for dinner last night, or from the relatives of the squirrel I ran over last summer (I did not mean to). I hate to even think about the legal actions resulting from all those bugs hitting my windshield.
To be clear, I do not believe that stupidity in government is the monopoly of either party or of either the left or the right. State Rep. Diana Urban is a Democrat. But I've seen plenty of moronic ideas generated by Republicans. George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq springs to mind, as does just about any opinion voiced by Sarah Palin.
But this "idea" of Rep. Durban has to get the blue ribbon, for 2013 at least.
Well, screminmimi, there are already laws on the books against cruelty to animals. But animals are not accorded the same rights as humans. If they were, there would be no McDonalds selling disks of ground up cow between two pieces of bread [how barbaric], and we do not need our court system clogged up with cases filed on behalf of some dog whose owner left it out in the rain.
Jeesh! I guess there is no idea so silly that at least a couple of people won't vote for it.
Next it will be "plants will have a day in court".
The judical system in the United States continues to swirl down the toilet.
Dumbfarmboy, kaybeetoys may serve as a good, straw target when attempting to stigmatize all liberals, all city dwellers or all Democrats as either foolish or crazy. But your implied assertions that either kaybee, or Rep. Urban in some way stand for any large demographic segment of our society makes as much sense as attempting label all inhabitants of Idaho as closet homosexuals on the basis of the well-publicized [and quite risible] arrest of former Senator Larry Craig in an airport washroom in Minnesota.
There are quacks, hacks and criminals at all points of the political spectrum. Only the fool, or the intentionally dishonest, seeks to portray them as emblematic of anything except themselves.
Yes, as evidenced by the fact that Michael Vick was allowed to continue playing football, and is allowed to have possession of another dog after what he did to those found at this home. As a sport, football should be disgraced. As a judicial body, the court system should be ashamed. As a member of the justice system, that judge who allowed it should be tarred and feathered.
They are woefully inadequate when it comes to satisfaction and monetary compensation of the owners of the animals, the penalties are paltry and usually in the misdemeanor category.
I have a horse I love dearly; my last one I raised from a colt and lived to a very old age, dying with dignity and all the love I would give a cherished family member. So will this one.
Should a thrill seeking bastard shoot at him causing him to run through a fence, breaking his leg, the shooter will get a misdemeanor charge, no jail time. The price of horses right now is extremely low. Even if all he meant to me was livestock on the hoof I could not replace him for what I paid for him and the training I have put into him with what a court would order... and he would have to be put down with a broken leg.
My preference would be for the shooter to be ordered to pay for a vet to set the broken leg, paying for the meds and special equipment needed for the operation, the stay at the clinic until he could walk on it safely in the pasture, the pain meds and antibiotics when he was at home until he no longer needed them AND the cost of another horse for my riding pleasure.
Do you see the difference? To many of us, animals are not just animals and the current laws are not sufficient.
@ Tank Carson
Well that is on man's opinion,(yours) and judging by the rest of the comment, it is not worth the virtual paper it was electronically deposited upon.
First off, ANIMALS HAVE NO, (NONE, ZERO, NADA, LACKING ALL, KEINE,) RIGHTS. Animal Rights is a figment of the Liberals mind and agenda. As much as I love a good dog, they after all, are only animals. And that people are showing such an emotional attachment to an ANIMAL, is quite frankly, disturbing.
"and personhood of a fellow creature" That is on the verge of some form of psychosis. Talk about losing touch with reality.
And an element of that quote refers to urban people's disconnect to reality.
They live in a sterile, sanitized version of the world and their typical interaction with animals is the family pet or at a zoo. And as Larry pointed out, are not self reliant. What happens when something goes amiss? They call somebody else to deal with it, animal control, the police, etc.
" I live in a blue dot in a sea of red..." And what a lousy, spiteful, small minded, hypocrite you are are. You accuse me of making false claims, about the difference between urban and rural, yet you would make those same claims between Republican (Red) and Democrat (Blue).
And You also confused or try to equate "Education" (knowledge) with "Intelligence" (ability to use knowledge) Trust me sparky, I have met more than a few PhD's, who have an actual IQ lower than some dogs I know.
If you knew anything about American Ingenuity, you would know that the American Farmers are some of the most prolific inventors on the planet. I learned how to fix, build and operate just about anything before I was 16. What were you doing? Smokin' dope and Johnsons? And unfortunately, I never developed my "tobacco spitting" skills, however the TOBACCO, I used was legal, and didn't support criminal gangs who slaughter innocent people.
I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you. (see, I can name call too)
Nor do I expect a rebuttal from a liberal Troll like you.
DumbFarmBoy
APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE!!!!!!
@ screminmimi
You raise some valid points, however, I think your sense of justice is misplaced. As seems to be the case with most of these people's. They seem to want justice for the animal. When in fact we need to focus the attention of justice on the owner of the animal. And what fair and just compensation for a well trained animal, (investment of time, expense, etc.).
And our state has made it a felony to cause wanton cruelty to an animal. (and yes I have had the misfortune to have to deal with the aftermath of other people's vandalism of our livestock) You may want to contact your state Representative on the matter. And would phrase it to them as acts of vandalism, for that is exactly what it is.
And I guess what Rep. Diana Urban is missing is that animals already have an advocate, that is the owner.
Senator George Graham Vest won a court battle and the hearts of dog lovers everywhere when he paid his famous tribute to the dog during the 1870 Burden vs. Hornsby court case in Warrensburg. The speech included the line, “The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is his dog.”
