• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

SPCA leads by example ...

Anyone who ever left a coffee or soda on top of their car, and drove away, could probably do other thoughtless things with a more tragic outcome. Sure, you could say that losing a coffee is of little consequence. But I believe the human mind does not automatically categorize important vs. unimportant when getting distracted by something else. If it did, we probably wouldn't have so many car crashes caused by people momentarily occupied with cell phones, texting, or other distractions. It is just the way our minds work. But if we are aware of that shortcoming, we can take measures to circumvent it, such as I mentioned in the last post.

It is a shame that, although these tragedies seem to happen several times every summer (usually with kids), and are all over the news when they happen, the only time I have seen a suggestion to avoid it (by planting some sort of cue to remind you) was on that Oprah show I watched.
 
It was unclear whether she would be charged.
Click to expand...

Throw the book at her. Just my opinion.

I don't care if it was a child or an animal left in the car. Point is it SHOULD NOT happen. When you're the caretaker of another things LIFE, you should make that your number ONE priority. Yes, accidents happen. But when a living beings life is lost because of those accidents, there should be no leniency.

I don't care if she did good works in the past. I don't care how old the dog was, how long she had it, or how well it was cared for. It does not excuse what she did.
 
I understand the easy to forget train of thought. I forget things daily now. My question would be are these groups as forgiving when it is Joe Public? I doubt they are.
 
Oh, I do agree that tragedies do happen. I was just appalled at the thought of someone "excusing her" because of her work with animals.... OR that the age of the dog had to be taken into account. Gimme a break. Those types of things shouldn't make any difference if we "throw the book at her" or not.

Also, I wouldn't hold the SPCA responsible for one person's actions, just as I wouldn't hold ALL policemen responsible for the horrible actions of some.
 
I knew someone who killed his toddler by leaving her in the car. He was overworked, exhausted, and went in to work early one day and just...blanked. Until the day care center called him and asked where she was. I promise you that NOTHING anyone else might have done to him was worse than what he did to himself after that.

I do not think that she deserves special treatment because of who she is or what she does. Go ahead and throw the book at her. I DO think that no matter what happens to her, the way she is feeling about this will be worse. The person I knew is never EVER going to forgive himself. He spent quite awhile in a hospital after a suicide attempt, and tried to kill himself in the hospital too. He will never forgive himself, and the SPCA exec will never forgive herself.

So in short, I think it really makes no difference TO HER whether she is prosecuted for this or not. I think that it will perhaps make other people more aware that this can happen to ANYONE, and hopefully make them more careful with their own pets.
 
I agree - most humaniacs are self serving, emotional, holier than thou types who don't deserve the time of day from logical, thinking, people. And I don't think that being negligent and allowing your attention to wander should get you completely off the hook, whether you caused an accident while on the phone, or let a kid or animal cook because you were not thinking straight. BUT - I do think that such momentary lapses in concentration should be treated differently than either intentional, or totally careless indifference that causes the same result. What good would it do society to put such people in jail? It would cost taxpayers, and only make the prisoner bitter or a better criminal, if that is their inclination. I think it would be a better lesson, and help society more, to spend some time in relevant community service, plus fines that would go towards educational announcements on how to avoid this tragedy for other parents or pet owners - IMO, of course.
 
Oh, I do agree that tragedies do happen. I was just appalled at the thought of someone "excusing her" because of her work with animals.... OR that the age of the dog had to be taken into account. Gimme a break. Those types of things shouldn't make any difference if we "throw the book at her" or not.

Also, I wouldn't hold the SPCA responsible for one person's actions, just as I wouldn't hold ALL policemen responsible for the horrible actions of some.

I AGREE!!
 
On a random note - I once flung my dog through an open car window because I took a hard turn and didn't realize he was sticking his head out the window. Worst. Moment. Of. My. Life. Was I a moron for letting it happen? Oh, yeah. Was it intentional? Not a chance. Should I have been charged with cruelty, neglect, whatever? I don't know.

I DO know that I went and bought him a seat belt that day, and he always wears it. So make sure your pooches are always well secured in the car please!!
 
We all have responsibilities that we take on in life. When someone shows that they are irresponsible through a negligent act that causes harm to life or property they should be prosecuted to the extent that the law provides. The judicial system will hopefully determine an appropriate punishment based on the severity of the crime and level of intent. If unintentional crimes are continually excused as accidents and go unpunished, then intentional crimes will continue to occur and offenders will continue to claim impunity. People need to stop blaming everything and everyone else and take responsibility for their actions.

