Landmark Ruling: Animals Can Legally Be Considered Victims, Just Like Humans

The DoDo ^ | 8/22/2014 | Melissa Cronin

[EBH]

So we move away from animals being property of the owner to having some sort of "victimhood."

Wonder if this can apply to dog shooting cops? How does this affect vets who make a mistake? How about pet food companies where animals are harmed due to salmonella etc.?

Does this ruling kick things up a notch too high?

[TigersEye]

But the life of a human fetus is still considered disposable.

[Vendome]

You’re a wascist...crackuh!

[Bratch]

A judge creating another revenue stream for lawyers?

Whatta shock.

[Tarantulas]

I think it’s great to use this ruling in cases of animal abuse. The penalties for cruelty to animals seem too low for some of the horrendous things that people do. So it applies right now to animal abuse which is intentional, not anything accidental. My home state has moved way to the left since I left in the early 70s but I think this is a good ruling.

[chris37]

What does this mean for dog murdering cops?

[ansel12]

So who will pay for their lawyers, and who will collect the settlements?

[ConservingFreedom]

Wonder if this can apply to dog shooting cops?

That would be a silver lining.

What I want to know is: Does this mean I must stop putting my dog on a leash and making him eat from a bowl on the floor - or that I can start doing those things to my kids?

[DB]

So...

When a cat tortures and kills a mouse, can I sue the cat’s owner for the pain and suffering of the mouse???

That’s where this is going...

Many people say they want to go back to nature, well “nature” is brutal and has no qualms about eating you alive.

[LambSlave]

The first step along the slippery slope. Animals ARE property, and it should be left at that, period. The potential for government abuse here is far greater than the benefit of tougher penalties for the handful of psychos with 10000 cats or Michael Vicks, who will do what they do regardless of the law and are unlikely to be caught at any rate.

[EBH]

Oh...I do think we crossed a slippery slope on this one. True animal abuse is indeed under penalized, so why not address the law instead of making up law from the bench?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I think it’s great to use this ruling in cases of animal abuse. The penalties for cruelty to animals seem too low for some of the horrendous things that people do. So it applies right now to animal abuse which is intentional, not anything accidental. My home state has moved way to the left since I left in the early but I think this is a good ruling”

Similarly I don't see the big deal in this.

If one really takes issue with (some) cruelty to animal laws they can always lobby and rally to have them repealed.

[SamuraiScot]

The final tyranny.

Why? Animals can't talk. Sort of like people with dementia and small children. So the state, in its wonderful concern for justice, leaps upon this opportunity to speak for them—coincidentally, with the agenda and political allegiances of the agents of the state.

If Child Protective services and the like are used as an excuse to persecute normal families and keep unmarried, Marxist lawyers employed, this Animal Farm ruling, if the principle spreads, would leave Stalin and the EPA in the dust.

[Usagi_yo]

Yea but can they hold copyrights and patents?

[bgill]

Vegans unite!

[Vaquero]

So I suppose Oregonians can graze from now on. Like the rest of the sheep.

[MNDude]

So my cat can sue me for giving her the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge?

[PoloSec]

Slippery Slope: How long before putting a saddle on a horse and riding it will be considered animal cruelty.

[Grams A]

So my cat can sue me for giving her the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge?”

Can I now sue my cat for attacking me for removing her from MY computer keyboard?

[CrazyIvan]

Gave my dog a bath yesterday. If he could have sued me he would have.