The “eulogy to the dog” won the case for Charles Burden whose favorite hound, Old Drum, was shot by a neighbor & brother-in-law, Leonidas Hornsby, who had sworn to shoot the first sheep-killing dog that came onto his land. Although Hornsby had hunted with Drum and acknowledged him to be one of the best hunting dogs he had ever seen, he also suspected that Drum was the dog that had been killing his sheep. Hornsby, carried out his threat when one night a dog was found prowling in his yard. That dog was Old Drum.
Burden immediately sued Hornsby for damages, and the trial quickly became one of the strangest in the history of this area of the country. Each man was determined to win the case. After several trials at magistrate court and district court, punctuated by appeals by the loser in each trial, the case finally reached the Supreme Court of Missouri. The award of $50 in damages to Burden for the loss of his favorite hunting dog was upheld.
The many trials involved prominent attorneys on both sides. David Nation, whose wife Carrie made a name for herself in the Temperance Movement, appeared for Burden in one of the early encounters. The last jury trial, held September 23, 1870, in what is now the Johnson County Historical Society museum, featured the most prominent lawyers.
Hornsby, the defendant, was represented by the firm of Crittenden & Cockrell. Tom Crittenden had been Lt. Col. of the 7th Cavalry, Missouri State Militia (Federal), in the ‘late unpleasantness’. He was to go on to the Governership of Missouri in 1880; Tom Crittenden issued the reward that motivated the Ford brothers to kill Jesse James. His partner was Francis Marion Cockrell, recently a Brigadier General commanding the 1st Missouri Brigade (CSA), one of the hardest-fighting units in the Confederate Army of Tennessee (see my Civil War bibliography for more on his history). Cockrell later spent 5 terms in the U.S. Senate.
Appearing for Burden was the Sedalia-based firm of Phillips & Vest. John Phillips had been a Union Colonel & Tom Crittenden’s immediate superior; he was later a congressman and a federal judge. George Graham Vest had been a strong secessionist, having written Missouri’s Articles of Secession while in the state legislature in 1861. His war service was in Richmond representing Missouri in the Confederate House of Representatives and Senate. He later served in the U.S. Senate for 4 terms.
Perhaps because he spent the war talking rather than fighting, George Vest was known as one of the finest extemporaneous speakers in an age when the spoken word was the most important means of communication for most people. Vest’s closing argument in the Old Drum case, known as his “eulogy to the dog,” won the case and became a classic speech, recognized by William Safire as one of the best of the millennium.
Through the direction of the Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce and coordinated efforts by many dog lovers across the country, Old Drum was immortalized in a statue on the Johnson County Courthouse lawn in Warrensburg on September 23, 1958. Previously, in 1947, Fred Ford of Blue Springs placed a monument to Old Drum near a crossing of Big Creek where Old Drum’s body was found. If you’re interested in exploring the Old Drum sites, check our our Old Drum Tour.
While no record was kept of the last half of Vest’s tribute to a dog, the first portion has fortunately been preserved. It was this speech that originated the saying, “A man’s best friend is his dog.”
WARNING – GET A TISSUE BEFORE YOU CONTINUE!
George Graham Vest speaking:
“Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us — those whom we trust with our happiness and good name — may become traitors in their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolute, unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world — the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous — is his dog.
“Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and poverty, in health and sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow, and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer; he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.
“If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace, and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.”
DumbFarmBoy:
No judge would ever give me the compensation, or the care, for an injured horse that I mentioned in the above post.
In fact, in the case of a foreclosure on a farm, even though a horse has been the acknowledged pet and companion of a child for years, even registered in the child's name, it cannot be removed as personal property. It has to remain as "livestock" and part of the assets of the farm, and sold as such.
It's this type of thing that can make an otherwise emotionally stable person go off the tracks. Because I assure you, should I find someone deliberately causing injury to my horse or to my dogs, I would not hesitate to stand between them and my animals with a rifle.
The laws on the books are inadequate, and no one is interested in changing them because they feel animals aren't of that much value and can be replaced. Some of them simply cannot be. They are mourned, they are missed, and they take pieces of our lives and hearts when they go.
You can ridicule those of us who feel this way, but it doesn't change or mitigate how we feel.
@ dman-353357
And you too, obviously missed the point. The statement I made is a generalization. Of course I realize there are exceptions, on both sides in and out of the urban areas. But then again, is that not the point of a GENERALIZATION, to be general in nature, and exclude the extremes at each end?
The argument you make is, based on one lone incident is a Hasty generalization: (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
And perhaps you misunderstood the use of "Intelligence" in this generalization, [the ability to use knowledge, in productive, understandable, or reasonable manner]
Starvin Larry-SPOT ON.Best post I have read in years.
Completely agree with Roncombatvet, Starvin Larry - completely agree!
"Carryingconcealed" Isn't it interesting how these PETA/HSUS types post on some of the most liberal news media on the planet and still people hate them.My friend go to the Huffington Post where on this extremely liberal newspaper PETA even has it's own column and still the anger and hatrd towards them is overwhelming and astonishing.What the libs miss is we are against animal cruelty to but do support an extremist agenda that demonizes hunters, rural America, medical research and legislates complete asinine stupidity.
@ screminmimi
I apologize, I did not mean to offend.
And I agree, some of the laws in place, do cause one to wonder who is driving the train. And trust me, I know about, "no one is interested in changing them (the laws)". But one can only keep trying. (or run for office themselves) I too have been witness to numerous foreclosures, and have seen the grief. I can empathize with your statement, and I can only beseech people to keep these things in perspective.
