Animals can be ‘victims’ just like people, Oregon Supreme Court says

The Oregonian ^ | August 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM | Aimee Green

[Olog-hai]

In two landmark rulings earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court said that animals—whether they be horses, goats, dogs or cats—shall be afforded some of the same basic protections as human beings.

The dual rulings are expected to make it easier for police to rush to the aid of ailing animals without first obtaining a warrant. They also could result in harsher criminal repercussions for those found guilty of abusing or neglecting animals.

“These are hugely helpful to the prosecution of animal-cruelty cases,” said Jacob Kamins, a Corvallis-based prosecutor assigned to pursuing such cases across Oregon. …

[Shimmer1]

Oh yeah, animals have equal rights as humans. Next we’ll be seeing a horse moving into your house when you’re gone and refusing to leave. The LEOs will allow it, just like they do now with people.
sigh

[Shimmer1]

That’s a very sick idea, that’s why they’ll be doing it soon.

[Shimmer1]

Of course what you say it true, horrible!!! But making them the equals of people is NOT the answer. Opens all kinds of doors that we are not going to want open!

[muir_redwoods]

So, you have only an inferential basis for your fear, not an actual citation from the decision.

[therapsida]

In England recently two guys were incarcerated ....because there pit bull was too fat.....

I think it was 2 yrs....each.

[itsahoot]

Hyperbole, much?

Yep, when called for.

Wait until your favorite pet has cancer and some judge requires you to provide medical treatment that can be just as expensive as human treatment. Since that is true they will soon require you to have health insurance for your pet.

Since cannibalism is prohibited, how long before it is illegal to eat a fellow animal?

Actually cannibalism isn't prohibited in some countries, if the meal volunteered.

[Alice in Wonderland]

Salamander, is it your opinion that because a horse broke its harness, or a horse tripped and fell, or in the case of Charlie, a horse dropped dead of unknown causes, that the carriage industry is abusive to horses and should be banned?

The case that brought about this ruling involved the seizure of a horse named Grace with a body condition score of 0 (zero) without a warrant. The Court confirmed that the seizure was legal because the horse was in imminent danger of dying. This is what the mare looked like when rescued.

And this is her four months later.

The rescuers were surprised also that she didn't have major organ damage. She lived another year (she was about 28 yrs old) and was euthanized after a bout of colic. Her rescuers had promised her she would never suffer again.

Even though animals are property, there should be special exceptions to protect them from severe neglect or harm. Abuse is a defined crime, not an opinion, but that's not going to stop PETA and other extreme animal rights groups from having a field day with this ruling. My friend commented on the article and I agree with her statement:

Although I back the court's ruling, it is a fine line between protecting the welfare of animals and animal rights. In this instance, there was no doubt that the horse in question was at death's door and in need of immediate rescue. Her very life depended on violating private property rights. This is a rare circumstance and the court's ruling should be upheld for only this type of circumstance when there is immediate danger to the welfare of an animal. Grace fit the legal definition of an abused/neglected animal. This was not a judgement call which animal rights activists would take advantage of.

Rescuing an animal from abuse should be like rescuing children from abuse. It needs to be done carefully so as not to deny parental/ownership rights, but it should be an option when abuse/neglect is certain.

The problem with animal rights is that its ultimate goal is to end the human/animal relationship and "restore" animals to a more "natural" state. That would be a death/extinction sentence for domesticated animals.

I oppose the animal rights agenda. I fully support animal welfare.

[GeronL]

Her rescuers had promised her she would never suffer again.

don't tell those people you have a cold!

[Alice in Wonderland]

What's wrong with this picture?

When the FIV positive cat Guilderland resident Gerard Sagliocca and his sister obtained from a rescue stopped eating, they took the cat to the vet.

The vet recommended euthanasia. They rejected her recommendation, saying that the much-loved cat gave no indications of distress and had a good quality of life at home.

Sagliocca and his sister took the cat home to the duplex they share.

The vet called the cops.

The cops went to the Sagliocca home, seized the cat and took him back to the vet's office.

And then the vet killed the cat.

Then at the vet's insistence, Sagliocca was then charged with cruelty to animals. The vet believes Sagliocca belongs in jail, even though the cat lived with his sister and he rarely saw the cat.

In Albany County, New York, animal cruelty is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a $1000 fine, plus a mandatory ten years as the target of PETA vigilantes and other nut cases, public scorn, discrimination and humiliation through placement of the offender's home address, photo and other personal information on the county's brand-new online Animal Abuser Registry.

Remember: Sagliocca did not injure the cat. The cat had ample access to food, water, and shelter -- along with toys, a loving home and all the other perks of life as a house cat.

Sagliocca's "crime" centers around a refusal to kill. Instead, he and his sister wanted to take the cat home.

full story here.

[Darksheare]

Pretty much.
Imagine something bad, make it worse, then try not to be surprised when they start doing it.

[Diamond]

Do you not think it a proper inference, considering the opinion excerpt that I posted, including the 3 citations approvingly quoted therein?

Cordially,

[muir_redwoods]

I think a statement that animals should not be abused and that that standard can have the force of law is a far cry from placing animals on and even par with humans. It take a creative reader to draw such a conclusion.

[Diamond]

I think a statement that animals should not be abused and that that standard can have the force of law is a far cry from placing animals on and even par with humans.

I agree.

It take a creative reader to draw such a conclusion.

Perhaps then you might care to explain why the citations and the dicta of the opinion that I quoted were included the opinion?

Cordially,

[Misterioso]

What is a fetus?

[Darksheare]

So you’re saying it’s not a baby that hasn’t been born yet?
Not a baby at all?

[Misterioso]

There is a difference (see your dictionary) between a baby and a fetus.

[Darksheare]

Uh-Hunh.
So what are you saying then?
Is it alive?
Human?
Worth protecting?

[Darksheare]

And which version of dictionary are you using?
The one supplied by the abortionists that defines a fetus as nonviable blob of tissue that suddenly somehow magically becomes human after birth?

[Darksheare]

Fetus, from latin “Foetus” which means “offspring”.
“Unborn young”

Funny, doesn’t mean anything structurally different from “Unborn baby”.

[itsahoot]