• 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 ...

Michael823 said:
People don't have to throw out the "I disagree with Michael and Ricky" card.
Click to expand...
I did disagree with you, I disagree with a few more people on this thread now, as it happens. On this issue, in this thread, I just cannot change my stance.
I really do not care how much remorse is felt by the woman and her husband, I really do believe it was a total accident, but the dog is still dead, it died horribly, in a way that the humane authorities campaign against and prosecute people for.
 
I believe that the authorities will look at this case and make a decision on whether or not to prosecute her. A look at whether malice or willful intent was involved will be a part of that decision. How she may or may not feel or how the general public may or may not feel, hopefully will not be a consideration in this or any other case. This was a sad tragedy and hopefully this will cause people to make it a habit always check their vehicles.
 
I still see this as a horrible accident. How many people have had their probe slip or thermostat fail, had an animal die while properly being shipped, or lose an animal in transit between shows? Now how many of these people have been prosecuted? Who cares who this woman worked for I can't believe for one minute she purpoely left the dog in a hot car knowingly or intended for any damage to be done. I am not a fan of all the SPCA stands for, but in the end she like any of us is human.
 
danielle said:
I still see this as a horrible accident. How many people have had their probe slip or thermostat fail, had an animal die while properly being shipped, or lose an animal in transit between shows? Now how many of these people have been prosecuted? Who cares who this woman worked for I can't believe for one minute she purpoely left the dog in a hot car knowingly or intended for any damage to be done. I am not a fan of all the SPCA stands for, but in the end she like any of us is human.
Click to expand...
Completely agree!. I had my thermostat fall in the middle of the night and when I woke up it was stuck to my baby JCP. I felt horrible, but what could I have really done. I was as careful as possible to remove it, but there was still an open wound. Is that negligence; I would say no, because all these products were recommended. I'm sure people would still have their opinions on my lack of knowledge on the product, or what they use that's better, but it was an honest mistake. We live in a very fragile world. Things happen even to the most careful among us. I say save the charges for people who are truly negligent, because at the end of the day this woman and her family are probably dying inside about it; It just comes with the territory of living!.
 
Ricky87 said:
Completely agree!. I had my thermostat fall in the middle of the night and when I woke up it was stuck to my baby JCP. I felt horrible, but what could I have really done. I was as careful as possible to remove it, but there was still an open wound. Is that negligence; I would say no, because all these products were recommended. I'm sure people would still have their opinions on my lack of knowledge on the product, or what they use that's better, but it was an honest mistake. We live in a very fragile world. Things happen even to the most careful among us. I say save the charges for people who are truly negligent, because at the end of the day this woman and her family are probably dying inside about it; It just comes with the territory of living!.
Click to expand...

Accidents result in criminal charges all the time, including leaving animals in locked cars during hot days. Manslaughter is a criminal charge that is generally used when an accident results in someone's death. Something being an 'accident' is not enough of a reason to excuse negligence. Whether or not she should be convicted is something I can't determine, but she shouldn't be let off simply because it was 'an accident'.
 
Nova_C said:
Accidents result in criminal charges all the time, including leaving animals in locked cars during hot days. Manslaughter is a criminal charge that is generally used when an accident results in someone's death. Something being an 'accident' is not enough of a reason to excuse negligence. Whether or not she should be convicted is something I can't determine, but she shouldn't be let off simply because it was 'an accident'.
Click to expand...

Wait... Nova and I AGREE on something?!?! Someone alert the presses!
 
Okay, so we're coming to the conclusion it was most likely an accident? Which means we're saying that she is most likely telling the truth, and we agree that she most likely had no clue the dog was in the car in the first place. So what should she be charged with for that? If the story is correct, than she really had no clue the dog was in the car, and is really the victim of a tragic misunderstanding.

I'm not debating punishment, or whether she is telling the truth or not. I am simply saying that her story be looked into, and her previous care for animals needs to be evaluated in order to judge her intent. If it comes out that she is an otherwise great animal provider, and this was a tragic misunderstanding, than the law should really not get involved. I love dogs as much as anybody, and want there to be strict punishment for those who mistreat them. But as a person who is responsible for many pets and tasks, I can see how accidents are liable to happen, and to create laws to punish people who aren't always on the ball is kind of ridiculous. These things happen everyday, but fortune prevents it from ending the way that this situation did. All we can do is wait for the facts to be determined, and hold judgment and ridicule until that point.
 
Michael823 said:
Okay, so we're coming to the conclusion it was most likely an accident? Which means we're saying that she is most likely telling the truth, and we agree that she most likely had no clue the dog was in the car in the first place. So what should she be charged with for that? If the story is correct, than she really had no clue the dog was in the car, and is really the victim of a tragic misunderstanding.

I'm not debating punishment, or whether she is telling the truth or not. I am simply saying that her story be looked into, and her previous care for animals needs to be evaluated in order to judge her intent. If it comes out that she is an otherwise great animal provider, and this was a tragic misunderstanding, than the law should really not get involved. I love dogs as much as anybody, and want there to be strict punishment for those who mistreat them. But as a person who is responsible for many pets and tasks, I can see how accidents are liable to happen, and to create laws to punish people who aren't always on the ball is kind of ridiculous. These things happen everyday, but fortune prevents it from ending the way that this situation did. All we can do is wait for the facts to be determined, and hold judgment and ridicule until that point.
Click to expand...
Lack of intent does not absolve one from responsibility!
 