"I find someone deliberately causing injury" I will be doing more than standing between them, myself.
You should realize, (I hope) that I care for animals too. I just cannot bring myself to understand the DEEP emotional attachment, that some seem to place on animals. I have had a couple of really good and faithful hunting dogs in my life as well. And I miss them, too. And maybe it is my upbringing, and dealing with the loss of so many new born calves, pigs, colts, and dogs and cats that were run over by machinery and vehicles that has given me the jaded view I have. But it is also one of the reasons I don't have a pet. I would not subject a dog to be stuck in my little back yard, or a cat stuck in my house, unable to roam about freely, as they did on the farm.
Even the Good Book tells us to be good stewards of all the creatures.
DumbFarmBoy, As to my comment and to your reply:
" I live in a blue dot in a sea of red..." And what a lousy, spiteful, small minded, hypocrite you are are. You accuse me of making false claims, about the difference between urban and rural, yet you would make those same claims between Republican (Red) and Democrat (Blue).
I DO MAKE THOSE CLAIMS! At the end of World War the majority of Americans lived in small towns and on farms. Many an intelligent farm boy (and girl) on the GI Bill realized soon their after that there was more opportunity, dynamism, culture and greater horizons to be had in the Big City. This great migration and the resulting demographic shift was made up of people essentially egalitarian in temperament and with a world view that was anything but reactionary (my Grandfather among them). They sought their fortunes and the betterment of their family and descendants over the horizon and with the rest of us. The result was the Middle Class!
Here, I must qualify... there are ruraltarians and proud farmers who are compassionate about living things, posses empahy for the person of animals and others, who are progressive, live in an evidence based world, who don't confuse faith for or with science and vote "Blue"... but they appear to be with ever greater trending the exception to the rule in the hinterland!
During the Republican Primaries Tea Party audiences gave raucous, approving, long standing, thunderous ovations upon hearing their respective candidates make declarations (and I paraphrase) as these gems... "a person with cancer and without insurance should be allowed to die" and "Texas... what a great state... they kill more inmates then the next three". And to top it off they booed a young soldier (who happened to be gay) serving overseas and in a war zone! Granted, there may have been some City Slickers among them... but it was this collective view of the crowd (mob)... and of these mean spirited, unchristian acting (Jesus was a Hippie who promoted Social Justice) people which is now the prevalent view and outlook in the territories we call "red"!
Off course you see animals as mere abstractions, here to serve you and make you feel good about your superiority and preeminence on the food chain! Farm Boy... I assure you that many high-order animals have emotional lives the equal of humans, they are capable of great love, loyalty and are without guile! They are complete souls, in this life fellow travellers, God created... they feed us, protect us, love us and deserve our respect and protection! Even the lowly pea brained Chicken should see the light of day, feel the wind and have room to move... but they endure their short lifetime standing in their on excrement! We all need advocacy... even someone like you my friend.
scriminmimi, you make my head hurt. The owners are also entitled to seek monetary redress through a civil suit, for destruction of their property.
The animals themselves have no standing to bring suit, because they are not human, and because they are property.
@DumbFarmBoy:
I appreciate your comments and I understand that it is a lack of understanding that is at the root of all problems mankind has.
As for myself, I have grown up with dogs as more than just a farm animal. They have been a family member, and when I lived in cities such as Boston my dog was my roommate and companion, my security system and bodyguard. That kind of relationship has no monetary value you can place on it.
If the justice system would recognize the value inherent to the relationship and not just to the pedigree of the animals, no further laws would be necessary.
As for foreclosures... you just don't separate Jeff and Lassie, Joey and Fury, or Ken and Flicka. Lassie wasn't just a sheep herding dog, and Fury and Flicka weren't just livestock. Everybody knows that except a judge who would preside on a foreclosure of any of those three ranches.
Many, many times the owners are not in a financial position to mount a civil suit, leaving them with nothing but rage and frustration with a legal system that refuses to represent them in what they feel is a criminal offense against them.
And you have missed the point entirely in that YOU see the animals as property and THEY see the animals as friends and members of their family, in many cases. And you calling them ignorant and stupid for the way they feel doesn't change their feelings in the least.
And if you think people won't retaliate with lethal force against someone who has killed a beloved family member who just happens to be of the animal kingdom, you need to Google it.
Change the law from a civil dispute to a criminal one and deal with it accordingly. Or give every town a "Judge Judy" they can go to free of charge for civil justice.
No, I got the point, that on the basis of Rep. Urban's idiotic bill, and of kaybeetoys sometimes myopic opinions, you expect others to respect your assessment of all liberals, urban dwellers and Democrats: that they are of generally lower intelligence.
If Rep. Urban's bill was passed in the Connecticut legislature, there might be justification for assuming the people in that state were all idiots.
Absent such evidence, your characterizations would also be termed a "Hasty generalization", just as if I were to assume, based solely upon your last post, that most farm boys and other rural dwellers do not understand proper use of capitalization in the English language.
In brief, you are using anecdotal evidence and generalizations to assert something which, I suspect, is only a projection of your own prejudices.
scriminmimi - the fact you state might, with equal justice, apply to a poor person's inanimate property, his car, his house, a cherished memento of special value only to his (or her) self. Shall we now accord the legal right to sue to a car, a piece of furniture, or some Franklin Mint statuary?
Be serious.