I hope they are both charged with some level of animal negligence/cruelty and that they be shown whatever form of mercy in their sentencing deemed appropriate by the court. I agree that the woman’s line of work should have no influence on whether charges are filed or not, and that the age of the animal should have no weight on the type of charges. However, her line of work and history with animals will help determine intent and remorse for the situation in regards to sentencing. I feel sorry for their loss and situation, but I feel even more for the life that ended tragically.
 
Held Totally Responsible For Something that She Didn't Know About?

An executive for an anti-animal cruelty group says her 16-year-old blind and deaf dog died after she accidentally left him in her hot car for four hours.

Robin Starr, the CEO of the Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, says she didn't realize "Louie" was in the car until noon.

I am sorry, but I don't see how this woman can be held totally responsible if she didn't even know that the dog was in the car. I can personally recall placing my infant daughter, a few years ago, in the car and totally forgetting that she was there until I looked in the rearview mirror. By then, I was halfway to work and had to turn around and take her to daycare. This scared me half to death. I had so much on my mind and was so stressed that I forgot that she was there! She didn't make a sound because she was asleep. I was one of those people who would sit back and say "there is no way that I would forget about a child that I placed in a car." Yet it did happen to me and it scared me enough that I never did it again.
This lady didn't place the dog in the car and the dog probably never made a sound(the dog was blind and deaf). The article never says what type of vehicle it was. I know people who do dog rescue and most drive vans or SUV's so it is conceivable that a casual glance might not reveal that something or someone else is in the vehicle, especially if you are not expecting it. If this woman is to receive any punishment, then her husband should be held just as responsible for not telling her that the dog was in the car. IMHO
 
People don't have to throw out the "I disagree with Michael and Ricky" card, because I was hardly being political, or forming a punishment or excuse. In my post I was simply saying that she should be held to no higher or lower standard because of her line of work. However, it should be looked into that she has dedicated her time to helping animals, and must have cared for the dog well for it to live to be sixteen.
Let's not twist this into me saying she should be excused because she worked for the SPCA, or the dog was old enough, so I don't think it's a big deal.
I am simply saying that she may have a line of credibility that should be looked into, because she has shown to have cared for animals well in the past. And this should be considered when determining whether she was telling the truth, or if it was blatant negligence. Nobody is saying anything about excusing her, or anything else, so let's not start a meaningless debate over semantics. Of course she should be equally punished if this was in fact blatant negligence. I just don't find her story to hard to believe, and the whole judge and jury forum thing gets a little old.
Maybe she really had no clue, in which case some of you are being far too harsh, and are not being fully honest with yourselves to think you have never been forgetful, or had an accident happen. Many people post horror stories here, and everyone offers their condolences. No one makes mention of punishment, they understand that accidents happen, and people aren't always on the ball every second of every day.

Fairly simple concept really. No debate whether or not a woman should be excused or punished, just simply stating that her track record might provide credibility towards her side of the story. Maybe she really had no clue that the dog was in the car, it was a 16yo dog, most likely quietly laying down. So I would find it easier to believe it was an accident, rather than someone purposely roasting their dog of 16 years.
 
Yes, it could be an accident. But accident or not, a life was lost. Even though it was an animals life, shouldn't there still be some sort of punishment?
You keep saying you don't want to lower the standard for her, yet you keep saying that her track record should be taken into account. Isn't that contradicting yourself?
 
The law takes intent into account. Neither her nor her husband intended for the dog to be left in the car or die. I wouldn't be surprised if the authorities felt it just wasn't worth their time to try to charge them with something.
 
The track record is for intent.

There's a strong difference between... say... me texting, or driving drunk, and causing an accident where someone dies... and my tire blowing out causing me to get in an accident where someone dies. A bit extreme for an example, but it shows where one was pure negligence/stupidity on my part, the other something I didn't have as much (could have checked tires more often) control over.

Not knowing that someone placed your blind, deaf, old dog in the back seat of a car is entirely plausible. If my dog decides to nap in the back of my car when I'm taking him somewhere, I can't see him. If I'm not *expecting* him to be back there... I could easily see how I might leave him in the car.
 
Last edited:
I THINK I might understand what he is trying to say, Robbie...

