Posted on 09/24/2005 5:44:30 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
sure hope so! although the video of the report on local T.V. said the gentleman/owner didn't want to create a legal entaglement...
I just hope the outcome of this is a good one....it is about doing the right thing....prayers offered
Not ot mention those dogs who intuitively devine their owner's health problems and help them with no training at all.
Many dogs naturally have become "seizure alert" dogs on their own as well as helpers for deaf owners.
I have a fair amount of hearing loss myself and my dogs alert to me to -everything- that goes on around here.
If very loud barking doesn't get me up and looking outside, they will come over and paw me and then run to wherever the source of the "alarming event" is.
They do not do the same for my husband who has very good hearing.
One of my hounds once literally saved my life by bouncing on top of me as I slept.
I have no sense of smell and I couldn't hear the smoke detectors going off.
The woodstove had had a downdraft problem and when I woke up, the smoke was so thick I couldn't even see the dog that was bouncing on me and pawing me.
I am a light sleeper so her intense efforts to awaken me probably meant that I already was "out" from the smoke and carbon monoxide.
But bless her heart, she didn't give up.
[and all the bouncing and pawing was -not- her nature, normally]
Dogs know who's "weak" and will naturally guard them however they can.
The souless harpy who has this man's dog is keeping it for spite.
The more flack she receives the more likely she will be to refuse to return it.
Bet on it.
...she claims her family, in the last 3 weeks have become to attached to the dog.
Exodus 20:17 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Ok, I'll be a bit contrary here.
This guy (the former dog owner) is an operator.
He's leveraging his disability to get back a dog he gave away (for whatever reason......he gave it away) hence the confusion over whether it was just a pet or a true service dog.
If he were better at pulling on peoples heartstrings (and more forward thinking), he'd have just hung out on the street with his dog saying he had no place to go because of the dog he loved. The press would be all over it. It's very likely he'd be in plush accomodations right now.
When you pull away the BS on both sides of this story, it is just a man-lost-dog story.
That said....just give the dude his dog back, sheesh.
Unfortunately, the law is on this witches side---he signed the dog over.
You are unbelievable.....
I see the Thorazine shipment was held up by Rita.
Very true.
The souless harpy who has this man's dog is keeping it for spite. The more flack she receives the more likely she will be to refuse to return it. Bet on it.
Sadly likely to turn out to be true.
Frankly, I'm with the freeper who wants to see the dog "stolen" and returned to the rightful owner...But maybe the pro bono lawyer, coupled with the bad publicity affecting the harpy's employer, will be successful. If not, then...perhaps...a good samaritan in KC might ...But let's hope lawful measures prevail. Given the whole "Katrina Victim" thing, I really an see a judge voiding the surrender document.
Well, that's about as confusing an analysis as any MSM can do.
What's your conclusion? Should the current legal owner give up the dog?
Hell of a way to raise your family. I hope she doesn't have too many kids. The less screwed up kids that society has to deal with when they are adults, the better.
I'm no legal eagle but I'd swear I've heard of contracts being voided if they were signed under duress.
If that wasn't duress, I don't know what would be.
If they can take a kid away from its adoptive parents after they raised it for years when the "birth mother" pops back into the picture, what's the big problem with giving back a dog?
I googled "Independence Animal Shelter" and it appears to be a city-owned facility. I would think that the city would have a great deal of leverage and responsibility over their employee's actions. For instance, did she pay the adoption fee for the dog or did she just take it as a "perk" of the job? Has she done this kind of thing in the past or is it a common practice? Why this dog?
I just can't believe with all the adopable dogs that go through an animal shelter that she has to have this particular dog that has a family already. What an incredibly bad decision on her part.
This is very cruel.
Probably the "flood the employer with nastygrams and a boycott" are the best alternatives here. Maybe the employer will lean on the BC.
Wish I lived near there.
I'd just round up a gang of buddies and go get the dog.....>:-)
[working "within the system" is too slow, sometimes]...:))
ROFL!
She's an employee of the city? Working in a shelter? With access to, perhaps, thousands of dogs? The city needs to tell her to give the dog back or lose her job! She can take her pick of dogs who NEED homes and are unwanted. Actually, I'd tell her that and then fire her as soon as she returned the dog and signed papers releasing it--but then I'm vindictive and suspicious. Anyone who would do what she is doing can't be a person that is kind to animals because look how she treats people.
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.