Our legal system will never accord every citizen perfect equality before the courts. A rich man can always hire better legal assistance than a poor man. There avenues for legal redress, in the form of pro bono legal aid.
But this proposed law would not offer further serious remediation of this issue. It would allow third parties, such as Connecticut Votes for Animals, to become advocates for any animal they felt had been mistreated. I see it as nothing more or less than an attempt to accord animals with rights on a par with those of human beings.
Dumb law. Thankfully, I think it highly unlikely it will ever even come up for a vote, let alone be enacted into law.
scriminmimi - no where did I call anybody dumb for caring about their animals. I only made the point that, regardless of your personal feelings, or those of any other animal owner, animals have no standing under law to bring a suit, anymore than they can vote or own property.
You are entitled to your feelings. You are even entitled to sue for the emotional loss you feel over a pet or other chattel that has been killed or maimed. But the animal is not so entitled.
I might have sympathy for somebody who retaliated with deadly force for the killing a beloved, human, family member, although I would still find them guilty of some form of homicide. But if I'm ever on the jury in a trial where you are accused of killing somebody over the death of your gold fish, don't expect me take the "murder" or your "beloved family member" into account.
That already exists. Judge Judy just presides over a televised small claims court. Anybody can bring a civil suit against a person or an organization and plead his or her case in small claims court before the judge. I believe the only cost are the filing fees.
Actually, I think all of you are missing the underlying theme here - this bill has far reaching implications than any of you are looking at. Yes, right now they are talking about pets, livestock, etc. but this will be used in future cases by animal rights activists to end hunting and fishing! Oh no you say! But think about this they (the animal rights activists) have already tried in other states to get the label of personhood extended to animals! Next time PETA or any other animal activist group (think whales) wil have a lawyer in court "speaking" for the animal. No this whole issue and the associated bill is another back door maneuver to impose their "morals" on other people.
AtomAnt, I think I wait until such a bill is actually enacted into law before I start spotting the carpet in fear of the changes you predict.
Every so often a legislator files some nut-case bill, but unless it actually passes into law it is just one man's [or woman's] folly.
So relax, and enjoy the steak you have for dinner, without worrying that some cow is going to file papers to yank you into court.
dman -353357
To wait until the bill is enacted is to wait way too long..... the world is full of nut-case bills that become laws because of people not doing anything.
Atom-Ant - This particular bill is going no where. You're just getting yourself worked up into a lather for no good reason.
@ dman-353357
Yes, you did. If I had been making my argument based on solely on Ms. Rep. Urban here, then you would be correct to make the correlation to Sen. Craig and Idaho. (also, since all we have is written correspondence, and limited formatting, I use a capitol letter(s) to denote emphasis, kind of like Caps Bold to denote shouting. I am college educated, not that really means anything to me, and I completed English Comp with an B, [not my strong suit, Math, Science, and Engineering are] but that does not mean I don't make an occasional typo).
However, since I was bringing this conversation in from another vine it means there was another group of city dwellers (not just KBT) were involved in enacting legislation that has no purpose other to advance an agenda that is not grounded in reality. And the fact that the quote was made 32 years ago in reference to some obvious stupidity of the time.
And all one needs to do is look at Congress, to figure out that large groups do things poorly. (of course, at least when it comes to Government, I like this better than the single person ruler.) but this is only an example.
E.G. the CDL: Commercial Drivers License. its original intent was to help keep highways safe, which is a good idea. But in my experience, it had some rather interesting unintended consequences. I used to operate a Skid Steer Loader service, (until the housing market went bust) and in order to move my loader around, I used a heavy duty 1 ton Dually truck (even though a 3/4 ton would have worked, I chose the heavier truck to better control the rig, in traffic, for safety reason) And how was I rewarded for my responsible behavior? I was forced to obtain a Class A CDL (the same license required by OTR drivers of semis, with all the added expense. I had a choice get a smaller, lighter, less safe truck, or get a CDL and pass the expense to my customers. (I stayed with the CDL, long term still more cost effective, than having accident) And don't get me started on gun laws. And I am sure there are a multitude of other examples, surely you have a few from you own experience.
And to some extent I would agree with your last statement, there are some prejudices there, but then again, don't we all have them in some form or another. And the quote is also meant to be a bit of sarcasm. Something to make you contemplate your actions, "Is this really what we want?" or "Is this really the best way to do this?" or "What are the unintended consequences?"
Just look at Tank Carson's comments. I wonder if he truly understands his complete reliance upon those "in the territories we call "red"!". And how it, was those, in the 'Red territories' that make it possible for those in the 'Blue Territories' to enjoy their lives, and allow them the free time to contemplate the mysteries of the universe at their universities, and create "art", etc. And if you read his comments carefully, there is a contempt, a prejudice against those of rural upbringing. He seems to think we are lacking in the arts. (I wonder if he knows that I was able to see one of Pavarotti's last performances, or that I enjoy Opera?)
And if you read the quote, you would note that it says "a people's" not a person's, as it applies to the group, not an individual.
But then again, is that not the point of a GENERALIZATION, to be general in nature, and exclude the extremes at each end?
Again, dumbfarmboy, all we have is your anecdotal recounting of your personal experiences, paired with your personal interaction with certain laws, such as those surrounding, Commercial Drivers License:
Sorry, if adherence to such laws proved inconvenient, but such laws are present for a purpose. You, personally may have felt 100% competent to operate a larger, safer vehicle. You may even be competent to do so. But the safety of the highways demands that such competence be demonstrated in a structured manner, and be documented with a license.
