Rachel, Rachel, Rachel, while I can certainly appreciate having compassion for all living things, one act of cruelty never justifies another, no matter what the circumstance might be. Two wrongs never made anything any better nor any more right. Just the way it is.

Most countries have laws to protect animals, as well as penalites for those who break those laws. Canada is no different than the US in that respect. Vigilantism is never something worthy of celebration, no matter what the reason for it.

Have fun ;)!

Sorry Rach, but the jackass in this story is the 'pet detective'. He deserves to be fired and charged with unlawful restraint or whatever pussy law they've got up there. I think he should be horse-whipped. He should be charged with theft and destruction of property too.

Whose dog was it? That's right, the owners. Pet detective boy should have just minded his own goddam business.

I'm sure Cyrus the Rottweiler is grateful for the Investigator's actions.

If I saw a dog near death locked in a car, I'd not only break a window to save the animal, I'd also want to join the crowd and give him a good beatdown for being such an asshat.

Some people just shouldn't own pets.

I'm gonna have to side with Rachel on this one. The pet detective didn't beat the guy up and the guy wouldn't have had his ass handed to him if he hadn't been such a tool shed, leaving a living creature in a car to suffer like that. As far as I'm concerned, he got instant Karma for his actions. Pets are not objects...they are living creatures.

A quote: "The question is not: 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" ~ Philosopher Jeremy Bentham

The dog owner should be thankful he wasn't handcuffed to the car that Smith drove to the hospital in.

If I were there, I would have deployed my weaponized McDonald's hot apple pie launcher and showed him the true meaning of "hot". (Lance wouldn't understand, they couldn't afford hot.)

I'm with you Rachel. Sounds like the guy came back to his car while the dog was being rescued and got abusive. For his own safety, the pet rescuer had to restrain the guy. Then it was a choice, either leave the guy there and save the dog, or let the dog die so he could stay there and protect this guy's sorry ass.

Now, I don't approve of the crowd beating the guy, and I want to know whether the pet rescuer called for backup quickly or just intended to let the guy sit in the hot sun for a few hours until he got back. But if he really did have to restrain the guy because the guy was threatening him, then I'm ok with what he did.

Brian, I disagree COMPLETELY. Sometimes there is cause for celebration for vigilantism. That word gets a bad rap.

Rick, how would horse-whipping the pet detective for handcuffing a guy be any more fair than beating the owner for locking a dog in the car? And would you feel the same way about this story if it were a cat instead of a dog? By the way, you're funny-lookin'.

Rachel you really shouldn't call Rick funny-lookin' you might hurt his feelin's ROFLMAO! Luv ya both *smile*

So it sounds like Toronto police found the beat-up Rottie-abuser handcuffed to his car, and -- OMG --- probably "slumped and foaming at the mouth." No irony there.

What was the purpose of handcuffing the man? He had the license plate number. He had the dog's tags I presume. He could have asked for the man's ID.

You can never tie a guy up and leave him under any circumstance, especially this one. What if something else happened, like the car caught on fire? He would be unable to save himself. What if a bunch of vigilantes started hitting him? He would be unable to defend himself.

What if those vigilantes got so fired up that they broke bones or killed him? That "pet detective" would be guilty of manslaughter.

I don't feel one bit sorry for the jerk for getting a few lumps on his head, but we don't know, and the "pet detective" doesn't know the whole story. But how do we know that the man even did this act? Could it be that his teen aged daughter did it and he was rushing back to save the dog? That's why we have courts to figure out these facts and then mete out appropriate punishments dispassionately.

Restraining him served no purpose except to show that the IQ of pet detectives in Toronto is pretty darn low.

But it makes for a cute story to feel indignant about.

We don't know that for certain, Skyler. The jerk could have become belligerent and aggressive when he came back to the car and found the pet rescuer breaking his window and taking his Rottweiller. The handcuffing may have been necessary to protect his own safety at the time. In which case, it's leaving him that's the problem, not the handcuffing itself.

Rachel, I'm 100%, without a doubt on your side on this one. The people that say the worker is at fault here have neither A) owned an animal of any form that they have cared about or B) never been hot. And if you think you have been hot, have someone lock you in the back of a car w/ the windows rolled up and then take the keys, meaning you would have no hope whatsoever of getting out. Or just move to Texas.

If I would have walked by and seen this pregnancy mishap of a human handcuffed to a car, I would have asked why he was handcuffed to said car. Then, once it was made clear to me, I would have peed on him.

Because thats how I prove my points.

Dog, cat, fluffy bunny, pit viper...you'll find that I am consistant on this. It is wrong to beat a guy up for doing something that offends you but doesn't hurt you or hurt any other person.

How more fair? To punish Ace Ventura for destroying and stealing the guy's property and then assaulting him and handcuffing him to the car, thereby endangering his life and setting him up for a mob beating seems quite fair to me.

To beat a guy up for locking his dog in the car is pure malicious assault. It's the same as beating a guy up for cutting down a tree in his yard or for painting his bicycle orange.

I used the term 'horse-whip' as a bit of hyperbole to express my disgust with the rent-a-dog guy. A fair disposition would be for pet detective to pay to replace the window, pay the guy's medical bill and publicly apologize for being a thug and a bully. Whether or not he loses his job is between him and his employer.

A lot of you folks let your love of animals get in the way of clear thinking. Animals are property and you can't get around the priciples of private ownership. In a free society you should be free to tell anyone who is cruel to their pets to eat shit. You can shun them and refuse to do any business with them. You can't beat them up, that makes you more wrong than they are.

All priciples aside, there are some other things about this story that make me side with the dog owner. Did Ace try to find the owner before smashing the window? Most folks commenting here seem very willing to just jump on the bash wagon but do you know for sure the owner is a callous asshole? How often does it get hot enough in Toronto to die in a car? Maybe the owner didn't realize he was injuring his pet, and would never purposely hurt it. Should he be beaten up anyway?

Why is anyone down on the owner for getting aggressive? If I catch anyone smashing out my car window, there's going to be a throw-down. If you catch me smashing out your window may I handcuff you to 'protect my own safety'?

You may think I'm an ass, but I love animals too. However, there are things that are more important than feelings. The right to be secure in your liberty, property and person are some of those things.

"Brian, I disagree COMPLETELY. Sometimes there is cause for celebration for vigilantism. That word gets a bad rap."

I can live with that Rachel, just as I am sure you can, but then most words which get a "bad rap" have rightfully earned them.

Do we then justify police officers brutally murdering potential suspects because one of "their own" was killed? Is that what comes next? Do we then justify lynch mobs? Or Hate crimes simply because the perpetrators feel that their cause was more valid or righteous? I would hope not.

As one who has worn a badge, and taken an oath to Protect and Serve, and who contrary to the opinions of some "radical" animal lovers has in fact owned and loved many animals, I still firmly believe this "Pet Dick" went well beyond his authority, and was incredibly irresponsible to say the least. He certainly is no hero, not by a long shot. The good he did in no way outweighs his own stupidity.

