Whatta shock. 
Posted on 08/25/2014 1:10:35 PM PDT by EBH
The Oregon Supreme Court this month passed a landmark ruling that will change the way animals are treated under the law in the state for the better. The ruling will ensure that any animal can be seen as a legal “victim” in a case, affording animals more basic rights to protect them from abuse.
The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property. The judge’s decision allotted a separate count of second-degree animal neglect for each animal, noting that each animal was a separate victim on his own.
The distinction might sound obvious — but it wasn’t legally accepted at the time that Arnold Nix, the defendant, was first convicted in 2009. During his case, Nix argued that the law defines animals as the property of their owners, so the word “victim” shouldn’t apply to them. As of this month’s hearing, the word “victim” does apply.
“To acknowledge that animals are victims of crime, that’s really common sense to us,” said Lora Dunn, staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland. And the ruling could lead to longer prison sentences for those convicted of animal abuse in the state.
This isn’t the first time the issue has been addressed in law. According to a Michigan State University report:
It is not a novel idea that entities other than humans can be considered crime victims. Businesses, corporations, neighborhood associations, and government entities have been defined as crime victims in state statutes. Including protections for animals as crime victims is a natural progression in the development of the law.
It’s not the first time animal advocates have sought greater legal protections. Recently, an organization called the Nonhuman Rights Project has waged a campaign seeking “legal personhood” to be extended to a chimpanzee. In a blog post for The Dodo, the group says:
Traditionally, Lady Justice is portrayed as wearing a blindfold as she holds the scales of justice. The idea is that justice should be blind -- impartial and dispensed without regard to the classes of persons who appear before her. Ironically, however, justice has been blind in another way, too: blind to all living beings except humans. To this day they remain invisible to the legal system.
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?
But the life of a human fetus is still considered disposable.
You’re a wascist...crackuh!
Whatta shock.
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.
What does this mean for dog murdering cops?
So who will pay for their lawyers, and who will collect the settlements?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yea but can they hold copyrights and patents?
Vegans unite!
So I suppose Oregonians can graze from now on. Like the rest of the sheep.
So my cat can sue me for giving her the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge?
Slippery Slope: How long before putting a saddle on a horse and riding it will be considered animal cruelty.
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?
Gave my dog a bath yesterday. If he could have sued me he would have.
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.