There is a wide gulf between laws which are largely sensible, but have specific circumstances under which they seem impractical, or even unjust, and laws such as the one envisioned by Rep. Urban, which anywhere and at anytime are both moronic and unworkable.
I did not read Tank Carson or his comments. My discussion is with you, and I am neither answerable for his observances, nor interested in reading them.
But more accurate statement, or question would be do all the people in both red and blue states understand their interdependence upon one another. There are certainly products and services derived from red states which are essential to our country, but conversely there are also products and services derived from blue states which are equally essential. I'd also point out that if one compares the ratio of tax dollars paid vs federal benefits and expenditures received, it is primarily Red states which are the largest beneficiary.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/give-take-small-final.png
If you examine the above site, you'll see that the largest surpluses are received by by states with two Republican Senators ($1.49 for states with two Republican Senators, vs $1.24 for states with two Democratic Senators).
So, while I'm not sure at what point, exactly you are driving, if you are trying to prove that people in largely Democratic states are living off the labor of people in Republican states, you need to provide a sounder footing for that GENERALIZATION.
In the block-quoted text you supplied, I failed to find either the word people, or person.
I did go back to your original post, and the quote by Robert Reedy. My response is, "So what?". I'm at a loss as to why a) I should take Robert Reedy as an absolute authority on the subject of group intellect, or why you tie it to the actions of Rep. Dianne Urban, who hales from North Stonington, Conn, a town of approximately 5,000 people, in one of the more lightly populated portions of the state.
In your neck of the woods, does a town of 5,000 people count as a big city?
The purpose of a generalization is to provide a simplified model of some aspect of the world around us. But to be of some valid use, other than to defame some group, it needs to be based upon sufficient evidence or demonstrable experience.
My point in raising invoking the memory of former Senator Larry Craig, was not to characterize the people of Idaho, or all Republicans as closet homosexuals, but to highlight the fact that, to date, you have provided very little evidence to demonstrate your implied contention:
If the above rhetorical questions, paired with rather artful observance that Rep. Urban is a Democrat is not an attempt to denigrate the intelligence and common sense of the people of Connecticut, then perhaps you do need to work on your English composition, because it certainly reads that way.
So, while I do agree that people in groups tend to behave with little more collective intelligence than their stupidest members, rural areas and red states are far from immune to this tendency. To imply or claim otherwise is merely to publicize one's own personal prejudices.
dman-353357
And You still JUST don't get it do you. And you are trying to prove my point despite yourself. And How is my anecdotal evidence invalid? What you want me to sight you a study? And to some extent this is my point, to most of the college educated idiots in and amongst the urban landscape, unless it is published in a study, done by some equally over educated Professor, then it has no validity. Just exactly which Accredited University did Aristotle attend? Which Engineering College did DaVinci graduate from? And just because the the author of the quote is unknown, (to you) you call it into question. What if the quote were from Mark Twain. (I wonder, off the top of your head do you know what is means to mark twain? hint is has to do with river navigation)
It is not my English Comp that needs work, it is your Reading Comprehension, or your knowledge of real world equipment. I was not complaining about the laws as they apply to OTR drivers, there are some quirks in them yes, but the fact that they were made to apply to me, someone who drive his rig (not a Big Rig), no more than 50 miles a day, some times not even that far, to a job site, gets out, and operates a piece of construction equipment all day, seems a bit asinine.
Let me explain again. I WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE SAME DRIVERS LICENSE (with all of the accompanying regulations, log books, etc.) TO OPERATE A PICK UP TRUCK AND CAR TRAILER (24.5K scaled) AS IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE A TRACTOR TRAILER RIG WEIGHING 80 THOUSAND POUNDS AND EXPECTED TO TRAVEL AT 70mph FOR 8 TO 10 A DAY. DO you get it now? A pick up and car trailer, vs. a semi? And yes, I do know how to drive a Semi, I learned on the farm. And I was already licensed to drive a pick up truck, even a 2 ton truck.
And as I said, to avoid this, I could have gotten a SMALLER, LIGHTER pick-up. "such laws are present for a purpose" And that purpose was for highway safety. Did you read my entire post? I was penalized for being safer, KEEPING THE LARGER HEAVIER TRUCK. Suffice it to say, and trust me, when I say this, the people who make the rules are just like you. They do not have an F-N clue about how the real world works.
And you wonder why I make the claim about intelligence? Maybe I need to focus on Ignorance? Do you understand the difference between a 1 ton PICK UP and a Semi Truck?
Spoken Like a true liberal, ignore the Facts, or in anything that is inconvenient. You should read his comments, I think he and you would become very good 'mates'. And while you at it go read Starvin Larry's comment on my comment.
If my brothers and all of the other farmers stopped selling their food tomorrow, and went back to the hunter/gather lifestyle, they could. We could go back to the stone age. WE OWN THE LAND. City dwellers would starve. (and don't go into the well, you have to defend it from 'x' or this 'y' argument, this is a purely hypothetical situation, all things being equal) And yes, I am fully aware, even more so than you, of the interdependence of groups in Society.
{You know those "Zombie" movies they make. They are about the people who live in cities and are dependent upon the Government to "look out" for them. Just look at NOLA after Katrina.
I am not even going there, there is so much wrong that, population densities, miles of Federal Highways to maintain, etc, that, that isn't even a starter argument.
Well, if you did what I said and read Tank Carson's comment, Some of it quoted here, as an example of another dim witted urbanite, who is confusing intellect, with intelligence, with knowledge and so on.
