[Orangedog]

These rules exist for a reason. Tough call, but in the end sometimes you have to go with the letter of the law.

Sometimes following the letter of the law violates the trust and undermines the respect of the people it is there to protect, as well as that of those sworn to uphold it. Is arresting this man going to foster respect for the police, or help breed contempt for them? If the police wanted to do take action against the pet owner they should have issued him a ticket. Arresting him was out of line under the circumstances.

[dion]

I agree with your assessment. It seems like everyone these days is so hung up on the "letter" of the law they are ignoring the "intent" of the law. I don't think this is a good thing because:

1. People can abuse poorly written laws to pursue personal vandettas out of pettiness and spite, and/or;

2. Authorities have become mindless robots who can't even recognize the intent of a law and apply it correctly in a given situation. (As in this case.)

When it comes to laws governing humans, there is very rarely a "one-size-fits-all" solution and this situation is a good example. Unfortunately the more trial lawyers and scam artists abuse the system for $$$, the more people are going to end up finding themselves in situations like this. Its a sad fact and it is only getting worse.

However, regardless of the consequences, I too would have saved my pet. #$%!$# em!