Why Tammy Grimes was right to take the dog, and the court was right to find her guilty
By Gina Spadafori
December 18, 2007
You must be responsible for your actions, and for the results of your actions. That’s my bottom line.
And that’s why although I applaud Tammy Grimes of Dogs Deserve Better for stepping in to take care of a horribly neglected dog authorities wouldn’t seize, I also think she shouldn’t be given a pass for doing so.
You can — and many surely will — disagree. But we have humane officers with law-enforcement powers who can cite and fine owners and seize animals. If they are not doing their job, then we need to get to the bottom of “why not?”
Breaking the law to make a broader point is a long-standing tradition that has been important to the development of our nation. But the people who broke the law knew the risks, and accepted them.
From the story:
A jury took less than 30 minutes Friday night to find Tammy Grimes of Tyrone RD 5 guilty of theft and receiving stolen property for taking an ailing, 19-year-old dog named Jake from a yard in East Freedom, then refusing to return him to his owners.
As she emerged from the packed courtroom, Grimes, leader of Dogs Deserve Better, was surrounded by supporters, many using the term “sad” to describe the outcome of the three-day trial.
Here’s the rest. Grimes can take consolation from the fact that going to jail — which she proably won’t be doing, by the way, since the sentencing guidelines call for probation — will attract even more attention to the plight of these dogs.
Life on a chain is horrible and it leads to dogs who become so crazy and miserable that they become a bite risk. I would like to see this practice made illegal for anything more than brief periods (for example, to put a dog on a runner in a fence-less yard, or to tether one dog while you are training another).
Dogs do deserve better, and I’m glad Tammy Grimes is working for them. But you buy the ticket, you take the ride. You don’t get a pass because you do the right thing if it’s against the law.
Now, your turn.
If I were in the same situation as Grimes and saw a dog in deplorable condition, I would take it too. Where were the brains of the people on the jury. Did any of them have a heart for the dog and if so were they badgered down by other jurors. I’m sorry but personally I think many of our ‘laws’ today suck as far as protecting …….no, I’m going to stop at many ‘laws’ today suck.
Comment by VJ — December 18, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
I agree with this post entirely. Taking a dog can be necessary and moral but it remains theft. Giving a non-custodial sentence would underline that distinction.
Comment by emily — December 18, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
my understanding is that there is in fact NO record of Tammy filing complaints about the dog’s treatment. There is little evidence that the dog was suffering, at least beyond what aging dying dogs suffer. It’s not just that Tammy stole the dog, she also refused to return it to the owners.
Do we really want individuals deciding what level of treatment someone else’s pet must receive? And taking it upon themselves to steal the pets of those whose treatment doesn’t measure up?
This case is not just about one dog. It’s a dreadful slippery slope, and Tammy basically getting off (she’s not going to serve time, and she won’t be instructed never to do it again) will result in more and more people deciding that they have the right to steal someone else’s pet.
All in the name of “humaneness”. Kind of like HSUS demands dogfighting victims be killed in the name of “humaneness”.
Unless you’re somehow comparing Tammy to the heroes of civil disobedience actions, she’s just a common crook. Our society has ways to deal with situations that individual citizens object to.. they are called “laws” and there are ways to get them changed.
Tammy isn’t interested in laws, though. She’s interested in promoting her ideology that any dog on a chain is being treated inhumanely. This dog is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait for legions of her cultfollowers to start breaking into people’s yards with chain cutters to “free” allegedly abused dogs.
Comment by EmilyS — December 18, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
and p.s. Gina, there really isn’t any evidence that life on a chain in itself CAUSES dogs to go crazy and be miserable. I’m sure you know that the only scientific study suggests just the opposite. Some dogs on chains go crazy and are miserable because they are isolated and neglected.. and they would be isolated and neglected if not on a chain. Because some dog owners suck
Comment by EmilyS — December 18, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
the thing that has always had me baffled about this is, why didn’t Tammy contact anyone she knew in ‘the system’? she’s obviously active in animal welfare, so must have some connections that could have helped get the dog needed intervention. i do wonder about her motives.
and i also don’t like the message it sends. as one who has dealt with rescue dogs that were in pretty poor condition including my own (she was an abuse case), it’s rather disturbing to think that someone could take them, no questions asked. . . .