In saving an animal's life this "Pet Dick" put the life of a fellow human being in jeopardy, and regardless of what an officer is charged to protect, regardless of how much we might love animals, in the end protecting Human life takes precedence over protecting animal welfare. I daresay, regardless of how reprehensible or stupid the actions of this pet owner may have been, the notion that an animals life is in someway more valueable than a human life calls serious question to the values of said person espousing such notions.

What if while handcuffed to this car and unprotected, instead of merely being pummelled, this man had been beaten to death, or sustained some other life threatening or life taking injury? Would you still be saying "Plus, the jackass deserved it"? I would hope not. That scenario could have very well occured. People do in fact get a bit over zealous when it comes to animals don't they?

I am not a religious man, not by a long shot, but everyone has moments of stupidity in their life and this could very well have been the only one this man ever made, so consider the following before you rush to condemn; "There but for the Grace of God go I". A phrase I have personally learned to give serious consideration to before passing out any judgements. I love you Rach, but I sincerely believe you let your passion for our furry friends get the better of you this go round.

Have fun ;)!

PS: Sorry for the book

So Rick, you would remove all the laws on the books about cruelty towards animals? It is actually illegal to leave the dog locked in the car in those conditions.

This incident appears to have happened in Ontario, Canada. In that province, SPCA officers are in fact police officers, pursuant to the provisions of this law: "For the purposes of the enforcement of this or any other act or law in force in Ontario pertaining to the welfare of or the prevention of cruelty to animals, every inspector and agent of the Society has and may exercise any of the powers of a police officer."

Breaking into the car is authorized by this provision of the law: "Taking possession of animal

14. (1) An inspector or an agent of the Society may remove an animal from the building or place where it is and take possession thereof on behalf of the Society for the purpose of providing it with food, care or treatment to relieve its distress where,

(a) a veterinarian has examined the animal and has advised the inspector or agent in writing that the health and well-being of the animal necessitates its removal;

(b) the inspector or agent has inspected the animal and has reasonable grounds for believing that the animal is in distress and the owner or custodian of the animal is not present and cannot be found promptly; or

(c) an order respecting the animal has been made under section 13 and the order has not been complied with. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 14 (1)."

So, Rick, what you're saying is that a criminal, who comes upon a police officer in the act of enforcing the law, is justified to "throw down" on the cop?

As I've said, I agree that the jerk of a dog "owner" probably shouldn't have been left handcuffed to the car. The SPCA agent should have called for back-up immediately. But I don't know those precise details, and it appears that the law is for the most part on the side of right in this case, the side of the man intent on protecting an innocent animal from being left to die in a locked car in the middle of summer.

I don't see the big deal in a dog "slumped and foaming at the mouth..."

At least once a year the "Mrs." [Secretia de Craque] can be found slumped and foaming at the mouth.

....ON my birthday.

On HER birthday...

"Just a little longer, Lance. I said LONger, Lance...."

"Hey, bossy, if I could MAKE it a little longer, don't you think I WOULD?!"

The horror.

The horror.

Pat, I'm sorry you wasted time looking up the statutes and typing them here. I don't give a fuck about legal or illegal. I'm talking about right and wrong.

So in answer to your first question: yes. Or even better "remove all the laws on the books" full stop. Laws are written by jackholes like Nancy Pelosi and John McCain and carry no moral weight with me.

I'm sure y'all can extrapolate my answer to the second question from there.

Well, these particular laws weren't written by Nancy Pelosi or John McCain, being on the books in Ontario, Canada (that's not part of the United States, you understand).

I give a fuck about right and wrong, too. And it's fucking wrong to leave a dog to die from the heat of being trapped in a locked car in the middle of the summer, and the dog is a hell of a lot more important than some damn glass car window. If the guy truly made a mistake, then he would have been thanking the cop for saving his dog's life, rather than getting belligerent in his face.

But thanks for the warning. As you don't respect any laws, anywhere, I'll be sure to avoid doing business with you at all costs.

Oh, and since property rights are protected by laws that, we've established, you don't care about, I'll just drive off with your car, should I see it lying around somewhere.

Since the animal cruelty investigator did not participate in the beating of the dog owner, he should certainly not be blamed for that unfortunate event. BTW, crowds do not just randomly go around beating up people handcuffed to cars, either, so I agree with PatHMV that the owner probably behaved in an inappropriate fashion both in his interaction with the officer and after as well.

Also, from the description of symptoms, this dog was minutes away from death. The officer's actions are therefore certainly justified, especially since he was in the position of observing a crime in progress and merely taking steps to save a life in a situation where every second counts.

I don't believe that a car window should be worth more than a dog's life, no matter what your frame of reference, definitions of right and wrong, or feelings towards the law might be.

I like where this thread is going.

Rick, I agree with you on a lot of that. And frankly, like Brian said, it's not really right that the pet detective handcuffed the guy to the car, because that could have resulted in harm to the guy, who had not been tried and convicted in a court, etc etc. I should correct my defense of vigilantism, because I actually only believe it should be used if there is absolutely ZERO DOUBT that someone has done something deserving it (like you SEE a guy committing assault or something).

Where I disagree with you is where you say it's wrong the pet detective broke the guy's window and damaged his property. A dog's life is more important than any inanimate property of that low a value. I wouldn't say bulldoze a building to save a dog, but I would definitely say destroy a guy's car window (and possibly his face but again, only once you KNOW he's the one who locked the dog in the car).

Pat, I agree with you that the law gives the pet detective the right to break into the car. What my brother said about laws though was simply that they don't always match up with right and wrong. I completely disagree with him in that I believe the particular law in question IS "right", but he's not saying that it's okay to steal cars you see laying around -- that would be wrong. Unless, in my opinion, you have to take the car in order to save someone's life (including a dog's, because like I said, I think a dog's life is worth that amount of property).

Rick's somewhat of a libertarian, in case you haven't noticed, haha. He sees pets as property and that basically, people can kill their pets if they want. Which I actually agree with, otherwise euthanasia would be wrong. What I don't agree with is that people have the right to TORTURE their pets, which is what leaving it in a hot car is doing.

So I agree and disagree with both of you on different points. And I'm always right. About 50% of the time.

"the dog is a hell of a lot more important than some damn glass car window"

More important to whom? Remember, you don't get to have a say in how I or anyone else values our own property.

Even though I may not repect the law I do respect people. And their property. Why would you steal my car? Stealing is wrong, Pat. I would never steal your stuff, no matter how much I disagree with you.

I agree with all that, Rachel. I tore into your brother because, well, it seemed like he was asking for it. I'm by no means a pure libertarian, but I certainly sympathize with respecting private property. But we also have an obligation to respect even those laws we don't particularly like. We might have some moral duty to obey a higher moral law in some cases, but I don't see this as one of those cases. Under Ontario law, the SPCA officer has a legal right to protect the dog's life, even at the expense of some damage to private property.

