WI: bill to make animal abuse the same as domestic abuse

[R.W.Dale]

not believing it's the goverments responsibility = inhuman?

since when

 

[Doggy Daddy]

At least you have a sense of humor.

There may be hope for you.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

please explain to me how a person has to believe it's the GOVERNMENTS responsibility to dictate morality in order to have compassion

Please explain why moral relativism triumphs over law which attempts to establish consentual rules on how a society should operate and mandate its law. Whether you like it or not, the government does not have to be at the capacity to dictate this, nor do the people en masse. There are certain things under specific circumstances that are never right or "okay" to do. Anything less is anarchy.

 

[woof]

Low IQ anarchism is exactly what is being advocated here.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Yeah cause the founding fathers were nothing but a bunch of dumb anarchists. Read your constitution sometime you might find it a real eye opener.

With views like the above poster we can kiss our firearms rights goodbye as soon as the anti's gain a majority. After all banning firearms will be in the best interests of the majority.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

. by Benjamin Franklin.

 

[feedthehogs]

You are all aware, of course, that this is not about animals.

This is about punishing people.

This is about controlling people.

This is about disarming people.

They don't give a rip about animals.

Animals is a convenient, sympathetic excuse

Oh please give us a break on the black SUV and helicoptors.

It's about protecting animals from a POS like Michael Vick and anyone else who abuse animals.
THAT"S IT!

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

While I in no means support animal abuse and believe in some cases is should be prosecuted. Comparing humans to animals is whacked, even if you take God out of the mix, it is still stupid.

If man is no more then a animal then their can be no animal abuse, we do not cry foul when a predator kills its prey. I have never heard or seen anyone wanting to prosecute a cat for toying with a mouse or lion that started eating its meal while it is still alive. Animals abuse one another all the time in the wild and yet how many of you want to go lock them up. It is only because man stand apart and has a moral compass that makes us abhor animal abuse and all other abuses.

The thing to be careful of is that what is some person views as abuse may not be viewed by all, some view riding a horse as abuse, using draft animals to pull wagons(whips are still used in this field), breaking a dog from sucking eggs would be frowned upon by half of the people on this tread, but to the dog it sure beats killing it for sucking eggs. The point is, loosing your rights over what many times will amount to some uneducated persons view of animals rights are, is a scary road to go down.

 

[xjetpilot]

For those of you raising the BS flag on this legislation, bear in mind that there is more to animal abuse than meets the eye.

It's documented fact that most serial killers have started by abusing animals. Some people that go down this path end up taking it to the next level, so please spare me the "I killed a fly" BS. The kid killing dogs or cats may very well end up being the next Jefferey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. I'm sure no one here will dispute their reputations.

Read the 3rd paragraph down ...

http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/first_strike_the_connection_between_animal_cruelty_and_human_violence/frequently_asked_questions_about_animal_cruelty.html

 

[langenc]

As Arfingreebly said-about people control..

I wonder when abuse on an unborn person will match the treatment of your dog--as proposed. The one proposing this bill would never consider including abusing unborn people in the bill. They just dont think that way.

 

[shooter429]

They don't love animals, they hate people

Especially free ones. Animals are not people. And while I am a true animal lover, keeping critters that most of the ecoterrorists would not go near, I would never equate a dog, much less an insect or microbe with a person. Taken to it's logical conclusion, bathing is abuse of living creatures. So is getting milk from a cow. They define abuse as keeping them in kennels or petting them or fishing or walking your dog or hunting. They define abuse as giving medications. They call eating meat abuse. These people are playing semantic games to hook the ignorant. And they kill thousands of animals every year for no good reason.

If you want to see what they are about watch the following vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiNxpmdNhPM

What a bunch of nuts. I am sorry, but PETA is a terrorist organization that is out of control and needs to be stopped before more people are injured or killed. And any politician who dances to their tune is not getting my vote. As has been stated before, they are seeking absolute equality for all living creatures with people. Can you imagine a feline bill of rights? Scary.

