[Judges Gone Wild] Stupid Judge Allows Convicted Dog Abuser to get Dog Back

That is seriously f*cked up.

 

I really cannot stand people who abuse animals. The animals have no defense. People who abuse animals are just Just terrible people (ofcourse the same goes for people who abuse children or womans).

 

while I agree in principal with your statements, at least a dog does have the ability to defend itself.

a dog that has been abused at least has the capability to bite.

so, I would say that a person who abuses women and children is a a worse person than one who abuses animals.


and this is coming from a life-long dog owner


in the interests of fair and balanced posting,

I must admit that I wouldnt piss on an abuser of either women\children or animals if they were on fire and there wasnt a water hose nearby.

I can channel my anger in non-hurtful ways, I dont see why others cant.

 

Ive ceased being surprised at the stupidity of the human race in general and the lawmakers in particular.

anyone who feels the need to abuse or criminally neglect another living being should be forbidden from ever being allowed to have anyone to beat\neglect.

I know.....impossible to enforce, but in my perfect world that is how it would be.

 

That's funny, I used to have a dog named China. She was white too.

I have to disagree with your disagreement. An abused woman can cut off your penis while you're sleeping; an abused child can put you in the shower when your drunk and take your legs out from under you with a towel so it looks like you slipped in the shower. They can murder you, put you in prison, sell for cheap your valuable baseball cards on Ebay, or worse. All the dog can do is bite you (or maybe maul you).

As for the case, I don't think there is nearly enough information to second-guess the judge.

 

so what. if he doesn't give the dog back, it stays in the city pound and most likely gets a needle in the neck in about 30 days. Now china's got a chance. Fight on little china!

 

Why did he want the dog back after all of that?

 

Off the top of my head, here's some of the things I'd like to know before I condemned the judge's decision.

1. Why did he request to get the dog back?
2. What was the reason he abused the dog in the first place?
3. What argument persuaded the judge to give him a second chance?
4. What would happen to the dog if he didn't take it back?
5. Is the dog a canary in the coal mine, giving parole officers a concrete method of measuring if the offender is complying with the spirit of his probation?
6. How did the dog get a chain imbedded in his neck?
7. What other abuse did the dog endure?
8. How is the offender's relationship with the dog? Does the dog fear him? Love him?
9. What does the law stipulate about returning or witholding dogs to/from the offenders?

 

Is there ever a GOOD reason to abuse an animal?

 

1. Why did O.J. want Nicole back?
Not sure what the relevance here is. This man was convicted and OJ was not. Nicole is dead while China is alive. I ask the question because the man's motivation for petitioning for the dog sheds a lot of light on his character and suggests something about what his actions will be in the future.

2. Does it matter?
This drives at the same issue as the first question. He's already being punished for his past actions. What can we foretell about his probable actions in the future given the reasons for his past actions.

4. The dog would most likely get sent to an animal resuce shelter
Maybe, or the dog might be put down. When considering China's welfare you need to look at the alternatives. Will she live the rest of her life in a shelter, be adopted, return to a potentially abusive owner, or be killed?

5. even if that was true, that would be an extremely irresponsible way to check that. How would you decide if he's complying or not? By how many months the dog stays alive?
It was just a thought that occurred to me. I think it does have some elegance to it, in light of the fact that animal abuse is correlated with domestic violence. You put the dog at some risk, but you get a better read on the offender as a result. Maybe it does put the dog at undue risk (depending on how much risk you think the offender presents going forward).

6. the owner was convicted of putting it there, hence the convicted animal abuser label
I think you make too many assumptions here. He might be violent; he might be negligent. Putting a label on him (convicted animal abuser) is too facile. Don't you think it makes a difference if the dog was hurt because he chained it to a tree not expecting or intending any harm (other than lack of freedom) versus he knowingly choked the dog with a chain?

7. why would it matter?
See 6. Is the chain incident the only incident of abuse the offender committed? And, if it is the only incident and that incident was caused by negligence and not intent, and the man was trully sorry he did that to his dog, doesn't that paint a very different picture than a man who routinely beats his dog and chokes it with a chain?

8. again, this doesn't matter. he could love him as much as any other dog, but the cold fact is the owner abused the dog no matter how much affection the dog gave him.
Dogs too tend to love even cruel masters. But, victimized dogs also tend to be very distrustful and psychologically damaged. The behavior of the dog says a lot about what his treatment was like. Also, in determining the dog's fate, her happiness may be affected depending on how well she likes or dislikes the offender.

9. i dont know, but i'm certain it doesn't say it's required to give the dog back. Most likely its up to the discretion of the judge, in this case, a very stupid judge.
Probably not. But, there may be some guidelines or other technical issues that influence his decision. It doesn't seem wise to judge the judge's behavior without looking at the rules he must play by.

bottom line: the convict almost strangled the dog to death. he will now be given unsupervised ownership of the dog. it's a stupid move.
I think the bottom line is that we don't really know what sort of offender we have here. We don't know if he was violent or merely negligent (that no other evidence is cited suggests to me this is a single-incident case of negligence). We don't know that we can expect more abuse from him in the future. The article gives no insight into the motivations of the judge. The article also does not describe China's alternative future. I expect most of these ommissions were made because they would diminish the impact of the story; if they follow with a longer story, maybe we'll see. And, he is not unsupervised: the dog will see a vet regularly, and his probation officer will check on the care of the animal at random intervals.

I like dogs (one of my best friends is a dog), but I like people too. I don't think you necessarily throw the book at everybody who has ever done a dog a bad turn. If he was merely negligent, perhaps they can turn a somewhat insensitive, ignorant and negligent person with a dog into a responsible and caring dog-owner (...maybe).

 

someone should tell the Judge that from this day forward, the fate of this dog is in your hand. Whatever happends to it will happen to you. I am pretty sure he will change his judgement.

 

Could it be that the dog owner is using a choke collar (aka training/slip collar) to dictate his dog's daily activities? Choke collar should not be used casually, as it will do damages to a dog's neck if it's worn and yanked incorrectly. Surprisingly nobody has thought about it.

 

People are getting too damn sensitive these days. Its a friggen animal. It won't be long before we're hauled off to jail because we start hitting dogs and cats on the street. Go back 200 years ago when hunters slaughtered buffalo in the thousands just to get their hide.

The concern for animal cruelty should be about the persons mental state. Cry a river because he got his dog back, but nobody is in the least bit concern about his next escalation of violence.