Comment by straybaby — December 18, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Nope, VJ, I completely agree with Gina. Civil disobedience has a long, honorable history in our country, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences without whining.
In our system, like or not, dogs are still considered property and entering someone’s yard and taking their dog is theft. Her refusal to turn the dog over to the authorities appears to be what prompted the legal action as much as anything.
Did Ms. Grimes even try to work with animal control or other law enforcement? Did she exhaust every other means available? Did she consider getting clever and picketing the people’s house after alerting the media? Doing some street theater? Chaining herself to nearby lamppost?
The fact that you personally think our “laws” “suck” is completely irrelevant.
I understand the desire and need to act to save animals, especially when they are in obvious distress, but we have to be smart about it.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 18, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Did it occur to her to leave a bowl of water and a written note of concern with an offer to help? No, she apparently just took the dog immediately. Not ok.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 18, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
This quote didn’t make sense to me:
“Grimes’ attorney, Phillip O. Robertson, argued Friday that she should be found not guilty because she never intended to deprive the Arnolds of Jake, just obtain medical care for him.”
Above this quote, the article stated that Grimes renamed Jake (the dog) Doogie. Why would someone who intended to only get a dog treatment rename it? Unless she didn’t know what the dog was actually named. Does anyone know?
By the way I agree that when you make a decision to do something against the law (regardless of how morally right you may feel that it is), you need to take responsibility for the outcome.
Comment by Jess — December 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Here’s her “open letter” on the whole thing:
http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/doogieletter.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 18, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
” . . . so I made the decision that I would not leave him lying there on the cold wet ground for one moment longer, and I would accept all consequences of my decision.”
” . . .I ask all dog lovers to stand with me to insist that all charges against me are dropped and charges of animal cruelty are instead placed against the Arnolds of East Freedom, PA. The Arnolds who left Doogie to die.”
Comment by straybaby — December 18, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Fair enough.
I just read her open letter. My only comment would be that I spent a year on a civil grand jury in the early 1990’s and if there is one thing I took away from the experience, besides getting over ever being intimidated by public officials whose salaries we pay, it’s that there are always, at least, two sides to every story.
And to kinda, sorta quote Gina, from an earlier post, I wasn’t there and neither was anybody else on the blog, that I know of, which is probably worth remembering.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 18, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Not that I don’t agree that you have to take your lumps if you decide to break the law, but…I’ve been in the same situation as Tammy, and I sympathize. Sure, you can call “the authorities.” Within a week or two they might get around to a phone call to the owners. But that’s no help to the dog who’s died of starvation or who gets run over in the street while you’re being a good citizen and waiting for the legally-sanctioned help.
I would never condone “kidnapping” pets wholesale, and I second Gina’s hope that this episode might shed some light on an overburdened and understaffed animal control department. But in reality, I doubt it - not when the local officials who’ve refused for years to correct the problem can blame it on a crazy “puppy vigilante” lady. And you know they will. It’s so much easier.
As Susan says above, we weren’t there, fair enough. But I think a lot of pet owners share my feeling that, when you see an animal in extremis, playing by the rules and calling the authorities isn’t your moral duty. Helping the animal IS. Sure, the former is safer in legal terms, but how much does that matter to an animal who doesn’t have time to wait for the bureaucracy to creak into action?
Comment by LauraL — December 18, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
oh, and PS to EmilyS’s PS -
Sorry, chains DO suck, regardless of your rationalization. Using a chain to keep a pack animal away from its pack and its home for hours on end isn’t just dumb, it’s cruel. It’s also still accepted practice where I live in the South - a place where many owners evidently can’t be bothered to train their dogs or buy a crate.
When and if those crazy “dog kidnappers” show up in my town to free the dozens (hundreds?) of “junkyard dogs” I’ve seen living out their lives chained to trees, rusting cars, farm equipment, etc., I’ll be there to cheer them on.