My car-theft comment was simply to point out that not everybody shares the same moral beliefs and respect for private property that he has. Respect for even the laws we don't approve of is the only thing that holds society, with its mix of people of all sorts of different crazy beliefs, together. Even if I were a committed socialist (thank God I'm not), I would still have to respect the law that prohibits me from stealing Rick's car because it is the law, even though I privately might have no respect or belief in the concept of private property.

If the dog abuser did come back to the car and try to interfere with the SPCA officer, then the dog abuser would be breaking the law and subject to arrest. If the dog abuser and Rick would prefer that the law allow people to kill dogs by baking them in locked cars in the summer, then they can seek to amend the law... or they can move to an island somewhere.

Actually, I'd kind of like to see that last bit. Let all the radical libertarians in the world go start their own perfect society somewhere and see how well it turns out.

Stealing is wrong, Pat. I would never steal your stuff, no matter how much I disagree with you.

But you'd let a living creature die, in agony, in a 130 degree car. I think your priorities might be a tiny bit off.

I might indeed steal your car, Rick. If my child or my wife was dying, and your car was the only available transportation to get to the hospital to save their lives, I'd steal your car in a heartbeat. I place a high value on private property and the respect thereof, but I place a higher value on the survival of myself and my family.

Beyond that, I believe in obeying even the laws I don't agree with. So if the law says a cop can seize my property in some circumstance, I'm going to obey that law, not attack the cop enforcing that law.

You want to continue to insist that animals are pure "property," but on what basis do you assert that? In the moral belief system of many people on this planet, animals are more than property. In the eyes of some whackos, animals are the moral equivalent of people. If law is based only on your own moral sense (and it is indeed only your moral sense that demands such unyielding adherence to property rights), then why should your moral belief in the sanctity of property rights outweigh the moral belief of the PETA folks? That way lies anarchy. Without respect for the laws, the PETA folks are justified in stealing your dogs (because they don't belief animals can be property), and you're justified in stopping them by force, and we're then in a world ruled by whoever is stronger and more vicious in promoting their own moral beliefs.

Much better to respect the laws even when we don't agree with them.

You can't have it both ways, Rachel. Either animals are property and y'all can just butt out of what the owner chooses to do with them, or they are not property and the entire pet and meat industries are immoral and should be dismantled.

Don't get me wrong, I think people who abuse pets are scum and should be shunned by decent folks. But it's wrong to force your own values on other people with fists or guns or policemen.

Tell ya what, if the welfare of pets is that important to you, put your money where your mouth is. Offer pet abusers enough money and they will sell you their pets. Out bid them every time and all the doggies will always be safe.

The issue at play here is what gets to supersede laws and what doesn't.

Rick, you can pick and choose which laws you want to follow, and which ones you don't want to follow based entirely on your moral compass, but you can't blame other people for following suit and doing the same.

For instance, you're willing to respect property laws, but overlooking the moral infraction for doing so: allowing a fairly intelligent and feeling creature to die.

In my opinion, everyone did something wrong in this story. As much as the guy being handcuffed to his car makes me chuckle, it was wrong and should have been handled in a different way. Taking the guy's license plate number for instance would have been more than sufficient.

Ace V was right in doing what he did. A living creature shouldn't have to be tortured to death. It's cruel and inhumane. And while I agree to some extent that pets are "property" I believe that they have significantly more value (not monetarily) than inanimate objects. A car doesn't suffer and has no 'spirit' (for lack of a better word). A dog is a living, breathing creature who can feel pain and suffer. Letting a dog sit in a 130 degree car is wrong, morally and legally.

I wouldn't care if someone chopped a tree down on their property. It's not a breathing being. But I sure as hell would speak up and probably call the police if I saw some jerk torturing their dog! Even if it is their "property" they do not have the right to do such a thing!

Tanya, a few minutes ago I stomped a roach to death in my office. It didn't die immediately but lay there twitching in agony. I guess I'm a monster.

"But you'd let a living creature die, in agony, in a 130 degree car."

When did I ever say that? You're putting words in my mouth. I think your reading comprehension might be a tiny bit off.

Pat: "Let all the radical libertarians in the world go start their own perfect society somewhere and see how well it turns out."

They did. In 1776. It was called America. All the petty tyrants, socialists and nosy busy-bodies have fucked it up since then.

You know what? If your wife or child were dying and my car was the only one you could take to save their life, I would lend it to you, post facto even, if I were not there in person when you needed it.

Who says it has to be either/or, Rick? We put middle ground limits on all sorts of things. The world is more complex than that. Your kids are yours to raise as you please, but if you abuse them, the state will take them from you. The fact that the state can take them from you in some circumstances doesn't make them any less your kids in all other respects.

You may own the mountain where the coal mine is, but we restrict just how much you can strip-mine it.

It's your car, but if you want to drive it on the streets, it has to meet certain safety standards.

This either/or idea exists only in your mind.

I think the reason this topic can even be debated is because we have allowed our legislators to overstep their authority by legislating moral issues. This to me is a moral (acceptable or not acceptable treatment of an animal) issue and obviously subject to my moral values. I think Rick is 100% correct in his logical, not emotional, assesment of the facts.

"But you'd let a living creature die, in agony, in a 130 degree car."

When did I ever say that? You're putting words in my mouth. I think your reading comprehension might be a tiny bit off.

Rick, you did say exactly that when you said the SPCA officer was wrong to violate the guy's property rights by breaking the car window. You'd respect property rights more than you respect the dying dog. That's your position, and you've stated it more than once, quite clearly.

Kris, murder is a moral issue, too. Respect for property rights is also a moral value. Protecting one individual from harming another individual is a moral value. Can you name me a single thing which isn't a moral value?

Your moral value is to place property rights above animal welfare in all circumstances. That's fine, it's a free country, and you're entitled to do so in your own belief system. I'm not required to share your moral value or enact it into law.

How absolute is your respect for private property? I presume you would allow the car to be broken if it was a child inside, right? In that case, you've allowed one moral value, the protection of human life, to supersede another moral value, the protection of private property. After that, it's just a disagreement amongst the people in society over what moral values supersede others. Why do you get to make that call, exclusively?

You STOMPED a cockroach Rick?!?!?! Yuck. I can't even stomp a spider...I don't want to mess up my shoes. But obviously (to me at least) there's a BIG difference between a dog and a cockroach. Although apparently they're becoming hot fashion accessories. :)

I think you'll find, Rick, that the Founders, back in 1776, were not radical libertarians.

This can be deduced from the way they wrote the Constitution a few years later; a radical document, yes - but not a radical libertarian one.

This subject has been on my mind ever since the Michael Vick story broke last month. I've been wondering where the government should draw the line on what is legal/appropriate behavior between a person and an animal that they own. I think that what Michael Vick did was horrible, and I think that what the dog owner here did was irresponsible.

On the other hand, when I'm not reading blogs or otherwise wasting my time, I teach anatomy to pre-vet college students. This requires a lot of animal death, though not at my hands. I am indirectly responsible for so many cats having to be killed by being involved in the class. Just as I don't like Michael Vick's actions, I am sure there are loads of people who think that killing animals for my purposes is just as morally indefensible. They would not hesitate to pass laws to make that sort of animal killing illegal.