I THINK he means that there should be no privilege just because she works for that particular organization, BUT that her years of experience in providing good care (if that is indeed the case) for her pets or other pets, might be something to be taken into account in determining intentions and punishment. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, we all have to be accountable, even if it is accidental. But as somebody else stated about accidentally killing their child, if you have a real bond with the pet, you will be far harder on yourself than the government will be. And I think all circumstances should be taken into account, on a case by case basis.
 
RobbiesCornField said:
Yes, it could be an accident. But accident or not, a life was lost. Even though it was an animals life, shouldn't there still be some sort of punishment?
You keep saying you don't want to lower the standard for her, yet you keep saying that her track record should be taken into account. Isn't that contradicting yourself?
Click to expand...
It's not contradicting in any sense, and this type of debate seems so beyond the point. It's like every thread has to be turned into some political thread, and the sides are split with rhetoric and accusations.
People said she should be held to a higher standard, right? I said that's not fair, she should face no bias. I haven't found her to be guilty yet, so when I say things should be taken into consideration, it has nothing to do with lenient punishment. If she purposely did this, than she should be punished accordingly. But to me, I find that working at an SPCA (no lucrative gain), and having a 16yo dog (must have been cared for) should be looked at when determining the validity of her story. I just find her truth to make more sense that the theory, and her truth is that she had zero clue. I'll tend to think that someone who works at an SPCA does it strictly for the love of helping animals, and someone who cares for a dog 16years must love that dog. So why is it hard to believe it might have been an accident.
And yes, if it was in fact an accident, than why should she be punished? What about someone on here that has a snake over heat, are they equally criticized and punished? The answer in NO. Accidents happen, and I just can't stand that every thing has some judge and jury politicking, when it might just be as simple as a terrible accident.
 
I never said she had to be held to a higher standard, I said she should be held to the same standard everyone else is. My point being, if she wasn't the head of an organization, they wouldn't have hesitated to prosecute.

It is still my opinion that, even if it was an accident, she, or her husband, should be prosecuted to some extent.

In Shiari's example, she mentioned an accident caused by a blown tire. While she wouldn't be held completely accountable for the whole accident, she would be issued a heavy fine, and would likely be at the center of a few lawsuits, depending on how many cars were involved in the accident and if there were any fatalities. Sure, human life may mean more than an animals, but isn't a life still a life? Even if this woman does just get a citation, hefty fine, or community service, it's still a punishment. Would I prefer to see her go to jail for a spell? Heck yeah. Will she? Probably not. Because she's a high ranking official in the SPCA, and people are going to lower the bar for her.
 
kathylove said:
I THINK he means that there should be no privilege just because she works for that particular organization, BUT that her years of experience in providing good care (if that is indeed the case) for her pets or other pets, might be something to be taken into account in determining intentions and punishment. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, we all have to be accountable, even if it is accidental. But as somebody else stated about accidentally killing their child, if you have a real bond with the pet, you will be far harder on yourself than the government will be. And I think all circumstances should be taken into account, on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...
Exactly Kathy, Thanks! That's all that I'm saying. Not that the title of SPCA worker should exalt her, but that she most likely loves animals very much to dedicate her time to the organization. And with that dedication to helpless animals that aren't even hers, why would she purposely kill her own. Maybe she did know, I'm not trying to judge that. I'm just saying that all of the other aspects (16yo dog, SPCA worker) indicate that she cares for animals as best as she can, and there's no other indication that this was done with malice other than speculation, so I don't find it fair to pass down judgment and punishment.
This same thing happened to a police dog nearby, and the cop was devastated. Him being a cop shouldn't buy him leniency to animal cruelty laws, but the fact that this dog was his partner, and he clearly loved it should show a sign that it was an accident, and it should be taken into consideration.
Sometimes I get very flustered when I'm feeding snakes. Tubs everywhere, and a lot going on. I've had some climb out of their tubs and wander a bit while I was focused on other things, but luckily nothing bad happened. Should something have happened, I would've been crushed. A lesson that wouldn't require the law to make, and it just would've been accidental rather that negligent.
I'm sure everyone has been spared from a bad outcome due to not paying full attention, and thank god for that. But sometimes the outcome is different, and the same situation that ended well for you, may have had devastating consequences for others. All I'm saying is that she might be totally crushed right now to have lost a best friend of 16years, and if that's the case, what will throwing the book at her do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top