| August 26th, 2011 |
|
Not linking to the article to which I refer, on the grounds that it's horrifying and you don't want to read it.
( If you really, truly want to know, click here for instructions on looking it up. )
Although, to be fair, this incident does actually represent the first thing I've ever heard of PETA doing that I actually approve of, because they found out about the ongoing animal cruelty, checked it out, verified the oh god no, and reported it to the SPCA, who then intervened (and brought criminal charges). Which is, in fact, the precisely appropriate and correct course of action to undertake.
(Note, relating to other, non-internet-reported events: Seriously, though, people should be sure about what they're doing. This includes bearing in mind that if you see an animal that looks sort of tired and extremely non-energetic, it may not be hideously abused, it may in fact be old. And possibly happy! But elderly animals are like elderly people, sometimes they just like to sit and watch the world go by.)
Anyway, my observation is this:
If you ever find yourself in the position where you are making a legal appeal which rests, in part, on the argument that the Animal Cruelty laws are "unconstitutional" because they're "vague", then you are a bad person, and instead of making your appeal, you should will all of your worldly goods to the SPCA and then die in a fire.
Happily, the appellate judge concluded that, to paraphrase, no-one of sufficient intelligence to be legally permitted to live without competent adult supervision at all times could simultaneously be so goddamn stupid as to be unable to understand the concepts outlined in the Animal Cruelty statutes, or to think that what Holly Crawford did was not, in fact, animal cruelty.
|
|
|
| Top of Page |
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios |
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}