Replies

It is surprising. The Oregon Supreme Court, ruled, that they found a need of purpose- to rule animals as equals to Human Beings. Do you, Salamander, find that ruling...just a bit contrived or concerning?

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 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?

The Oregon Supreme Court, ruled, that they found a need of purpose- to rule animals as equals to Human Beings.

No, they didn't. The article clearly states the rulings:

(a) If a person abuses multiple animals at once, that person can be charged with animal abuse for each animal, instead of being charged only once for the entire group of animals.

(b) If law enforcement can clearly see that an animal is close to death due to abuse, they have the right to intervene and rescue the animal without obtaining a search warrant.

Both rulings are specific and limited in scope. Neither says anything about "animals as equals to Human Beings". Neither says anything about preventing hunting, farming of animals, or any other responsible use of animals. They clearly apply to animal torture, neglect and abuse - all crimes which deserve to be punished.

There is no reason to object to these rulings, unless one believes they should have the right to torment animals. The article makes inflammatory and false claims about animals being treated as humans in the rulings - but that's a problem with the article, not with the rulings.

Could you provide a citation showing exact language crafted by the court equating animals with humans? What I read seemed to simply say, in effect, that authorities could act expeditiously to prevent or relieve cruelty and/or neglect.