Comment by LauraL — December 18, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
To answer some people’s questions:
No record of Tammy filing complaints about the dog’s state of health? Well, that’s because the neighbor next door to the dog, the one who called Tammy after trying for three days to get the AC officer to come out, had already tried to go through the system - for three agonizing days. By the time Tammy was called to the scene, the dog was unable to stand. What? She was supposed to call again and again and again and again and wait another three days for someone to still not show up? If there’s one thing people in rescue know all too well: too many AC officers simply don’t do their jobs, or are unable to do their jobs because they are overworked or underpaid or undertrained.
And yes, Tammy later refused to return the dog to the Arnolds because really, how could you return a dog that you nursed back from the brink of death, a dog that was finally enjoying a warm bed and comforting hands, only to have it put back on a chain in the dead of winter? You’d have to have a rusty fish hook where your heart should be in order to do that. Besides, Tammy did offer to turn the dog over to the AC officer - twice - if he would initiate a cruelty investigation against the family. He refused to do that. Tells ya something, huh?
The people in Tammy’s vicinity call her ‘smug’ and a vigilante because, really, at the end of the day they feel threatened by her. People only feel threatened if they know, deep in their heart, that they have something to feel guilty about.
Comment by Monica S — December 19, 2007 @ 12:22 am
I don’t know. From what I see of her behaviour she isn’t universally likeable—quite the reverse. And I assure you I have nothing to feel guilty about.
Comment by emily — December 19, 2007 @ 7:10 am
here’s the thing people: this isn’t about that individual dog, or even about “chaining”. If Tammy wanted to really help dogs, she’d do public actions like picketing, calling the media etc. Or just give the dog some food/water/blankets.
No, she STOLE the dog, knowing it would result in a particular kind of publicity for HER. She hoped to be arrested and convicted, resulting in martyrdom for her (“oh poor Tammy she only cares about poor dogs”).
She and her cult want to create a climate in which society cedes to individual vigilantes the right to take other people’s pets if the care doesn’t measure up to those vigilante standards. Even the intelligent pet loving libertarians here are expressing admiration for Tammy and saying they would do the same as she.
So she is succeeding. She is on the way to creating a society which accepts that individuals (rather than authorized agents such as ACO/police who are responsible to the public.. however bad a job they may be doing in many cases) may take the property of others.
Trust me, “chaining” is the least of it. Will these vigilantes next go to taking your dog if you don’t feed it the “right” kind of food? Or if you don’t live in the “right” kind of house? Or don’t have the “right” size bankaccount?
Comment by EmilyS — December 19, 2007 @ 7:55 am
Writing as potentially one of the legion of vigilante cultfollowers who are itching to put a ski-mask on and get going with the wirecutters, what is the Right Way to deal with an animal felt to be in imminent danger?
Tre Smith of the Toronto Humane Society made some split-second decisions to save a dying rottweiler last July; he got 5 months desk work for doing it The Wrong Way while the provincial licensing agency spun its wheels. Jamie Glandon in Indiana just finished a period of suspension for rescuing (the Wrong Way) a puppy that had been incompletely euthanized, while the local politicos spun a story about their proactivity.
While we’re debating what they shoulda/woulda/coulda done, where’s the slap on the wrist for the ACO or the dog’s owners?
Comment by shibadiva — December 19, 2007 @ 8:29 am
The people in Tammy’s vicinity call her ‘smug’ and a vigilante because, really, at the end of the day they feel threatened by her. People only feel threatened if they know, deep in their heart, that they have something to feel guilty about.
No, Monica, sometimes people feel threatened because someone else is behaving in a threatening, bullying manner.
Shibadiva, the choices aren’t “steal the dog and hide it for months” and “do nothing at all.” She could have, just for instance, taken the dog, gone directly to a vet for a medical assessment, and filed a complaint/sued/gone to the media with the vet’s report. She could have taken the dog, and involved a local shelter. She did have choices other than the one she took.
Comment by Lis — December 19, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Thanks for straightening that out, Lis. The first is what Smith did in the rottweiler case (in addition to being involved in the local shelter); the second is what Glandon did. Situations were slightly different but my point is that, if agencies, municipal governments and owners are out to cover their ***, they’ll find some criticism.
Now, what’s the next step re: the Arnolds who left their dog like a piece of trash, and the slacker at the humane society?
