Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's with the Spca??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's with the Spca??

    So a local groomer was videoed by an employee abusing a dog. The employee sent the video to the spca, they came and arrested her, shes back grooming! They said they can't stop her until she convicted, even though they have video taped evidence! Can you believe it???

  • #2
    Wherever that abuse took place, they ought to approach the local tv stations and try to get the word out. I'm sure the public would protest!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Woman who adopted a Chihuahua

      This woman said she went to small local shelter first and saw a nice Schnauzer first. They would not let her visit him and said make an appointment for another day. Not crowded no one there but staff and the inquiring woman. They make it hard to adopt and I don't un derstand this. Years ago I was denied saving a schnauzer and even a vet from a different county offered to take him; they said no. He was eventually rescued in the nick of time after I notified schnauzer rescue they were suppose to notify. Nothing wrong with dog but hot spots and ear mites and they deemed him to be put down! TG I got him saved. Why are the shelters like this? Too expensive to cure hot spots and ear mites? PA leeeeze!
      Last edited by mustluvdogs1; 06-07-07, 11:21 PM. Reason: fixed typos

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, put yourself on the other side of the issue for a minute. If you were the one accused, you'd feel differently. Especially since videotaped evidence can be tampered with and edited to show something that didn't really happen. That's how the law looks at it. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

        Even though, in this case, the groomer is probably guilty as sin, the law is there to protect those who have been unjustly accused. And in order to do that, it protects those who are guilty, too, until the case is proven in court. We may not always like it, but it has to be that way. We can't choose who to protect and who not to protect. The law has to apply equally to all. Even though at times it looks like it doesn't.

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting

          if a dog is reported to be aggressive at an AKC show, the dog must leave and cannot come to another show unless the system has studyed, and tested the dog with the dog showing no aggressive tendancies at all. Safety first. But yes the law is innocent till proven guilty. Though some situations a person is put on leave till proven innocent, but guess this is not an employee?

          I read something within the week very sad indeed, never thought of. Many aggressive dogs are believed to be not picked up, because of pushes from Government to have no-kill shelters. So if Animal Control doesn't pick up that menacing dog, they don't have to put it down. They get accolades for no kills. Yikes. This was written in a rsponse to a report of an aggressive dog at an elementary school locally where Animal Control did not respond to calls regarding the dog on the campus.
          Money will buy you a pretty good dog but it won't buy the wag of it's tail.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Helly View Post
            Well, put yourself on the other side of the issue for a minute. If you were the one accused, you'd feel differently. Especially since videotaped evidence can be tampered with and edited to show something that didn't really happen. That's how the law looks at it. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

            .
            I saw the tape, the dog was even muzzled, she was beating it and it was screaming. Very heartbreaking.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think that because the SPCA has to uphold the law, it becomes a matter dealt with by the police, not the SPCA. I'm not quite sure how much authority they have in matters like this.

              Tammy in Utah
              Groomers Helper Affiliate

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by baddog View Post
                I saw the tape, the dog was even muzzled, she was beating it and it was screaming. Very heartbreaking.
                I'm sure it was. But that wasn't my point. If you were the one being accused, you'd appreciate the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

                And, like I said, the laws were written to protect the innocent, even though they also protect the guilty at times.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Helly View Post
                  I'm sure it was. But that wasn't my point. If you were the one being accused, you'd appreciate the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

                  And, like I said, the laws were written to protect the innocent, even though they also protect the guilty at times.


                  Good point Helly, btw I called the Spca and they did not disclose the tape to the groomer, they will blind side her in court. I hope she gets the max! The spca has full police powers in my state.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    that’s not the SPCA’s fault it’s the judge over the case. If she was arrested she would have had an arraignment before a judge to set bail. The conditions of her release should of included no contact with animals. Common practice in cases involving medical related abuse and childcare. I guess there was little to no concern over the welfare of the pets involved.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If she doesn't know the tape exists, then how did you see it? Just curious. And it is illegal to blindside her. It is part of the disclosure. The defense must be allowed to review the evidence prior to the trial. Those coutroom dramas on TV push the law a lot when they have those fanastic "reveals" and the suspect breaks down etc. My Business Law class did 3 chapters on due process and the strucure of trials.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I do believe Lucy is correct. They have to admit it as "evidence" and both sides have to know about it so that it can be "countered" if they want to counter argue it. But I'm not criminal law attorney, just took a class or two when I was working toward my social work degree.

                        Tammy in Utah
                        PS: BADDOG, it's good to hear the SPCA has such power in your area.
                        Groomers Helper Affiliate

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There was a groomer here in our town that got busted for abusing animals and the court sentenced her to a 10 yr probation She could not groom dogs but she could still own and operate her business. But I heard through the grapevine that if it got busy she would still groom. So what cha gonna do, it is sad. And after a few years went by she opened up another very successful shop.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X