So I tend to come down on the side of the animal owner. Giving the owner maximum freedom to treat their animal how they want certainly allows immoral acts to occur (dogfighting, etc), but I believe that it's better than the alternative of increased government control over personal behavior.

BlameCandida...I think that it's sad that we need to kill animals like cats, dogs, monkies, etc. to teach. Is there no other way? I don't know. But I do know that the experiments done on various animal species have led to numerous cures and life saving procedures for humans (and animals for that matter...we've had to have surgery for our dog twice).

Does that mean that I like the idea of people cutting open cats? Hell no. It makes me sick to my stomach. But I take it as a necessary event that I don't want to think about too deeply. :( If there were another way to practice or learn about anatomy I'd definitely prefer that.

From a completely non-emotional and logical point of view I can see that with the overpopulation of animals (cats, dogs) it makes logical sense to send them off to a lab if they aren't adopted. From a moral and emotional perspective I think it's wrong.

Tough one.

There's a big difference, to me, between experimenting on animals in order to ultimately aid humans, and abusing animals generally. We don't, and don't have to, live in a world so ideologically pure that if we permit one we must permit the other. One can allow the research use of animals and still prohibit dog fighting and locking them in cars until they die.

"What I don't agree with is that people have the right to TORTURE their pets, which is what leaving it in a hot car is doing"

See again this is where presumption of facts not in evidence and passion for animals make dangerous bedfellows. The word "torture" implies malicious intent, and based on what we have of the article there is no evidence of malice on the part of any of the participants. Just a lot of stupidity by all.

From Merriam/Webster; "Torture: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"

There is no indication that the owner of the dog had any intent to cause the dog any harm whatsoever, that is presumption on the part of those who are unrealistically sympathetic to the animals plight. In short, you thinking with only your heart, rather than both your heart and your head.

Where I a betting man, this is how I would suspect it went down:

Some schlub loaded his dog into the car and headed off to the store. He probably had the air conditioning on, so didn't even consider how hot it actually was outside. He probably only intended to be inside the store for a few moments, and unfortunately instead was inside a lot longer than intended.

An off-duty "Pet Dick" who was on scene also shopping was either heading to or from his own vehicle and noted the dog in distress (how else could one notice a dog who is this far gone). Making no attempt to locate the owner of the vehicle (like going inside and using a PA system), he took matters into his own hands and broke into the car to rescue the dog. (not so bad so far).

At this point the dog's owner more than likely exits the store and sees what looks like his car being broken into by someone in plain clothes, and rightfully so goes to defend his property. Seeing the owner belligerent regarding the damage to his car, and wishing to get the dog some medical attention, rather than deal with the irrate property owner and risk losing the dog, he restrained the Man and took off (Big big big fuckng mistake which wipes away all of his previous heroism)

At this point the man got his beating at the hands of a vigilante mob, all because he was put in personal jeopardy by an overzealous officer of the law who put the life of an animal over that of the life and safety of a fellow human being by failing to follow proper procedure in his zeal to save an animal.

Several inconsistancies take place in this story as presented here, for instance:

How exactly does a "Pet Dick" "respond to a "call", and arrive on scene before the regular police, unless he is already on scene in the first place? Since when do people call Animal Welfare before they dial 911? Even when someone calls the hospital first to report an injury or life threatening situation, uniformed officers arrive on the scene first. Always.

The article doesn't state whether the "Pet Dick" was on duty or off duty at the time of the incident (I am betting on off duty), or whether he was in uniform or not (again I am betting not).

There is no information stating that the "Pet Dick" made any attempts to locate the owner of the dog/vehicle before forcible entry was applied, and property damage ensued. You do have to make an attempt, there is nothing in any law that I am aware of that supercedes that fact, thus permitting an officer to damage property of his own volition at his own disgression.

"I was trying to perform my job to the best of my abilities given a very difficult, threatening and abusive situation," said Smith.

Again since when does an officer not immediately call for assistance when confronted with such hostility as to require restraint? SOP dictates that as soon as you meet with resistance of any kind you call for back up to protect you as an officer and those around you. This again leads me to believe the "Pet Dick" was in fact off duty at the time of the "call", and as such incapable of using a simple shoulder mounted radio to call for assistance.

Lastly, Departments don't suspend people willy nilly for just any perceived indisgression. Suspension is pretty serious business, so I daresay, there is probably a lot more to this case than meets the eye. Do we know if this is only the first time this officer has had his conduct during a call called into question?

I am glad the animal is safe, but that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination justify the methods employed by the "Pet Dick" to save it. His judgement was no better than that of the dog owner, and as such ended up putting another human beings life in jeopardy. Sorry but I and I am sure most people, tend to value people over animals (even the not so bright ones).

Have fun ;)!

PS: Sorry for chapter 3

Oh, I definitely agree that there is a gradient between dogfighting and experimentation, and that it isn't an all-or-none proposition. However, there is still the issue of where to draw the line. Who decides what type of research or how much research is acceptable? Animal rights activists and other people came down on the practice of testing shampoos and cosmetics on animals because it was "unnecessary".

How much leeway do we give to activists (or legislators) to determine what is necessary. If an experiment calls for the use of 40 dogs, but could alternatively be done with 30 dogs (though with less accuracy), should the investigator sacrifice accuracy because it will result in less deaths? These types of questions are best answered by the scientists, not by politicians.

Similarly, I don't like the idea of the government deciding which practices are acceptable for pet owners. Docking tails and ears could easily be deemed cruel and unnecessary, perhaps even worse than locking the dog in the car.

Gonna have to side with Pat on this.

Rick, you said, "Remember, you don't get to have a say in how I or anyone else values our own property. Even though I may not respect the law I do respect people. And their property. Why would you steal my car? Stealing is wrong, Pat. I would never steal your stuff, no matter how much I disagree with you."

So you would not break the guy's window, because that window is his property. But the dog is also his property. Why would you let the dog die if this asshole's property is so important to him and to you? Because that's what he would choose? Even though any decent human being would agree that allowing the dog to suffer and die is without question far more evil and WRONG than breaking a piece of glass that doesn't belong to you?

If his (and your) morals regarding the dog makes it okay for you to do whatever you want to do to the dog, then MY morals regarding the situation should make it okay for me to do whatever I want to do. Therefore basically, at all times, every individual should simply do exactly what his own personal moral code says to do, which as someone pointed out above, leads pretty much immediately to complete anarchy and chaos, which would last for a while until only the strongest were left, who would then slowly eliminate each other, and I really don't even know where to go with the rest of this but I think the point is that what you're saying is completely fucking nuts.

Your loving sister,
Rachel

Brian, you've created a narrative almost entirely based on speculation and then proceeded to poke holes in it. Pretty easy to find the flaws in your own narrative, but it tells us nothing about what really happened.