Comment by shibadiva — December 19, 2007 @ 9:56 am
That would be when you get the media involved. And remember, they love pictures and documentary evidence. Which brings us back to the vet, and the vet’s report.
Comment by Lis — December 19, 2007 @ 10:03 am
EmilyS, your logic is so flawed it’s laughable. One person rescuing a dog and bringing attention to the misery of life on a chain does not, in the real world anyway, equate to a cult movement that celebrates the kind of anarchy you so eloquently describe.
And your comments about “property”, “chaining”, and “pet loving libertarians” make your position on pet “ownership” quite clear.
Bottom line, Tammy saved a life. She did this after authorities failed to heed repeated pleas for action, even knowing she would pay a price for her decision.
You bet, I applaud her.
Comment by A.C. — December 19, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Emily wrote: If Tammy wanted to really help dogs, she’d do public actions like picketing, calling the media etc. Or just give the dog some food/water/blankets.
Ummm…. if you looked at what Dogs Deserve Better does, they’ve done all you describe. I’m guessing that they are wondering just what they have to do or say to get people to be outraged since they’ve tried it all. I have a dog in my household that was rescued by a DDB volunteer, so I have some exposure to the group. They aren’t an extremist group in the PETA mold that some here seem to think. Rather than wanting to eliminate tethering or chaining of dogs all together (there are some practical and humane reasons to do such a thing), they simply want to end dogs being abandoned to live their lives at the end of a chain.
Tammy’s tactics aren’t what *I* would have done nor would I endorse them, but I don’t judge her or her desire to help dogs. The entire organization is filled with good people who just want people to care for their animals.
Comment by Deanna — December 19, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Re: Comment by EmilyS — December 19, 2007 @ 7:55 am
“She is on the way to creating a society which accepts that individuals (rather than authorized agents such as ACO/police who are responsible to the public.. however bad a job they may be doing in many cases) may take the property of others.”
Um, Tammy’s not exactly stealing cars here. If we take your arguments that pets are property, then what right does the civil society have to intervene in anything the owner wants to do with that property, including abuse, neglect, or torture? And why don’t existing anti-cruelty laws constitute an invasion of our rights as property owners?
Simple. Because most civilized cultures have some type of legal or cultural prohibition against needless animal cruelty, whether or not the animal belongs to someone. It’s not because they’re property - it’s because we know on a gut level that it’s wrong.
“Trust me, “chaining” is the least of it. Will these vigilantes next go to taking your dog if you don’t feed it the “right” kind of food? Or if you don’t live in the “right” kind of house? Or don’t have the “right” size bankaccount?”
Didn’t slave owners say the same thing about abolitionists in the 1850s? And didn’t the opponents of women’s rights use the same arguments in the 1920s? Geez, if you protect them from abuse or give ‘em rights, they’re gonna rule the world.
Yet somehow, in the intervening century, neither has come to pass, and civilization has somehow failed to collapse. Shocking.
Catastrophism is a cheap, easy, and logically bankrupt way out of any complex question — just ask Fox News. But not every slippery slope has the same gradient. So how about a real-world argument?
Comment by LauraL — December 19, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
LauraL wrote: “If we take your arguments that pets are property, then what right does the civil society have to intervene in anything the owner wants to do with that property, including abuse, neglect, or torture? And why don’t existing anti-cruelty laws constitute an invasion of our rights as property owners?”
This argument is a red herring, and a common misunderstanding of property law.
Dogs ARE legally the property of their owners, and this legal classification has co-existed without conflict, for decades, with laws banning animal cruelty.
Defining dogs as property is not a green light for an owner to do anything he wants to his dog. If that were the case, anti-cruelty and anti- dog fighting laws would never hold up in court. Ask Michael Vick how far that argument would fly. He could afford the best attorneys money can buy. Yet he’s going to federal prison.
If dogs were NOT property, then someone could steal your dog for any reason, any time, and you’d have no grounds to have them charged with a crime. You might have no legal grounds to get your dog back.
If you are merely the “guardian” of your dog, then somebody else, maybe your nasty neighbor, could petition government to take your dog away from you are the grounds that they’d be a better guardian. Maybe your neighbor has a bigger fenced yard than you do, can afford the best premium kibble and dog walkers that money can buy. And can afford the high dollar attorneys to win “guardianship” of your dog.
