Karma bites the hypocrite

[cosgrojo]

Whether or not this woman had an 'employment contract' to keep that dog alive is irrelevant. She was at the very least morally obligated as a pet owner to keep that dog alive, instead of baking it in the family sedan.

Morality judgments and law do not make good bed fellows. Like Church and State. People do things all the time that aren't illegal, but are immoral... we do not imprison them. No one has disputed your moral case LS, it is the legal one that we disagree with.

Since she 'often took the dog to work with her', it's not like the dog being placed in her car was something new.

I would also venture as far as to say that I'm pretty sure there was some sort of communication between her husband and herself about putting the dog into the car, or at least her intentions on taking the dog to work with her that day.

You are obviously not married. Long-time married people can sometimes go weeks without actually communicating with each other. As a married man I can tell you that we mis communicate over things all the time. Things that we should have gotten down pat by now, and sometimes because one assumes that the other "will know what to do." Let me tell you that I find it highly probable that NO conversation was had at all. My wife does practically the same thing every morning before work... same routine, same order... occasionally she will do something different, I'll mention it, and she will tell me that this is always the way she does things. There are no absolutes... you cannot be sure of any statements you make about their behavior, and neither can I.

While I can't show you specifically that she knew the dog was there, you by the same token, cannot prove that the husband placed the dog into the car without her knowledge. I can't see the husband just sneaking the dog into the car because he had nothing better to do, or wanted to set her up for something bad to happen.

We don't need to prove anything... burden of proof is on the prosecution... or have you forgotten the whole presumption of innocence bit? Don't worry LS... you are not alone... most have.

If I did something like this, I would end up in jail on animal cruelty charges, no matter how much remorse I felt or showed, thanks to orgainizations like the SPCA. Just because she feels bad about what happened, shouldn't excuse her from getting charged just the same as I would.

Agree with them or not, these are MY views; and I'm entitled to them!

First of all, let us be frank... you would not have gone to jail because you would have never been caught unless you turned yourself in, AND admitted that you did it on purpose OR that you knew the dog was in the car, but didn't think it was a big deal. Your assumptions do not hold any validity, unless the husband and wife change their stories, there won't be another witness, so no new evidence can be uncovered. If you take the story as the way it was presented, then it was an unfortunate accident without any intent. The Lady brought the Dog to two different clinics to try and save the dogs life. People who maliciously cause harm, rarely try and tend to the wounds.

The fact that she feels bad isn't why she shouldn't be charged. She shouldn't be charged because there is no factual or legal base for any charges. Freak accidents occur, and the law usually knows when to accept it when there are no real victims but the "perpetrators" themselves. I don't mean to hurt the feelings of any dog lovers by my last statement and statements to come... but we are talking about the accidental death of an Old, Deaf, and Blind dog who was well cared for and had a spectacular life by any dog's estimation. It wasn't a human, it wasn't a baby, it's not that big a deal.

LS, no one is saying you are not entitled to your views... just that our view is that your view is completely mental.

And Dwayne... don't worry, we will be disagreeing and yelling at each other in no time... have no fear.