As I pointed out, the SPCA officer (look how much trouble the reporter caused by calling him a "pet detective"... everybody sees Ace Ventura rather than an actual law enforcement officer) was legally authorized to do what he did. By the description of the animal's condition given in the article, the dog was likely very near death.

Beyond that, we know very little about what happened. As has been said repeatedly, if the SPCA officer handcuffed the guy to the car just to teach him a lesson, that's wrong. As I've said, at the least he should have called for back-up, not just leave the guy cuffed to the car. But we have absolutely zero information about what happened prior to the busting of the window, or what happened between the busting of the window and the handcuffing of the car owner to the car.

We do know that he wasn't just "driving by." According to the paper, he was "responding to a call." Quite possibly, the dog was conscious earlier and easily seen, or the call came from a person parked in the next spot. We do NOT know how long it took him to arrive at the scene, or whether the person calling it in had also asked the store to make a PA announcement. For all we know, the person calling it in may have observed the dog for 15 or 20 or 30 minutes before the SPCA officer arrived on the scene, and might have reported to the officer that the store had made a PA announcement to no effect.

I'm entirely with the officer for breaking into the car and rescuing the dog. Whether I'm with him on the handcuffing depends entirely on facts which we have not been given yet.

By the way, the Toronto Humane Society website has more, including a picture of Officer Smith and Cyrus, the thankfully still living Rottweiller.

No Pat, I did not say that. I have not yet explicitely stated what I would do in that situation. But since some of you seem to want to paint me as a monster because I think it is wrong to beat people up or send the cops around to throw people in jail because they have a different valuation of their property than you think they should, I'll tell you.

First, I would have tried to locate the owner. Failing that, I would make a moral calculation. Being a pet owner myself, I personally place the life of a dog higher than the value of a car window. To me, this is the only rational hierarchy of these two values. I would assume that the dog's owner has the same hierarchy (this is a gamble I would be willing to take). Then I would smash the window or otherwise break in to the car and attempt to save the dog.

When the dog owner showed up, rightfully angry at having his window smashed, I would explain that I did it to save the dog and had assumed he would rather a live dog and broken window than a dead dog. If he were a rational person he would agree with me and we could part ways with respect.

If he were not rational I would apologize for breaking his property, and pay for a new window. I would probably try to buy the dog from him. I would call him an ass-hole if he refused to behave like a decent person.

What I would not do is rough him up, cuff him for the mob, and abscond with his dog.

Please let's not try to confuse this issue by changing the subject to children locked in cars. No rational person would ever question breaking a window to save the life of a child.

I should qualify my first comment up at the top. I posted that late at night and was purposely flippant just to tweak Rachel a little bit. Since this has started to become a more serious discussion I'll save the smart remarks for another time.

If Toronto law says that the officer can break the window to save the dog's life, then certainly he was acting within his authority (for breaking the window, not the handcuffing). However, I'm worried about how broad this authority might be. What constitutes a danger to the animal's life that warrants the officer breaking in, and how immediate does the threat need to be?

I don't mean to make this into some slippery slope argument, but government justification for using force tends to increase until some dramatic incident (like the Branch Davidians) wakes everyone up. I think that most of the people who end up as SPCA officers are already extra-sympathetic toward animals, and likely to be quick to judgment when they perceive an animal as in danger. So I'm worried that they might be overzealous in what they define as cruelty.

Oh, this is my first time commenting, but I've been reading your blogs since way back in the day. Too bad my first set of comments makes me look like some animal-hater.

Here is a little more information about the condition of the dog. According to the officer (and this report is from the day it happened, not later after the officer got in trouble), the dog was extremely near death. Suppose, in your judgment, the dog was in fact near death, and the owner was demanding that you return the dog to him, and indeed threatening you and the bystanders with violence if you interfered with his possession of the dog?

Suppose he was just irate because of the broken window, and had clearly lost his temper and become irrational, not paying any attention to the dying dog one way or the other, but was just behaving violently toward you because of the window?

I'll certainly accept your claim of flippancy, but just remember that you did in fact say it; nobody put words into your mouth. Your initial reaction was that the officer should be arrested for destruction of property. Are you qualifying your later statement that you don't care about any laws that conflict with your version of property rights?

According to the officer, he handcuffed the man NOT to leave him for the mob, but because he was threatening both himself (a law enforcement officer conducting his duties as charged by Canadian law) and the bystanders who were also helping try to revive the dog.

There's a lot of uncertain facts here, and I'm trying to figure out exactly where our disagreements are. I agree that the SPCA officer should not, just as punishment "rough the guy up and cuff him for the mob," though I do think he is justified, both under Canadian law and my own moral sense, to "abscond with the dog" in order to save the dogs life. That's my response to your take on the facts thus far. Now let me ask for your response if the facts are as the officer has alleged.

If the dog had indeed been in the car for hours, the dog was in fact near death, and the dog owner's reaction was not one of gratitude for saving the dog's life but one of aggression to the officer and the bystanders trying to save the dog's life, was the officer justified in handcuffing him at all? Should the officer have returned the dog to him, knowing for certain that the dog would die? Even though Canadian law specifically provides for SPCA officers to rescue animals in immediate distress?

And I'm not conflating rescuing a dog to rescuing a child. I'm pointing out that we all recognize SOME limits to the sanctity of private property. I'm trying to understand why the limits you believe in are so compelling that all the rest of society MUST go along with your wishes, rather than pass laws setting the limits a little bit differently.

Apparently, the man was not just left handcuffed to the car: According to this report, he had friends watching over him while they waited for the cops:

Lee Oliver, a spokesperson from the Toronto Humane Society, said Wednesday the owner needed to be subdued in order to rescue the animal and was fully supportive of the responding official's actions.

"He was jeopardizing the rescue operation and was threatening the safety of people at the scene," Oliver said.

"He handcuffed him to the car to neutralize that threat."

Oliver says the official left the man handcuffed to the vehicle with no less than five of the man's friends watching over him.

If someone got past the friends, that's bad, but there does appear to have been a reasonable attempt to not leave the man unprotected.

Hmm... Forgot to have this link in that last comment.

Wow, just wow.

I don't know where to begin to address this cluster. I find it amusing that the drawn lines in the argument tend to follow gender stereotypes. In other words, the men in general advocate freedom of choice in the exercise of property; the women, on the other hand, seem to prefer state intervention to prevent misuse of free choice. This tracks with trends on all sorts of other social issues: gun control, child abuse, public schools, etc. It appears in general that men value freedom over security, and vice versa for women.

Pat, arguing the points of law to someone who's already said the law is stupid; is this a worthwhile endeavor? You may think you're arguing the merits of the law, but you need to re-read yourself like someone who doesn't already know your mind.

Rick, you have to admit that blanket property rights is not a desireable condition for society. Enough energy has already been wasted demonstrating examples of this.

All in all, I think the situation is being handled appropriately. Douchebag nearly kills his dog, accidentally or otherwise (not our call); animal cop saves dog; animal cop oversteps his bounds and abuses power; douchebag gets the crap kicked out of him; animal cop gets suspended; what's not to like?