You are truly stupid you know that, And I am done talking to you. How do you get out of bed and breathe in the morning. JSTFU.
WTF have we been talking about for these last few Comments?
And if you read the quote, you would note that it says "a people's" not a person's, as it applies to the group, not an individual.
Well here is the quote. Started at comment number 1.5
"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980
You have gone far beyond anything I could have done too prove to me "City People is stupid", you jumped into the middle of a discussion and you have no Idea what it was all about.
(sorry, went of the rails there a bit)
You know I was going down through each of your comments, trying to reply reasonably to each one until I got to "I failed to find either the word people, or person." It was then I realized you and I are not even in the same book, let alone in the same chapter, and forget about pages. I can only imagine, that you are pulling my leg, because no one can possible be that stupid. You did start at the top and read all the posts didn't you? Surely you don't expect me to believe you jumped in the middle and picked a comment out of context? (Of course dealing with a Liberal, should I expect anything less.
In answer to your question, yes this is what I have been talking about, a sarcastic generalization made by a man at least 7 seven times smarter than you. And you are just one more notch in his belt of evidence.
Good Evening Dman. Please don't bother to reply, and if you do, know that I am done here.
I've lost track, my rural genius, what precisely is your point?
Your anecdotal evidence is merely your recounting of things you have heard, or seen. It just your subjective impressions, based upon what you personally have heard and choose to believe.
As opposed to some theory you thought up over a few beers with your buddies. Yes, I would like to see some hard evidence.
Whew, when did the opinions of Tank Carson, or any other poster on this blog, become accorded the status of incontrovertible facts? From your reference to his words, I gather you have some issues with his opinions. Great, square them with him, not me. Nobody is answerable for the words uttered independently, by another person. Even here, in the "Big City" , we understand this concept. But not you, apparently.
You originally spoke of the complete reliance upon those "in the territories we call "red"!", and now you're threatening to go back to a hunter/gatherer culture. I could laugh my self sick, reading such drivel.
To begin with the biggest food producer in the nation is California, a long term blue state. Beyond that, without the hunting implements and firearms produced in urban areas, you and your vaunted brothers would be making stone-arrows to do you hunting. The people in cities would not be the only ones starving.
Most importantly, the day when the family farm was the back bone of U.S. agriculture passed away almost a century ago. Today farming is controlled by large-scale operations, sometimes run as publicly held companies. Please let me know when companies like Ocean Spray announce they are shifting l to hunting wild life and gathering wild grains as a business model. When that happens, I'll prepare for the prospect of starvation.;-)
I've crossed paths with you before, and invariably, when you run out of logical arguments, which doesn't take too long, you indulge in personal insults. JSTFU? How eloquent.
You are aware that those fictional movies based upon a mixture of fantasy and science fiction, are you not? Why are you citing them as in some way relevant to this discussion?
Is the inability to tell the difference between fact and fantasy particularly a rural or an urban problem? But then why would I expect you to know?
Ah, genius, that sentence should read "City people are stupid".
If you had read what i wrote, I mentioned that I had gone back and read this sanctified quote. My questions regarding this quote remain unanswered. Big surprise.
Oh, you are done alright.
@ et. al.
Yes Dman, we have crossed paths before, and it is not that I ran "out of logical arguments", I quit talking to you when it became apparent, just like now, that you had no understanding of the arguments presented.
It how can one argue with one who doesn't follow and understand the argument made?
And as I mentioned early on, this was sarcastic criticism of city dwellers, not a factual statement.
They call what you are suffering from perpendicular "Cranial Rectolitis" or "Cranial Rectosis"
*Cranial Rectosis: 1. n. A condition noted by behaving in such a puerile, obnoxious, and moronic manner as to have one's head up his or her ass. Note that things are dark and smelly for someone with this condition.
2. When someone is severely afflicted to the point that his or her shoulders are two-blocked against the buttocks, this is known as "perpendicular cranial rectosis."
The sad thing is, it is contagious among liberals. When conservatives are exposed to it, it can cause "Optical Rectosis" or "Optical Rectalitis" which gives us a shi++y outlook. *The symptoms are everywhere - too much government, failed corporations, discredited government officials and executives, corporate bailouts, public dishonesty, abuse of power, superficial strategies, and failed initiatives.
*courtesy of the Urban Dictionary
You're still talking, or rather writing Are you unclear on the concept of silence, too?
...and it is only in your last post that you admitted your remark was a sarcastic broadside, totally unsupported by anything except your own bigotry.
Isn't this something we already do when liberals are represented?
Oh the irony.
You have a joint-smoking individual as your avatar......but you hate liberals.
You do realize most pot smokers are liberals, right? I'm proud to call myself both.
You do realize my avatar is a picture of the President of the United States smoking weed don't you?
jaredc1200 -
You do realize most pot smokers are liberals, right? I'm proud to call myself both
Just another reason to criminalize pot and pot smoking! LOL!
They just created a whole new department...will probably have 75 to 100 staffers soon. A new place for layabouts to hang out. hahahaha
They already have that with ASPCA and PETA - they could do the speaking as the Advocate,
Consider the first 3 comments.
They show why this legislation is needed.
jkatze: agreed. Animals need advocates as do children. Both are vulnerable to abuse and cruelty. There are too many sick, dysfunctional sub humans that enjoy hurting creatures that can not protect themselves. I also think they need to tighten up animal abuse punishment-most of these sick monsters get a slap on the hand then go back out and do it again.............
