quote:
Originally posted by dggriffi
Well, to be frank, i dont know the law in this regard. Title 21 is probably the incorrect title to use in this case as title 4 deals with animals. Despite this, the article stated that the animal was picked up in texas and thus texas law and its provisions regarding animals and estrays would apply.
Most laws of this nature poses a requirement by the finder to make a "reasonable" effort to find the owner and a time constraint under which this duty is required. FTA the fruit basket who found the dog claimed the address was found much later under the collar. If this is to be believed(which may be a stretch) then she might be under no obligation whatsoever.
Her crossing of state lines with the animal is another story all together.
The legal aspect of this is secondary to my lack of sympathy. The fact that this couple with no kids is making a huge deal over a dog is, to me, a bit pathetic. The lady who found the dog is also pathetic. I call this the nexus of stupidity. For this i have no sympathy
Give me a break!
You are the one that called the dog "Chattel" and said that it was NOT a crime. I didn't even mention it until YOU brought it. And since you wanted to claim the dog was merely property and NOT entitled to any special treatment I went with it.
However, after admitting you have no clue what you are talking about, you then feel the need to assert Okla. Stat. tit. 4 which SPECIFICALLY deals with estray dogs:
quote:
Upon taking up an estray animal or animals, and after sending a description to the county sheriff, the taker-up shall be entitled to hold the same lawfully until relieved of its custody by the sheriff. Should a claimant for said animal apply to the taker-up for possession of this animal, the taker-up shall at once notify the sheriff, and should the sheriff be satisfied that said applicant is the rightful owner, he shall issue an order authorizing the taker-up to grant possession of the estray to the rightful owner. The owner shall be required to pay to the taker-up the actual cost for keeping the estray, together with the actual amount of any damages suffered by the taker-up as a result of the estray being upon his premises and such costs and damages shall be approved by the district judge and shall be entered on the order by the sheriff.
Unlawful Possession of Estrays, 4 Okla. Stat. § 85.2,
available athttp://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=64746Thus laying out the specific procedure for an estray animal that is found. HOWEVER, if you keep reading you will note that the subsequent penalties section then directs that failure to comply this this and other applicable provisions "shall be guilty of the felony of larceny of domestic animals and shall be punished according to the provisions of Section 1716 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes." 4 Okla. Stat. § 85.11. Thus implying the "reasonable effort" requirement you mentioned in addition to the specific animal provisions.
What's more, these provisions are more geared towards livestock that dogs and thus an argument could be made for use of the title 21 statutes - but as discussed above the requirements could be included by reference anyway. Thus, anyone who finds a stray dog would be required not only to put forth due diligence to find the owner but also to notify the sheriff.
This dumb woman did not even check the collar for an address. One cannot simply ignore the obvious and then claim due diligence (I didn't realize it was a bank, I just saw a draw full of money and took it). Furthermore, she certainly never notified the sheriff's office and has since admitted to wantonly taking the animal for personal game.
Another benefit of using Title 4 instead of 21 is that this act is automatically a felony (you don't mess with farmers livestock, and since Title 4 is geared towards livestock the penalties are harsher). So I'm not sure why you wanted to make the argument in favor of title 4 when it adds additional requirements AND harsher penalties when I was allowing you to simply make a case for personal property... but your mistake I suppose.
So... this woman violated every provision of either act. She saw something she wanted and she took it. It does not matter if she took it from a mean old woman in Dallas to give to her precious little snowflake - SHE STOLE PROPERTY BECAUSE SHE WANTED IT. Not bread, not medicine, not even clothing... a dog.
This lowlife stole someone else's dog in an attempt to make up for years of neglect and probably abandonment. Way to go, those are some fine parenting skills. On what basis do you have the nerve to defend her? The thief's daughter wanted a puppy? Great! I didn't realize how this worked, my boy wanted a RC plane for Christmas and didn't get it because it was too expensive - perhaps you have one I could steal for my boy? Or can I just walk into Toy-R-US and walk out with one explaining that my boy wants it.
Not only does your legal argument fail to have any merit, but your alternative "she wanted it more" argument is insulting to a functioning society. It is a national news item (albeit on a fluff scale) because it is so over the line of acceptable behavior as to cause most people some disbelief (not just the act, but to follow with the letter).
---
quote:
And yes, replacing children with dogs is pathetic.
Why?
First, this was an older couple. Perhaps their kids have grown and left the home. Perhaps they were unable to have children and religious conviction did not allow them to adopt.
Hey, maybe they did not have the financial means to properly take care of a child so abstained from doing so.
Maybe they were worthless drunks who would have neglected their children so they chose not to expose a child to that.
Or maybe they thought that having a child was not right for them and chose accordingly.
The world is not short on children. It is short on qualified parents (doesn't stop breeding habits of lowlifes) and children available for adoption. So it would make NO SENSE at all to mandate or even desire a couple not wanting children to produce one or two. It would be bad for the kid, harder on society, and ultimately causes more problems.
So go get your dog. Blow whatever money you want on it. So long as you don't ask me to subsidize it's existence and leave it to society to take care of it when you either decide you don't want to or have them taken away and so long as if we decide your dog is a menace we can just have it killed... I'm ok with that. But don't just have kids; I'll end up paying for them and when they grow up to be criminals we are not allowed to just put them down.
