Friday, October 31, 2008

Prosecute "pit bull" breeder Floyd Boudreaux all over again?
Dream on, babycakes.
Civil rights don't matter to animal rights extremists
Following the speedy acquittal of Floyd and Guy Boudreaux on dogfighting charges two weeks ago, and as BDS reader The Philosophical Pit Bull points out, the internet is crawling with copies of petitions and form letters addressed to assorted Louisiana officials.
It seems some people have a problem with acquittals based on insufficient evidence. HSUS promised them a conviction, and they want one. One way or another, the extremists want to see blood.
Better interpretations of evidence
For example, Easy Vegan says:
This case needs to be reopened, with a better interpretation of the evidence, so that Floyd and Guy Boudreaux are prosecuted to the fullest extent under Louisiana animal fighting and cruelty laws. Anything less is a grave miscarriage of justice.
Easy Vegan would have preferred a lynching. There is no such thing as "better" interpretations of evidence, and its double jeopardy that's a grave miscarriage of justice. Its a constitutional thingie.
HSUS and its underlings took their best shot at the Boudreaux family, and guess what? The judge promptly threw the case out.
No do-overs allowed, and Easy Vegan doesn't get to re-write the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution protects us all from repeated prosecutions on the same charges, based on the same (non) evidence. Even Easy Vegan nutcases enjoy the protections of the Fifth Amendment.
Coincidentally, the Fifth Amendment is also what guarantees us due process of the law.
Due process is what was denied Floyd Boudreaux when his dogs were seized, and immediately slaughtered, by the Louisiana SPCA. The dogs were destroyed long, long before Floyd Boudreaux had his day in court.
Is Easy Vegan above the law?
Because animal extremists sure seem to believe the law doesn't pertain to them.
Take Animal Charity in Youngstown, Ohio. Smartdogs' Weblog has an excellent discussion of the actions of a couple of "humane law" agents and their boss, who apparently believed that illegal search and seizures are justifiable because "its all about the dogs".
The law says otherwise.
Tammy Grimes thought she was above the law when she authorized herself to steal a dog, and refused to surrender it when she got caught.
The dog died in Tammy's care.
After she was convicted of theft and receiving stolen property, Tammy's groupies started a letter-writing campaign, asking for her to be pardoned. They thought Tammy was above the law, too.
But Grimes was sentenced accordingly.
One nation. Liberty and justice for all.
We are all innocent until proven guilty in this country. We have the right to a fair trial. We are protected from illegal searches and seizures of our property.
Whackjob vigilantes cannot appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner, and expect to be pardoned.
Animal rights extremists have little use for the Bill of Rights. Civil rights are mostly inconvenient details that gum up the machinery and slow down the killing salvation of animals.
"Its all about the animals" is a phrase that allows zealots to brush past atrocities like the way Floyd Boudreaux's dogs were seized and killed. I don't know how they sleep at night.
Stuff like this could give Humane Society of the United States a bad name. Couldn't it?

5 comments:

smartdogs said...

Well, one would hope.

Oh - and [hug] ;-)

Caveat said...

Smartypants beat me to it.

Maybe it's time to start treating the AR robots the way they like to see pet owners treated?

How about some illegal entry, seizure of computers, files, etc? Seizure of their pets (not that hard-core AR whackaloons have pets, that's exploitation don'tcha know). A little slander and libel couldn't hurt, especially if we destroy the evidence in advance of a hearing. Heh.

Let's trump up some charges, keep trying, only quitters give up when someone is cleared, gotta keep prosecuting until it sticks.

Actually, if that kind of thing weren't contrary to the principles all sane people hold dear, it would be a lot of fun.

Can we start with Wayne and Ingrid?

Little Mr Everydog said...

Very good article. They don't want justice they want their way. Justice is blind and has no side. justice is content as long as justice is served.

*kristy* said...

I wanted to clarify that Doogie was in her care when he died *a year and a half later.* You simply say he died in her care without saying anything else. That is a very, very important fact that you should have given more information on. How did he die? When did he died? You are starting the story out biased.

I don't agree with the fact that she kept him, she should have given him up and demanded he receive vet care. I help chained dogs and it is a terrible sight. Many times, the police don't care and either do the animal control officers.

I think she was caught in a dilemma and chose his health over the law. What can you do when the people who are supposed to help you, don't?

For those of you who have not gone out to help these unhappy and sometimes starving and sick dogs you can't say anything. Their ears are usually raw, inflamed and very painful from flies biting them. They usually have a severe infestation of fleas. Sometimes their collars are embedded into their neck. They are sitting in their own feces and urine. They get rained on and snowed on. It is a very emotional thing to see an innocent dog in pain or starving or dehydrated, looking up at you to save him. How can you walk away?

I think this is just another case of people disagreeing with something that they have never witnessed or gone through and have no idea about-but they are talking about on a throne looking down on those who are willing to get off our butts and actually help the dogs!

I have never stolen a dog and I don't plan to. I have to admit, I have been tempted to because of the lack of response from animal control.

I am not one of those "AR extremists" either. I believe in animal welfare-*not* animal rights. There is a big difference. I go out with a non profit org to help dogs (and cats) in low income neighborhoods. I don't agree with most things that PETA and HSUS believe.

The people who chained Doogie in the yard and neglected him...let him starve...were never prosecuted! They weren't even questioned! How is any of this justice? All you *think* you have learned is that "AR extremists" will go to great lengths to protect an animal. Nobody is focusing on Doogie who had to endure a terrible life on that chain.

BlueDogState said...

Kristy, you need to do some thinking.Despite your claim that you're not an extremist, your comment is one long, tired rationalization of Tammy Grimes' crimes.

--About the only thing I know for a fact is that the dog died after Grimes stole him. I don't know how, I don't know when, where or why. Neither do you, because Grimes hid him and refused to return him to the authorities.

No one -- except for the people that collaborated in the crime -- ever saw him again. Remember?

--Cruelty to animals is inhumane and its a crime. So drop the self-righteous speechifying.

Responsibly and humanely tethering a dog protects both dog and community from the complications and risks that stray dogs can create. It doesn't cause infected ears, or embedded collars.

Tethering is not a crime -- except in a few miserable communities where people like you have made it illegal. Congrats.

--Vigilantes, and self-promoting self-made "martyrs" like Grimes, are not the law. You complain that the dog's owners were never charged, but Grimes stole the evidence and completely mucked up the crime scene in order to produce her little Saint Tammy video. You want people prosecuted without evidence against them?

Grimes had many opportunities to hand the dog over to the authorities, and refused. She needed the headlines so that she could dupe people like you into supporting her.

Step away from the Koolaid, Kristy.