Anyway, rant over

Shooter429

 

[Doggy Daddy]

langenc

I wonder when abuse on an unborn person will match the treatment of your dog--as proposed.

That's way overdue, IMO... and can be attributed to those who judge right and wrong by what is convenient and feels good. Lazy, self-centered morality. Which bears directly on the topic of this thread. Wrong is wrong, and varies only in degree.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"It's documented fact that most serial killers have started by abusing animals."

Following the Richard Speck murders, a study was done that showed the majority of serial killers had tattoos. That doesn't prove causation.

What we're talking about here is a bill that provides a punishment for an act that is already illegal. This bill expands upon existing law by providing that owners of animals can get orders of prior restraint.

One of the consequences of those orders of prior restraint is that the subjects of such orders would be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

Most gun owners I know hate the Lautenberg amendment to the Brady Law. Now I read people on this forum defending a bill that extends the Lautenberg amendment to cover gun owners in WI who may or may not be guilty of cruelty to animals. All it takes is a restraining order, and you give up your guns.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Isn't the thinking that people who are violent threats to society in general got their start abusing animals as a precursor to graduating to people.

That slippery slope logic provides a convincing argument for banning all firearms. Everyone who shoots other people always starts by picking up a gun and ammunition. There are a great many people who believe that kind of argument. It's hard to reject selectively.

All alcoholics get their start with one drink, arsonists begin their flaming careers by striking a match, and every single divorce begins with marriage. Out go beer, fire, and marriages. We can use the same rationale for multiple purposes, all of them equally bizarre because the logic itself is foolish and invalid.

Robert Stroud (the so-called "Birdman of Alcatraz") was extremely fond of canaries, to the extent that he became a noted breeder and the author of two books about them. He focused his violence on people.

Adolf Hitler was fond of animals and that there is no evidence he abused any. His attitudes towards people, however, were less than admirable.

 

[jeepmor]

Like all things government, this has nothing to do with animals, it's about a more control over the serfs, period. As you were.

All alcoholics get their start with one drink, arsonists begin their flaming careers by striking a match, and every single divorce begins with marriage. Out go beer, fire, and marriages. We can use the same rationale for multiple purposes, all of them equally bizarre because the logic itself is foolish and invalid.

All politicians start by telling us they will represent their constituents.

 

[GunTech]

We have the right to pass laws controlling your behavior.

This, the dictatorship of the majority, which the founding fathers understood, is the reason we are a republic and not a democracy.

Why not say, the good of society over the individual? Or better yet, the good of the state?

No, you don't have such a right - not carte blanc. The power of the majority, or the state, is curtailed by the constitution.

Thankfully.

 

[Richmond]

support for bill

Most gun owners I know hate the Lautenberg amendment to the Brady Law. Now I read people on this forum defending a bill that extends the Lautenberg amendment to cover gun owners in WI who may or may not be guilty of cruelty to animals. All it takes is a restraining order, and you give up your guns.

I am not sure who here is supporting the bill and who is not. Please don't put me in the "support" column if I explain the scope or rationale of certain laws. I would not give any opinion about something like this without a tremendous amount of study.

For that matter, I teach regarding a number of cases where I do not agree or like the decision. This semester in criminal law I am using a state supreme court case that I litigated with one of the other professors on the other side. The other professor really thinks the case was wrongly decided - I don't! Still, both of us can address the students about the case, what happened and how each side approached the issues.

Fact is, I am currently working on a Lautenberg issue in my own state that may have an effect statewide. I both litigate and teach about Lautenberg, and the only reason I don't call it the worst piece of legislation in the nation's history is because there is a lot of competition for that title.

Still, I am not sure how much actual effect the amendment will have on Lautenberg issues. In application, this legislation is likely to result in companion animals being named or included on restraining orders which people (women mostly) would be obtaining anyway. I doubt (although I have not researched) that many if any orders will be issued naming animal only.