What I have yet to hear is a scathing condemnation of the acts of the mob who attacked the douchebag. Each one of those sons-of-bitches needs a very serious judicial ass kicking. Cowards, scumbags, atrocious people, I condemn each of them for their vile acts. And yes, I would have pulled my concealed weapon if necessary to defend him had I been there.

To sum up: douchebag = stupid, animal cop = stupid, angry mob = pure evil. You tell me which is worse.

Okay Pat, I have been doing more digging:

http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/newsandevents/stories/2007/downloads/0708_globeandmail_suspends.pdf

First off "Responding to a call" is just police/newspeak implying the officer in question was on scene, it in no way indicates how this "call" was generated. Anything that requires a written statment is considered a "call". This article states that Agent Smith was alerted by bystanders not as the result of responding to a call made to the MHS. I find it rather curious Agent Smith had time to check the interior temperature of the vehicle (which somehow didn't trip the car alarm), but not to try to ascertain who owned the vehicle before breaking into it. How exactly does one test the temperature inside a locked and sealed vehicle anyways? Much less without setting off the car alarm that was active?

"(b) the inspector or agent has inspected the animal and has reasonable grounds for believing that the animal is in distress and the owner or custodian of the animal is not present and cannot be found promptly"

There is no indication that Agent Smith made any attempt to locate the owner, he certainly could not have inspected the animal from the outside of the vehicle. There is likewise no provision in the regulation you quoted Pat allowing officers to damage private property in the pursuit of retrieval of said animal. That normally requires a Court approved warrant.

And I likewise reiterate my earlier question, how is it possible that Agent Smith recieved a formal "call" to investigate a potential case of animal abuse and police officers were not already on scene when he arrived? I mean when people have what they think might be a rabid racoon in the house they don't stop to look up the number for the ASPCA or HS or AC, they dial 911, if it is an emergency situation as this one appears to have been, it is even less likely they will dial anything other than 911 or whatever the Canadian equivalent might be. So again something doesn't make sense.

I might also note that according to pictures of Agent Smith in uniform, it does appear that he is equipped with a radio when in uniform, why didn't he use it as soon as the alleged "agression" on the part of Mr. Soderholm ensued, or once it was determined the animal was in fact in jeopardy if this was indeed a formal "call"? Not to mention,what Animal Control officer in their right mind would attempt to handle a strange 100+ lb Rottweiler in distress by themselves which could in an of itself present a potential danger to both the officer, as well as the bystanders present. It was reckless and irresponsible bravado on the part of Agent Smith, and is probably part and parcel as to why the case is being scrutinized by his own department.

Again, in the end what we have here is a prime example of what happens when people don't use common sense, and when Officers of the Law fail to follow the proper procedures. Those procedures are there exactly to prevent situations such as this one. The whole thing was FUBAR'd from start to finish, and nothing is gonna change that. Nuff said.

Have fun ;)!

PS: Sorry for chapter 4 Rach but this kind of nonsense really puts a burr in my britches.

PSS: For the record I have already come down on the side against vigilantism Dr. Feelgood, for obvious reasons.

WayneB, thanks for the crucial information about leaving his friends with him. That sheds a lot of new light on that aspect of the story.

Dr. Feelgood, you may be right about the utility of arguing respect for the law for one who has stated he doesn't have any, but I prefer to give Rick the benefit of the doubt that his later reaction was also, like his first, a bit intemperate and not reflective of his true views.

P.S. Just so there'll be no doubt, I am a guy arguing for protecting the dog. And while I observe some very modest gender-differences of opinion along the lines you describe in general societal political positions, they're not terribly pronounced.

I agree Dr. ... The angry mob was stupid and reactionary. That's the whole point of an angry mob.

I still think the animal "cop" did the right thing. I may not have gotten up the nerve to break the window...but if the dog was actually FOAMING AT THE MOUTH and near death maybe I could.

You're right about the gender lines too ... although I don't generally fall into the gender types with my beliefs (i.e. I'm against gun control, public schools, etc.).

The article you cite doesn't make it clear at all that there was no actual call, Brian. "Responding to bystanders" could mean he drove up on scene, or it could mean that bystanders made a phone call.

As for police officers responding, didn't we just have a thread the other day lambasting as totally ignorant property owners who were so stupid that they called the police to handle a snake in a tree, instead of calling animal control? I seem to recall a lot of people being terribly indignant that an individual would be so stupid as to call a cop over an issue with an animal.

We also don't know whether Officer Smith did in fact use his radio to call to police officers to the scene. We just know that he didn't wait for them to arrive.

Indeed, I think the article I linked to earlier makes it pretty clear that he, or somebody, DID indeed call the cops:

But this sad story doesn't end there. When the owner finally emerged after hearing his car alarm go off, Smith managed to handcuff him to the vehicle while police were called. The accused, who will likely be charged with cruelty to animals, also apparently suffered for his alleged actions.

It appears an enraged witness may have attacked him as he was stuck shackled to his car and he was bleeding when officers arrived to take him away. Smith insists he had no choice but to leave the suspect where he was. "The police hadn't got here just yet but they were almost here, and I had to leave because the dog was non-responsive, had stopped breathing and I had to stimulate the dog just to bring him back. So I had to leave for the life of the dog.

Got that? The dog's STOPPED BREATHING. It was either leave the man handcuffed to the car with his 5 friends around him when the cops were "almost there" or let the dog die while waiting for the cops. Tough call in a tough situation.

I have carefully drawn distinctions, from the beginning of this thread, between what we actually know and what we hypothesize may have happened. I've likewise made clear that my opinion on the handcuffing part depends on what actually happened. I have not, as have some, just assumed that certain things MUST have happened, and then gone on to condemn the officer because it MUST have happened that way. The debate would be a bit clearer if the other side would acknowledge whether ANY facts might change their mind, or whether they are just convinced that the SPCA officer is in the wrong, even if the facts were exactly as the SPCA officer has described them.

"Dr. Feelgood, you may be right about the utility of arguing respect for the law for one who has stated he doesn't have any, but I prefer to give Rick the benefit of the doubt that his later reaction was also, like his first, a bit intemperate and not reflective of his true views."

I understand, I wasn't excoriating the argument of law, per se, just noting that the finer points of this particular Canadian law don't matter much to Rick since he clearly thinks there ought to not be such a law in the first place. Like many others who've posted already, I have not made up my mind as to which is the lesser evil. In general I tend to fall on the side of free choice.

As to the gender thing, I certainly am not preaching gospel on it. If there's one thing you can learn about generalizations, it's that making them always draws out the anomolies. I just thought it was an entertaining observation. Now bring on all the rest to whom this (subtle) distinction does not apply :)

How exactly does one test the temperature inside a locked and sealed vehicle anyways? Much less without setting off the car alarm that was active?

Infrared temperature sensor. Quick, reliable, and non-invasive.