Pray tell what could an advocate do for the cows that were shot. I know what you mamby pamby animal rights nuts want. You would want the state to maintain and feed a useless cow for years at taxpayers expense. because somebody shot it. Here's what you do with a cow somebody shot and wounded. You shoot it again and bury it. Or if it was a beef cow you eat it and bury the remains.
Or some cat got hit by a car you'd want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars giving it prostetic legs, a kidney transplant all that ignorant bullchit.
The problem with most of these so called animal rights people, if they saw a starving little black kid they wouldn't give him/her one ounce of thought.
Hey, Breeze,
Maybe you should learn the definition of compassion. It's not just for humans (which I believe you have none for either). And those animals you talk so kindly about (yes, that's called sarcasm) are living creatures. I hope you own no pets/animals.
If an animal (wild or domesticated) can not be saved, then yes it should be put out of it's misery but (even as an NRA member) I would never shoot my pets when they can be humanly put to sleep. Please join the human race.
Oh, BTW - Humans are just another animal on this planet.
I hope Breeze doesn't find him/herself on the hard end of time. Actully I hope he/she does, maybe someone will help him/her and if he/she has pet they will help them.
Let's see: You couldn't just call a veterinarian to the stand to speak to the injuries of the animal? You need a law and a new dept/bureau/admin office?
More government! It's good for you! More Government! It's good for you! (repeat until indoctrination is complete.)
Yes, you could. But, the vet wouldn't have legal standing and could be ignored by the courts. He or she would be a legal advocate under this law.
Animal rights nutjob.
I agree with jkatze.
This is a WONDERFUL idea. I support it 100%.
They cannot speak up for themselves. It makes sense to let an expert (a vet) testify. This will likely lead to protection of animal life and many animals will be saved - rather than euthanized - if this passes.
I don't understand how anyone could be against a law like this. Do you people hate animals? If so, I question your morality, your ethics, your decency and your worth as a human being.
What's is next? Marriage Licenses? Divorce Court? Puppy Support? Community Proerty? How about Gay Dog Marriage? Or Cat and Dog Marriages? I can see it now. Human Rights for Animals. Will they get to vote? How will they decide who or what to vote for? How will they make their choice be known?
Animal Activist IDIOTS!
The libs, I mean advocates, will decide for them.
Jared, we are not a third world country yet (give it three more years) and we have animal cruelty laws, right. Oops, I forgot, laws don't apply to liberals.
Guess we aren't too dumb at least this state is making a change because of us...lol Bam
@That ... we might have animal cruelty laws, but they're not being sufficiently enforced. If they were, we wouldn't have atrocities such as dog and cock fights.
OMG are you really that stupid? You have the audacity to think you are more moral and ethical person because of your misplaced anthropomorphic views of life on this planet.No we don't hate animals we hate radical nutjobs like you shoving your misplaced beliefs on others.Grow up get out the city and quit being an idiot.I question your intelligence and sanity.
Something has to be done to better prosecute animal cruelty
Yes we need to do a better job of prosecuting these immoral people -- I suggest that if you are dogfighting, then you are put in the ring with a couple of pits (hungry ones), you shoot a cow in the face, we shoot you in the face, you starve and beat an animal -- we starve and beat you. Sounds like a winning idea to me.
No something needs to be done about urban animal rights retards.
hikewithdogs -
Something has to be done to better prosecute animal cruelty
Then push for better enforcement of existing laws stop adding new ones hoping that it will be different. If you don't like the outcome of the criminal case sue in civil court. Stop asking the government to take care of something you should be taking care of.
Isn't this just freaking wonderful. I am so glad I do not live in one of these idiotic liberal states.
Advocating for animal cruelty are you Navy--meanwhile folks "Advocates" in 99% of the time are volunteers--similar to Guardian Ad Litems (sp?) or Child Advocates. Doesn't cost the state diddly.
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!
"a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mindlessness."
This is unfair to leafy vegetables and grasses and does not afford them equal rights. But what I really want to know is whether they're going to deal with the ongoing US genocide of roaches and mosqitoes.
Roaches and Mosquitoes don't count. They aren't cute and furry.
Absolutely, certifiably stupid idea! What next - court reps for avatars, cartoon characters and pet rocks?
Dr_Noo, NOOOOOOOOOOOO, Don't give them any more Ideas. Next thing will have someone suing because paper has lost it's write to be written on.
@ Dr_Noo & bubba- ROFLMAO-ROFLMAO!!!!!!! Thanks I really needed a good laugh to take away from the stupidity of this article.
Let Forestry & Wildlife employees or Humane Society go to court.
For the love of everything Holy, we can't afford to properly care for our elderly, children, and our returning Veterans! The mental health system is broken and our roads, bridges, infrastructure and economy is in shambles. But somehow, we're going to come up with a way to pay for animal advocates and ombudsmen???!
I like animals as well as the next person, and frankly, many animals are more decent than people, but come on - get a clue where the priorities are and the fact that we're in debt up to our eyeballs! Geesh!
I agree with you but right now nobody is authorized go to court. The bill makes sense if it authorizes the Humane Society to go to court as an advocate for abused animals.
The animal rights whackos can't support taking care of the elderly, children, or our returning vets who need mental health care, along with medical care for injuries, or support fixing our infrastructure because it does not involve anything cute and furry that can be used to raise funds.
