Posted on 08/24/2014 11:17:51 PM PDT by 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. …
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
they didn’t rule them equal to human beings.
they ruled that they should be afforded the same protection as human beings, specifically about what they were discussing in this case, namely in terms of negligence and abuse, which was what this case was about.
legal wording is specific and precise. scope is important too.
what’s your problem?
This world is become so unrelentingly dark that I am grateful for the least bit of light.
What part of this
“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.”
has you vexed to nightmares?
I could not find that sentiment anywhere.
I’d be happy if you can show it to me.
Hyperbole in play.
Let’s see- hunting rights, stock slaughter, breeding rights, full ownership of all registered animals. Just to name a few, instances of Human authority over animals. Also to mention, the unhuman denial of our basic nature/rights as Human Beings. You probably are city fella.
sorry, i misposted to you, meant for olog-hai.
Emotionalism vs Rational thought.
again, scope of the case was not addresing what you are leaping to. the scope was in terms of domesticated animals that are under ownership and obvious neglect/abuse instances where they currently cannot do anything to help them right then, like they could with a person suffering neglect/abuse. nothing to do about hunting.
you may try to read in stuff the court didn’t say, and liberals may attempt that too, but it just isn’t there.
I am not a he, for the record.
:)
You bet, buckaroo.
This moose sure was a victim.
i am too. i can see how this can also benefit us in other areas of law for people, as well.
sorry about the mispost before, it was meant for olog-hai, not you.
How ironic you would whip out that old logical fallacy.
Someone who is observing this thread referred to posters as “screechy uninformed drama queens “.
Thanks for the laugh.
:)
This is about social control ....and expanding protocol for search of private prop.
Dugh
Is it certain that some animals will suffer less because of this ruling? or are there other ways to ameliorate the suffering of animals without degrading the status of people?
Please don’t assume that I’m unaware of the viewpoint expressed in Proverbs 12:10. Government and judicial activism will only turn things in the opposite direction, however.
One aspect is an animal injured/abused with no owners present.
This allows them to receive immediate help without a warrant.
How is this not to be considered a great thing?
If one of *my* critters was in need of medical attention and I was not home to help hem, myself, I would be overjoyed that someone saved them.
Case in point, when my little female pygmy goat got her horns caught in the fence while we were gone, a neighbor heard her cries and freed her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.