Also, I don't know about the particular jurisdiction, but in some areas, you can get in trouble for calling 911 unless it is a human in danger. That said, as soon as he sized up the situation, Smith should have called for backup.

Oh, and Dr. Feelgood, I had thought earlier about the contemptible nature of the members of the crowd who would beat up a person in such a circumstance, I just thought it was a given.

Got that? The dog's STOPPED BREATHING"

Not for nothing Pat, but I could really give a rats patoot whether the dog had stopped breathing at that point, or had stopped breathing and it's heart had stopped beating. Nothing you can possibly state justifies putting another human beings life in potential jeopardy, by leaving them handcuffed to a vehicle you can possibly save the life of an animal.

His "friends" are not culpable for Mr. Soderholm's safety, I don't care how many were left to watch out for him, as they are not the ones who put him under arrest. And cuffing someone to a vehicle is in fact putting them under arrest, and in the US would require mirandizing them (no idea how Canadian law works in this regard and I freely admit that)

As soon as Agent Smith slapped cuffs on Mr. Soderholm, Mr. Soderholm and Mr. Soderholm's saftey, became Agent Smith's sole responsibility, and responsibility for Mr. Soderolms safety supercedes the life of a dog. Even if it means the dog has to die as a result. I am sorry but that is the way it is supposed to be, that is standard procedure here in the States, and I find it hard to believe it is much different in Canada.

Just look how passionate people are geting just talking about this subject, can you imagine how potentially volitile and dangerous a situation such as this might have become if people with temperments such as Rachel intitially displayed ("he deserved it"-no offense intended Rachel) had actually witnessed this in person? Not every one is capable of self control, nor willing to pass up the chance to mete out "justice" of their own if given the opportunity to do so, as is evidenced by what took place. That is why Agent Smith's responsiblity switched from saving the dog to protecting Mr. Soderholm, the very moment he restrained him.

I think where you and I will have to come to agree to disagree Pat is that you seem to feel that the end justified the means, and I find the means employed to justify the end reprehenisble and no more worthy of praise than the stupidity that caused this entire scenario to ensue in the first place. I admire your compassion, I just don't see eye to eye with you on the rest of it. I am glad the dog is okay, but that is absolutely the only upside to this whole thing. The rest is just FUBAR.

Have fun ;)!

That's fine, Brian. It's a concise, clear statement of what you believe without assuming a bunch of facts that we have no idea about. You believe he should have let the dog die rather than leave the man handcuffed to the car. That's a defensible position, to be certain.

As I've said from the beginning, I think the leaving him handcuffed to the car part was the most questionable action by the officer. But I'm not going to flail him alive for making a bad judgment call in the heat of the moment in a difficult situation.

A man who'd leave a dog locked up in a hot car like that for hours, and then become belligerent that the dog had been rescued, rather than grateful, is only slightly morally above a man who would leave a child in a car to die like that. You can call it "property" all you want, but I don't think that's what God had in mind when he gave mankind dominion over all the creatures on the earth. So I'm not going to judge overly-harshly the law officer who handcuffed an aggressive criminal to a car for a few minutes with his friends standing around to help him out. It's not what he should have done, but I'm going to consider it a minor infraction, not a major one.

The lesson to be learned from this thread?

You can choose your friends but you're stuck with your relatives and Canada is another country.

Also, the true measure of an individual is the compassion they show to all creatures great and small.

"It's not what he should have done, but I'm going to consider it a minor infraction, not a major one"

And therein lies the crux of the problem (for me anyways).

Any mindset that can justify unto itself the rationality of putting a human life in harms way, solely in the interest of serving that of an animal, and then in turn consider the act of doing so a minor rather than major infraction, is exactly what I find unfathomable, and take umbrage with.

Surely that is not what God (yours or any other that I have ever read about) had in mind when that God "created" Man and Woman and placed them at the top of the food chain that that God had likewise created. Having said that, this discussion is not about God, evolution, or creationism, it is about something infinitely less complicated. It is about Stupid people, and what Stupid people do, when they lose their heads, and stop acting and thinking rationally, so let us not head off on that particular tangent please.

Have fun ;)!

PS: Likewise please do not attempt to infer that your compassion for animals is any greater than my own simply due to the fact that I value Human Life more so than Animal Life.

Sorry folks, I'm supposed to be working and can't quite keep up. I won't have time to respond to every comment and question.

Bottom line of my comments: your property is yours. Not mine, not "society's", not anyone elses. You either earned it, created it or purchased it by your own labor. You are the sole authority to decide the use and disposition of your property, so long as you don't use it to harm other people. This is as simple as it can be. I shouldn't get to tell you what to do with your property because it is yours. You shouldn't get to tell me what to do with mine. If you damage someone elses property you ought to make good on it.

This is the backbone of a free society, and if the gooberment or the majority or some do-gooding jackhole can beat you up for doing things to or with your own property then we don't live in a free society and you are a slave to the whims of someone else. You can try to convince people to behave differently. You can cajole or shame them. But once the fists and handcuffs come out the end result is the gulag.

As to the law, I maintain that it is mostly bullshit. The law should be restricted to a few very simple activities. Don't steal, don't assault people, don't lie to cause harm or gain fraudulent advantage. I obey the laws against these things because it is the right thing to do, not because it's illegal.

All other laws I obey to the extent necessary to avoid being beaten up or killed by the government.

And one more time: animals are property. For anything else, look up above. No matter how angry or heartbroken you may feel about it, you can't change that fact.

Thank you all for an interesting discussion, by the way. You won't change my mind, I've thought about this a whole lot and have come to the most rational conclusions. You all just stay offa my lawn and we'll get along fine. You can be sure I'll never send anyone around your place to beat you up or take your stuff.

Well, since private property itself is a construct of society rather than some immutable force descended from the heavens as the highest good, I just can't agree with you, Rick.

But I promise not to handcuff you to a car unless you are in the process of trying to beat me up. And I appreciate the use of your car when my wife and kids (well, hypothetical future wife and kids) are dying. Leave the keys in the ignition for me? ;-)

Group hug? Anyone? No?

Can we all agree on ice cream then? Ice cream is good. We like ice cream.

Like Rick, I just haven't been able to keep up while working. Would have liked to add more to the discussion but maybe next time.

Rachel, how about group mutual wary looks as we back slowly towards the neutral corners?

Therefore basically, at all times, every individual should simply do exactly what his own personal moral code says to do...

Robert Heinlein would argue that this is precisely the state of things right now, known as "Rational Anarchy".

The only reason I think people ever do or don't do anything is based on a "can I get away with it" sort of cost/benefit analysis.

Which, incidentally, you see here - man probably "knows" he shouldn't leave dog locked up in hot car, that he shouldn't get angry with Officer Ventura, and that he shouldn't yell things at an angry mob.

Pseudocop "knows" he ought not leave a guy locked up (as Brian pointed out).