I am not condoning her not taking any responsibility like fines or community service, but not throwing the book at her either. Like I said before when a probe slips and shipping or show travel results in death we console each other not play the blame game. Its because we know the other didn't intend for any harm to occur even though it did. This woman doesn't seem to have intended to harm her dog so is all this animosity possibly just because of the irony of it happening to an exec with the spca of whom we don't like? I am being objective here.
 
danielle said:
I am not condoning her not taking any responsibility like fines or community service, but not throwing the book at her either. Like I said before when a probe slips and shipping or show travel results in death we console each other not play the blame game. Its because we know the other didn't intend for any harm to occur even though it did. This woman doesn't seem to have intended to harm her dog so is all this animosity possibly just because of the irony of it happening to an exec with the spca of whom we don't like? I am being objective here.
Click to expand...
Possibly, good point.
 
I'm just seeing the story from her perspective, in which she allegedly had no clue of the dogs presence in the car. From this perspective I don't see any punishment as logical, if in fact this is the truth. I would need a first hand account to judge her intent and honesty behind her story, but all other aspects point to someone who cares for animals well, and the circumstance she explained seems logical enough for me to consider it to possibly be truthful.
I also think Danielle is making a great point. Is there a higher desire to punish this woman simply because she works for the SPCA? If so, why? I really don't understand how people dislike the SPCA and Humane Societies much either. I can understand and agree with the dislike of PETA and HSUS, but the SPCA and local Humane Societies are mostly locally supported and volunteer. They're organizations which help to re-home and rehabilitate mistreated and neglected animals, and should be looked at in a positive light. Cleaning up after sick and messy animals, and spending countless hours and resources training, feeding, curing, and re-homing animals isn't exactly a selfish, money hungry job.
 
And again, that doesn't absolve someone of responsibility.

I don't think anyone is calling for extra harsh penalties because of who she is, but Micheal, you're advocating lighter penalties because of who she is. In order to save the dogs life, all she had to do was look in the back seat of her car. I don't think anyone is saying she is abusive, or uncaring, but the fact of the matter is a dog died of exposure, locked in a car during a hot day. This is something people are charged with. Why should she received special treatment?
 
davesfiles said:
A thermostat that is faulty has nothing to do with a person letting a dog bake in the back seat.
Click to expand...

How not? Doesn't it result in the same thing? An animal dying of hyperthermia? Why is it criminal for her, but merely a tragic accident for us? It doesn't make sense, honestly. She didn't know the dog was there. People here have not known the thermostat was faulty. Animals died. If we want to be 100% fair, that means that we should also start reporting each other whenever something like that happens.

When I was doing some relief tech-work at another hospital, a guy brought in his two dogs that he had left in the car for several hours. He claimed to be a doctor at an emergency room and had "no idea" that dogs could get heat stroke and then didn't want to pay for their treatment. Both dogs were euthanised. THAT is criminal. I believe the manager reported him. But not even knowing your dog was there? That is a different manner entirely, on par with faulty thermostats or airconditioning. If SHE had put the dog in the back seat, then yes... but she didn't. She placed exactly 0 dogs in the car, and thus took exactly 0 dogs out of the car. I don't check my car every day to see if a cat I didn't put in there has magically appeared.

I agree entirely that most of this hullabaloo is because she is an SPCA exec. If she was average jane, there'd be more sympathy, on par with "our thermostat failed and we lost several snakes."
 
"Stuff" happens. It was a series of unfortunate events.

She wasn't ignorant that a dog could die if left in a car. She was ignorant to the fact that a dog was in her car.
 
I guess I don't get the whole intent thing - if accidents weren't punishable by law, "manslaughter" wouldn't even exist. Yes, the law takes intent into account, but it doesn't absolve someone of all resposibility. I'm sure it was an accident, but it was still negligent.

Let's say it was a child. Would anybody say, "Well, she didn't know the baby was in the car!" or would we be saying, "How could she not know where her child was?!"

When it comes to supervision, animals and children are almost identical in their needs. She should have known where the dog was, and if someone put the dog in the car without her knowledge, than that person should be punished.

Her status as an SPCA worker makes no difference whatsoever to me, except of course in enactment of a history-based ban on owning animals, which obviously she has not earned through this one mistake.
 
Shiari said:
...I agree entirely that most of this hullabaloo is because she is an SPCA exec. If she was average jane, there'd be more sympathy, on par with "our thermostat failed and we lost several snakes."
Click to expand...
If it were an average Jane it would be this SPCA person doing the decrying. She would be the one leading the charge for Jane's prosection! :shrugs:
 
tsst said:
If it were an average Jane it would be this SPCA person doing the decrying. She would be the one leading the charge for Jane's prosection! :shrugs:
Click to expand...

Yeah, Shiari, do a search for people's dogs dying in hot cars and see how much sympathy there is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top