Posted on 10/25/2010 6:59:42 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
(AP) -- An elderly Oklahoma man landed himself in jail after using bolt cutters to break his prized pooch from the pound.
Instead of paying a $100 fine for not having his poodle on a leash, 73-year-old Edwin Fry of Hydro decided to bust Buddy Tough out. Authorities say Fry drove his lawnmower to the city pound Oct. 13 and broke into the cage with bolt cutters. The pair were intercepted by police.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesnews.net ...
Live in nyc - no shoulder, no car, no 90.
“...if you think someone can just swoop-in(sic), take an animal away from someone, and deposit it at some magically pre-approved shelter...”
But apparently they can swoop in, take it away from them and kill it. That’s the ultimate take-away.
“that one neighbor who his dog injured”
Ah, you went for the emotionalist spin. I knew that extra phrase in the article would color some people’s view of this.
The neighbor injured HERSELF trying to get him away. There was no language that indicated the dog in any way directly injured her, or even from her tripping over him.
I am perusing the Ok state dog laws and I cannot find anything that would allow them to seize his dog and kill it.
They could have gotten a warrant and had a hearing if the dog was abandoned or neglected. I see no mention in either story of the dog being abandoned or neglected. He did not refuse to claim the dog, quite the contrary. From what is written into the laws they could not legally kill this dog unless it was dangerous (with a court order) or if the owner had abandoned or refused to claim it.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusokt4_41_402.htm#s501
§ 501. Disposal of animals kept for pleasure—Method
A. Any dog, cat or any other animal which is kept for pleasure rather than utility in or about a household, held by or in the custody of a private or public animal shelter or agency and not reclaimed by the owner, may be disposed of only by....
The only state laws concerning containment refer to cities of 200,000 or more residents.
The full law can be found here:
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusokt4_41_402.htm
It looks like this guy has a case.
“...according to the story I posted, the dog was a public nuisance.”
And the newspapers print the whole truth????
And YOU still won’t say anything close about actually helping a poor old man.
Nothing more to say, enjoy your death panel hearing.
You can either respond to the information you have, or you can respond in an emotional, tear-jerk fashion. Both work on internet bulletin boards, one better than the other on a conservative board. Why don’t you read the Leisure & Arts section for a while to clear your head?
That'll teach those SOBs
The guy whose house burned down was not a SOB, he was just plain stupid. Was it you?
And this old man was taught a good lesson here by killing his dog
I never said anything about teaching anyone a lesson. I simply remarked that this man's actions got his dog killed (rightly or wrongly).
If you negligently release your dog onto someone's property, and that someone gets injured tripping over it (or whatever), you do understand you are liable for damages, right?
Look in the mirror, ....
Your point is moot to the issue. The dog himself is NOT a “threat”.
In any case, does this apply if she simply stepped off the side of her porch while shooing the dog who has now darted 50 ft from her? Who proves this stuff?
I never said the dog was a “threat,” I said the dog was a “nuisance.” If you cannot understand the distinction . . . .
That gambit won't work for you here, unless you wish to demonstrate where I am assuming facts not in evidence, as you are.
It is you who seems not to realize the distinction.
Thus do I say, a mere “nuisance” (only 2 credits, at that) should not have to be executed.
I’m not sure where you pulled the “should not have” argument from (though I have an idea), it is not mine. Maybe you think you are arguing with someone else?
Oh, I don’t have to.
You are demonstrating what I mean quite well.
Tah, tah!
I often wondered what kind of person could work for humane societies and put dogs to sleep within days without first giving them a chance for a new life......... now I know what kind of person could do it........ you.
Thank you. I’ve never wondered why people who do not work for humane societies have absolutely no clue about what the subject entails. But you reminded me.
See what I mean? You are simply reacting the same way anyone does when they are exposed for basing their argument on sheer emotion. I don’t expect any of their reaction to be rational.
It just seems you have no problem with the dog being killed off despite being a minor nuisance, as opposed to a vicious dog.
That’s not the case at all. Dumbass got his dog killed, that’s all . . . now it’s left for the lawyers to sort out. The dog ain’t coming back.
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.