Yet they both did it anyway. Rational anarchy.
-------------

Personally the idea of the SPCA pseudocop telling me what to do with my dog is kind of crazy, sort of along the same lines as a SPCL (L for Livestock) pseudocop telling me I can't kill a steer for meat...or milk a cow because it hurts them.

Or a SPSM (prevention of stupidity to machines) pseudocop yelling at me for putting a belt on wrong on my car which results in its immediate destruction.

I'm with Rick here; property is property and the bulk of our laws indicate that animals "is" property.

Well, since private property itself is a construct of society rather than some immutable force descended from the heavens as the highest good...
Locke would argue with you Pat. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" originally read "life, liberty, property". Jefferson screwed it up, and we've suffered for it ever since. ;)

"Group hug? Anyone? No?"

Sorry Rachel, as much as I might love to oblige my favorite Bloginatrix, that kind of "touchy feely" stuff simply ain't up my alley. The only kind of group hug that might ever entice me consists solely of myself, and a gaggle of Naked Vegas Showgirls. I am kinda old fashioned that way. No offense.

Have fun ;)!

Now there's something Brian and I can agree on... group hug between me and a gaggle of Naked Vegas Showgirls. Can you rustle up two such gaggles for us, Rachel? 3, depending on how you're feeling toward your brother at the moment...

Ok, I changed my mind again. I think I will send someone over to Rachel's house to take her stuff. What time do you walk your dog? You've got a garden gnome, dontcha? And some hippy wind-chimes? Well not for long.

Group hug my ass...

"You've got a garden gnome, dontcha? And some hippy wind-chimes? Well not for long.

Group hug my ass..."

Oh I am so calling "Dibbs" on the Garden Gnome if you pull it off Rick. I have always wanted one myself, and I would have no compunction about holding one hostage at my undisclosed location until such a time as a suitable ransom was paid. Like say, a bevy of Naked Vegas Showgirls perhaps?

Have fun ;)!

See, now I for one respect private property rights, and would never, ever, ever steal Rachel's garden gnome... not ever for a bevy of Naked Vegas Showgirls.

Hey, Brian, is a "bevy" bigger than a "gaggle"?

Thank goodness it's 5 o'clock here. My boss would kill me if he knew how much time I spent on this thread today. I'm glad I'm not in private practice any more and don't have to worry about billable hours...

"Hey, Brian, is a "bevy" bigger than a "gaggle"?"

You know I wasn't 100% sure on that, so I googled it. Based on what I read apparently a "gaggle" is an indefinite number, and a "bevy" is as many as I want it to be. So by those definitions I think it is safe to conclude that a "gaggle" is in fact more than "3", and as a bevy is whatever I want, I will conclude that yes, a bevy is in fact more than a gaggle, but somewhat less than "a lot". I don't wish to appear unreasonable when it comes to my appetite for Nakes Vegas Showgirls by asking for a lot.

As it stands, it is entirely possible that Rachel has a "no negotiation" policy when it comes to her position on stolen garden gnomes, and hippy wind-chimes", so we must give that some serious consideration, as this could all be a moot point.

Have fun ;)!

I have lived in Toronto for many years, and need to add a comment. The Toronto Humane Society for a long time was run by a bunch of extreem animal-rights nutcases. All of the media sites quoted also hail from the medium, to far left.
This would tend to colour the news somewhat.
Things may have changed somewhat lately, but I tend to doubt it. I would not take anything the Society or this officer says at face value.

This has been a GREAT discussion. Last night when I found this thread there were two comments; tonight there were 73.

If I happened on the scene, I would definitely break the window to save the dog. If I were then confronted by the angry property owner, I would hope that he would value his dog over his car window.

While both the dog and the car window are his property, I would hope that he has a sense of proportion.

Folks, this is very basic law.

The animal cop, as does anyone, has license to smash a car window to save a dying dog. Most juries would take the word of the animal cop that immediate action was necessary. No brainer.

The animal cop never has the authority to restrain an individual and leave them restrained. Never. Not no how, not no way.

The animal cop will be fired, at least, and definitely be sued, and possibly be charged with criminal offenses. And he'd deserve it all. They teach people what they can do when the issue them handcuffs, for Pete's sake. He knew it was wrong and there's no defense of his actions.

This isn't a tv show, folks. There are rules to follow, and he broke one he knew he shouldn't, and the results were bad. Fry him.

Good for him for saving the dog. But fry him. It's kind of ironic that he was so worried about leaving a dog in a car, but not worried about leaving a person to a mob.

A friend of mine once put it this way:

Yes, you have the right to kill an animal that is your property; but you don't have the right to make it wish it were dead.

Not very legalese, but succinct. And I agree with it.

I would have rescued the dog too (or perhaps called the cops or some other authority).

I might have offered to split the cost of a new car window if the guy was pissed at me.

Yeah, I also eat meat; and I would even kill my own chickens if I had to, in order to have something to eat... but IMO that's different from causing an animal to suffer in the heat in a locked car.

I live up in the high desert above Los Angeles... a dog or cat (or even a kid) wouldn't last very long inside a locked car with closed windows (AKA an oven).

Great discussion, people. I love this kind of debate, where everyone backs up their opinion with facts and reasonable arguments, even if we disagree, and no one even came close to getting nasty. I appreciate that.

I still want my group hug. Or we could just pass the bong around, I'm fine with that too.

Wait, what happened to the ice cream?

Love the argument from both sides. I'm a dog lover and yet I might be a bad dog owner too ... just like this guy, we take our dog along almost all the time ... he hates to be left at home and almost foams at the amount to be allowed to come along. Anfd it does get hot. And we do stay in stores longer than we'd planned. And he still insists on coming along.
(and yeah, we go out and run athe AC to cool the van down, keep some cross ventilation, and make sure he has plenty of water)
But shit happens.
I rather doubt he took the dog along in the car because he didn't care about the dog.
That's point one.
Point two is this rent-a-cop character ... who is the sole contributor of all the "facts". There's a damned good reason he's on suspension ... he did absolutely nothing right ... but did derive great enjoyment out of abusing his authority. I've known a lot of renatcops like him ... all swagger and no brains ... probably has a pair of handcuffs swinging from his rearview mirror.

I'll be very interested to see the outcome of this ... too bad that (in this instance, at least) Canada is not as sue-happy as the US ... the rent-a-cop could use some serious time in court sweating bullets. Handcuffing the guy and then abandoning him would be illegal in any jurisdiction in the US or Canada. I guess it's a good thing, in this case, that rentacops aren't allowed to be armed in Canada ... else he probably would have also discharged his weapon illegally.

It would also be cool to see the right side of this story ... since all we've seen so far is the left.

group hug ... well if we have to. Bong? I'll pass.

Rachel, I'm holding out for the group hug with the Naked Vegas Showgirls. Or Halle Berry.

"Wait, what happened to the ice cream?" - Sparrow

I think Rachel put it in the bong.

"I still want my group hug."

Sorry I am gonna hold out till I hear a status update on the wherabouts of the Garden Gnome. Do I take it the Naked Vegas Showgirls are out of the equation now?

Have fun ;)!