Property rights protect both dogs and their owners.
Nathan Winograd has a good example in his book “Redemption” of what can happen — and actually has happened — when dogs were not considered property. During the 19th century, dog catchers were paid to round up stray dogs to be killed. This included literally stealing pet dogs out of the arms of their owners who were desperately trying to save their dogs from the brutal death that awaited them at the 19th century dog pound.
Quoting Nathan Winograd, a former prosecuting attorney who knows what he’s talking about: “At the time, it was not possible to punish the thieves, because many courts held that dogs were not property under the statutes for larceny.”
Among many other things, property rights protect dogs, and their owners, against that.
Comment by LauraS — December 19, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
LauraS, Nathan has raised an interesting point about the 19th century dog catchers. It brought to mind the protections that human chattel have had due to “ownership”. I guess it is a double-edged sword. Today, we have honour killings and sanctioned discipline.
Comment by shibadiva — December 20, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Emily, please. You are going to such extremes with the “cult” language and all. Doesn’t it tell you something that Tammy and DDB have rescued almost 1,000 dogs over 5 years and the group has stuck to the law on each rescue, getting signed relinquishments from dog owners, building free fences, fostering dogs, etc.?
I am a proud member of DDB. I am a lawyer, a mom, a productive, educated member of society with a lot to lose were I to associate myself with a bunch of “vigilantes.” I know what Tammy stands for and I see every day how DDB volunteers go to bat unselfishly - and completely within the law - for dogs all over this country.
Tammy DOES do all those things you said she “should” be doing: bring blankets to dogs, talking to owners, etc. Every single day.
We are talking about one, specific incidence where a dog was suffering for three days and AC did nothing. That’s the crux of it all here: AC did NOTHING and there was no indication that they were ever GOING to do anything. For three days, the neighbor tried to get them to come out. For three days, no one returned her call or came to check on the dog.
Let’s say you know of an abused child. You call social services repeatedly. No one comes out to check on the child. One day, you see the child in the front yard, unable to stand from lack of food/neglect. I guess you just walk away?
I know the situations aren’t exactly anaglagous. But let’s also remember that the dog’s owners left that dog on the muddy ground for three days while they went four-wheeling (per court testimony) and went about their daily business. It would seem to me that they had, for all intents and purposes, abandoned their “property.”
And of course Tammy sought publicity after the arrest. Any advocacy group would do the same.
Susan - she didn’t take the dog “immediately.” The dog had been on the ground for THREE days.
Anyway, it is time to move forward. Emily, Susan, others: you will see. You will see eventually that Tammy is not evil, is not a vigilante, etc. Sure, she has some strong opinions about how dogs should be treated. But she’s well within the mainstream. Because people in certain parts of this country grow up seeing perpetually chained dogs, they have a tendency to think it is ok, an acceptable way to treat a dog. But there are many places in this country where the populace would be shocked to see someone chain a dog in the yard for 10 years. Shocked and horrified.
Many reasonable people think chaining a dog for its life is an abhorrent practice.
Comment by Monica S — December 20, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
I just see a lot of dichotomising here. You don’t have to be ‘for’ or ‘against’ Tammy, or even to like her. IMHO her actions fall somewhere in the middle ground. Admirable to a point. And for me that point would be any expectation of excaping prosecution for breaking a law. Civil disobience differs from vigilantism on exactly that matter.
Comment by emily — December 20, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
I am so grateful Tamy Grimes had the courage to do what was right, she is truly a courageous hero.
To anyone who would have left him to suffer and die, trying to justify their selfishness with “the law won’t let me”, perhaps you need to find yourself in a position where you are suffering, near death, and many people pass you by, refusing to help because they don’t want to put themselves in danger of fine or imprisonment.
Tanny Grimes made a sound decision to aid a suffering animal regardless of whether our human mande laws gave her “permission” to do so or not.
Any of you claim to be “Christians”? If so, then don’t you need to try harder to do what Jesus would do?
Jesus Christ would have violated your human law and help[ed the dog. He would not have hesitated for a moment. He would not even stopped to question whether there was or was not a human made law stipulating that he waste time contacting others for help that he himself was ready and willing to render.