 

[vector248]

that's about 27 shades of retarded. I mean animal abuse is bad, but worse than domestic abuse? give me a break.

 

[Richmond]

criminal law

Following the Richard Speck murders, a study was done that showed the majority of serial killers had tattoos. That doesn't prove causation.

That slippery slope logic provides a convincing argument for banning all firearms. Everyone who shoots other people always starts by picking up a gun and ammunition. There are a great many people who believe that kind of argument. It's hard to reject selectively.

I don't think that anyone is advocating for, or voting for passage of, any of the various laws we have referred to here with the idea that there is some link of causation between animal/human violence, or that we will prevent allviolent acts against humans in this fashion. The difference is that abusing animals is viewed as an inherently bad act, while the others referenced are not.

Of course, I can't argue with the fact that the temperence, prohibitionist, gun-banning, puritanical mindset exists and often prevails in the drafting of our laws.

The correlation between animal and human violence is significant in supporting that laws concerning animal violence meet the goals of criminal law by:

• retribution: the offender has done an act viewed by society as wrong and has to suffer some consequence
• deterrence: imposing consequences discourages future bad acts, both at an individual and general level
• In addition, the offender is incapacitated and we can be sure that they will not be committing new offenses against the public while they are confined and supervised
• by early correctional intervention the offender my be rehabilitated

This is the theory, at least.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Richmond, I have no quarrel with you. You obviously understand the law, and understand what's at stake.

Real domestic violence is indeed reprehensible. But our litigigious society has now reached a point where proof of domestic violence isn't even required for a divorce attorney to get a restraining order against the other spouse. It's boilerplate stuff, but it obviously causes problems.

Example: a client of mine was going to purchase his first gun. He was going through a divorce. I hung up the phone, then remembered Lautenberg, and called my client back to warn him not to buy until everything was settled. And this was a divorce that was conducted amicably by both sides.

The idea of prior restraint is one of the anti's most useful tools: what if Joe buys a semiautomatic that can hold twenty rounds in a single magazine, and opens fire in a shopping mall?

Nevermind that "Joe" has never done such a thing before, or even showed a hint of desiring to do so. It's the "what if" argument that the anti's need to advance.

And I'm seeing a lot of "what if's" on this thread.

 

[woof]

Prior restraint - I have seen it argued on this board that it should be perfectly legal to take your sniper rifle across the street from the schoolyard, set up on the sidewalk and fix the crosshairs on one child after another, fully loaded of course. because you haven't done anything and to stop you would be prior restraint. A society that doesn't impose some degree of prior restraint on its citizens is anarchy.

 

[StuckInMA]

I have not studied the WI law in great detail, as I don't take cases there often, and then with local counsel. Across the river in MN, however, I know the background of this type of law. Maine was the first state last year to include protecting domestic animals in the context of domestic abuse scenarios, but similar legislation is spreading across the country.

Richmond, do you know if anyone has been charged with domestic abuse due to actions against animals in these jurisdictions yet? My biggest question is how a person can defend themselves against this type of charge. Case in point, a person with a restraining order hits their dog with a 2x4 and tells the judge their significant other did it to drive the final nail in the coffin. What possible defense can a person put together?

As I mentioned before, I do think a person should have the ability to protect their pets in some fashion but this just seems to be way to easy to abuse.

 

[Travis Lee]

So will this legislation be so bungled, and misinterpreted so that people will lose their rights as a result of dissecting frogs in high school?

That would be reductio ad absurdam
if we weren't already seeing 10 yr olds prosecuted for felonies for playing grab-ass, and teenagers for having swiss army knives in their cars.

--Travis--

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

The WI politicians that sponsored this are the ones that should be convicted of this just for infringing on the 2A and being too stupid to think.

 

[JohnL2]

This kind of legislation is one more step to Yahoodom.

Bedtime prayer:"Dear Lord, please save us from idiot politicians. Amen."

 

[woof]

Interesting range of opinions expressed. Does much to reveal that those who post here are not a lockstep mob sharing a single brain.