Animals do not need attorneys-they are f*cking animals,not humans-these idiots watched toomany Disney movies-they think animals all live in families like humans,and talk to each other, and that they all get along.
The cute and furry raised enough funds for these morons to file lawsuits for over 10 ears to try and stop wolf hunting and trapping to control the population of wolves that is killing off al the game animals in the northern rocky mountains.
Now these same type of idiots want to give animals attorneys-WTF?
Just proves that when a lot of people are living in a small area-the intelligence levels drop dramatically-and the break from reality is almost complete.
"Starvin Larry" You speak the truth.One day these stupid urban radical animal rights freaks will push their agenda too far and may very well find folks coming after them instead.Look out ALF how would you feel if a terrorist group was targeting YOU instead? Not promoting violence but I can see it happening the ordinary middle class American has HAD IT with these types.
And people wonder why this country is going to hell in a hand basket???
Every time I read of some poor innocent animal maltreated, tortured, brutalized, and/or killed I am reminded of what is said of most serial killers -- they started off by harming animals....
If a serial killer abused fish, would you want an advocate for fish also?
Every time I read some urban radical PETA/HSUS/ALF/ARM idiot rattle off stupidity I can't help but think of budding arsonists, terrorists, all kill shelters, Camille Marino,Rod Coronado,Joshua Harper,Jacob Conroy.They all started of as radical animal rights extremists.
Ridiculous.
Animals have no legal rights.
How do you twits think the slaughter house uses to kill animals ? Lethal injection?
Food animals are killed the same way with a shot to the head. Pets are a whole different Subject.
want to bet this is sponsored by NBC
Great Idea, the Almighty would be proud
This is just an incremental step by the animal rights/vegetarian crowd toward full rights for animals, ergo, hunting will need to be banned because it violates an animal's civil rights.
Lie. Hunting, for sport, isn't constitutionally protected.
Who said it was, pinhead. Not me. Golf is not constitutionally protected either.
If this country is so concerned about "life" then animals deserve legal protection not to be abused. Since they cannot talk some human has to advocate for them. It is time that this country, recognizes, that animals are not like you tractor, they are products of G-d and everytime you abuse them you are spitting in the face of G-d.
Every time you smoke dope you are spitting in the face of God.
I don't smoke anything and I don't defile the name of g-d
Just curious, why would smoking dope be bad? God did put the plant here, it has medicinal purposes and was pretty much sold across the country until we came up with the money producing man-made alcohol type of drug. I don't smoke it, but just wondering why it was put here in the first place.
Demandside -
You may not defile the name of GOD but can you fully spell the name? It's GOD.
Sheila -
Bringing GOD (Look I spelled it all out) into the legality of pot smoking? Wow! You need to call the pot legalization groups and have them add that to their reasons to legalize it! Justifying anything bad because there is something just as bad or worse, still makes it bad. But this argument is for another article/post.
Amazingly callus posts, animal cruelty cases that get adjudicated usually result in slaps on the wrist, meager fines and very light sentences, maybe. Stronger laws and harsher sentences are needed, however, as indicated by some posts here cruelty is a ok and living things are basically trash to be used and abused, countering with ridiculous arguments, i.e., plants etc. proves the mind set of the "dumb" human animal.
The human criminal justice system functions the same: wrist slaps, meager fines, etc. Even some capital cases beome ludicrous. Case in point: Randal Lee Smith murdered two people and spent a total of 15 years incarcerated FOR TWO MURDERS. Upon release, he returned to the area of his previous crimes and shot two others who fortunately did not die. Smith, then did us all a favor and died in prison.
Why do you have such a low regard for animals?
Cruelty is NOT okay being a dumb@$$ radical animal rights retard is NOT.
Animal rights should be codified into law. Those rights would be to be treated humanly, not starved, and to be slaughtered for food in the most humanly way. No ones is asking for voting rights for pigs.
Will you include fish?
We are only asking for humane treatment.
Animals will have more rights than babies! OR since human beings are animals, abortion can now be attacked with a lawyer representing the fetus and prolong the abortion request for over 9 months - SUCCESS.
fetuses are not babies. Some "states" are already proposing laws to have legal representation for fetuses.
Zygotes, fetuses, babies, they are all human life forms. Just in different stages of development. They are never going to be anything other than human. So fetuses are definitely babies. Just look at an ultrasound and you will see a miniature baby that just needs to grow. At four weeks you can even determine sex. That's pretty human.
Sheila -
Be very, very careful here! Any further and you will be labeled a fanatic or even worse A REPUBLICAN! Yes, stating that fetuses are human life forms goes against the abortion rights groups who state that a fetus is a lump of cells!
Gives a whole new meaning to Kangaroo court!
The animals don't need a voice.....what we need is a legal system that prosecutes those that are cruel to animals to the fullest extent of the law....and that needs to happen "the first time" some one breaks the law. Our legal system fails to fully prosecute criminals when they harm or kill people, so I guess that explains why the animals have no chance either. Lets protect people first, then animals, and move criminals to the bottom of this list since they seem to have more rights than anyone else these days. America needs to wake up...real fast....as everyday we get closer to it being to late. Pretty sad!!!!!
Violence against animals is often a warning sign that the perp is willing to commit violence against humans. These cases do need to be taken more seriously. While I agree that sometimes animal rights people border on ridiculousness, the kinds of perps who would torture someone's pet cat or dog often go on to commit assault and murder down the road. They need to get more than a slap on the wrist.
The only violence that needs to be committed to humans is against radical extremistl animal rights retards.Leave the animals alone.