If it were a human laying on the ground unable to move and you called for an ambulance, repeatedly, over a period of 3 days, to no avail, would you not place the injured person in your own vehicle and transport them to a hospital?
Comment by Nancy Miller — December 21, 2007 @ 5:25 am
I am so grateful Tamy Grimes had the courage to do what was right, she is truly a courageous hero.
To anyone who would have left him to suffer and die, trying to justify their selfishness with “the law won’t let me”, perhaps you need to find yourself in a position where you are suffering, near death, and many people pass you by, refusing to help because they don’t want to put themselves in danger of fine or imprisonment.
Please, tell us who it is in this thread that has said that they would have left him there, or has said that Tammy should have. Be specific. Name names. Quote quotes.
Free hint: see Emily’s comment on the difference between civil disobedience and vigilantism.
Second free hint: Many of the people, black and white, who participated in the civil rights protests of the 1960s were arrested and prosecuted. They expected to be; that was part of the civil rights campaign game plan.
Comment by Lis — December 21, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Nancy, where did anyone say she shouldn’t have taken the dog? And are you somehow suggesting non-Christians are less moral than Christians?
Comment by emily — December 21, 2007 @ 9:59 am
I agree - You must be responsible for your actions, and for the results of your actions.
Steve & Lori Arnolds’ actions were negligence , the results of their actions were pain & suffering.
The Humane Society whose workers failed to respond to urgent calls for help were responsible for their acts of negligence, the results of their actions were a continuance of pain and suffering.
Tammy Grimes’ actions were persistant diligence to provide care, the results of her actions were renewed health and well-being and the elimination of pain and suffering.
Comment by Alexis — December 22, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Lis, you can charge for your hints or give them away free - your choice!
Has it occurred to you that the poster wasn’t directing her comments to the couple of people who bothered to post, but, instead, to the vast universe of potential readers who might read them?
Comment by Alexis — December 22, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Sometimes laws are bad. And sometimes the only way to draw attention to bad laws is to willfully disobey them (civil disobedience) with *full knowledge* that you’ll be held legally liable, but that hopefully your actions will raise public awareness resulting in the change of those laws.
If you are indeed bringing awareness to a situation that needs to be changed, then - in time - that change will come. And this is the role of civil disobedience. Still - those who practice it know they will have to bear the legal consequences of their actions as part of creating the groundswell towards change.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 22, 2007 @ 10:54 am
“Civil Disobedience” or “Vigilantiasm”, who cares? Doesn’t matter what you call it, just lend a helping hand when you can instead of walking on by because you’re afraid you’ll be charged with theft of “property”.
Don’t let a written human law fool you - inanimate objects like your computer monitor are property, human animals and all other animals are not property.
The judge in this case is truly a delusional nutcase to claim that Doogie was property.
Don’t believe the lunatics who will tell you that a life is property, if you do, I may as well profit on your ignorance and tell you that I’ve got a bridge to sell you . . .
Comment by Alexis — December 22, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Emily, you’re comments are downright stupid. Everyone knows a life isn’t “property”. If that were the case I would have already stole you and chained you to a tree in my backyard. When Tammy Grimes came along to help you I’d call law enforcement and have her arrested for theft.
Comment by Alexis — December 22, 2007 @ 11:21 am
I agree, Pat, and Monica, you are so RIGHT ON!
Comment by Alexis — December 22, 2007 @ 11:22 am
We need to put Emily, the D.A and that screwed up judge on the end of a chain for life, or, until they comprehend that none of us animals, including those of non-human species, are property.
Comment by Alexis — December 22, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Alexis wrote:
“Inanimate objects like your computer monitor are property, human animals and all other animals are not property.”
Um … legally, yes, they are.
If you don’t understand that, well, here’s YOUR bridge, sweetheart. And by the way, we discuss the issues here, and don’t attack people for their views. Calling someone “stupid” isn’t acceptable.
The status of animals as “property” can definitely use some tweaking—better anti-cruelty laws, and stronger enforcement—but there are legal protections afforded by such status that cannot be ignored and need to be taken into account when we debate the issue.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 22, 2007 @ 11:29 am