Left Coast Canine Controversy

She left the dogs in a hot car until they all died and then paniced and buried them all and then pretended they were stolen.
Judge gave her 6 months in jail and a ten year ban from owning animals.

The article by Adrian MacNair is insensitive. Yeah, yeah, we treat dogs better than Chinese culture treats dogs and yeah, yeah, we kill and eat chickens...blah,blah,blah. Humans are above dogs in the same way that dogs are above chickens. She was negligent and 6 dog lovers lost their pets.

She got six months jail time? I'm supposed to feel sorry for her? Meh? If it were up to me we'd have Brazillan style police, with Indonesian style courts and Saudi Arabian style penalties, so I'm probably not the target audience for "please shed a tear for the hardship" article.

This is what man, the supposedly rational animal, has been reduced to. Childish sentiments, snot and Drivel.

Light a candle, leave a teddy bear, get riled up over the death of a few dogs, but have no opinion about what should be done to ISIS and boko haram. An outbreak of social retardation.

Would she get six months for vandalizing someone's property? Maybe.

How is this different? Dogs are property.

What's disturbing is the inability to write a column making a point without being hounded and harassed about it - another nail in the coffin for free speech.

I am a dog lover and I can understand his point. People go hunting and kill animals just as intelligent as dogs. The author himself treats dogs well.

The sentence of Paulsen might be inappropriate, but it doesn't seem excessive to me and it seems comparable to property crimes. But no doubt the apology by the paper is dead wrong and the harassment of mcnair is wrong.

It was almost certainly a genuine error. I have no doubt that she did not harm the dogs. Once dead, all she did was cost up her error. For an error, compensation. For the cover-up, fine or suspended sentence and larger compensation. That is natural law: making an error is not a criminal offense.

Yes, we do tend to treat dogs far better than other animals. Recently a halal slaughterhouse in the UK was secretly recorded. Staff who abused animals quite intentionally have not, so far, been prosecuted although licences have been revoked. This is a far worse case, genuinely criminal.

That article is narcissistic, puerile poppycock, and it is pretty clear that he was not that fine of a Dog owner in the first place, and most likely not much of a father either. There are a couple of absurdly broad fallacies here: 1) the an absurd claim that greater insight into life merely because he has become a father. In fact, being a "father" or "loving", if that is what one calls this sort of narcissistic projection, somehow qualifies your for some sort of broader ethical authority. It most certainly does not. Many a gangster loves and cares for their child; The last two Popes prior to the current Leftist occupant had perhaps some of the most profound moral insight and the the broadest moral authority of the last 150 years.

2) The second glaring fallacy is that some how he speaks for "families". There are a great many family with dogs, perhaps more than those with single persons, and I would wager that most of these families would find his opinions offensive. I have as father, indeed grand father, most certainly do, as would every single member of my family.

This person seems infatuated with this position as a "father"--in general a sure sign that he is not much of one. The the broad and vast remainder of thi world care but little about his position (or even his family), and indeed find his use of it as a soup-box to be immature and vaguely immoral.

What ever is he teaching his children? It appears to be callousness towards the innocent and defenseless, and in the name of "significance". What hogwash.

Having hatched out a child hardly gives anyone the right to pontificate so.

Nor is it the case in earlier times this would not be found aberrant and repulsive, references to Hollywood potboilers of an earlier age notwithstanding. I am not young, and I can tell you that in the rural areas I grew up in had this woman done this 50 years ago or so and, had the authorities had done nothing ,she would have at the very least have had the snot beat out of her--if she was a man, she might have even been shot--and no jury in the county would have even cared in the slightest about her. Justice was no doubt more severe in the 19th century. So even this point of his is half-bakjed, and the reference to "Old Yeller" is just juvenile rhetoric and muddled thinking..

In my state this sort of thing is a felony, as well it should be, and the woman got of way too easy. She should spend a couple of years in prison and spend the rest of her life as a convicted felom.

This sort of callousness that towards animals one encounters in psychopaths and sociopaths. Rather than psycho-babble about getting people like this "help", they rather should be identified for what they are and society should protect itself from them. Next time it could well be a human being.

The author all to well reflects the rotting morality and perception of the human world that plagues our civilization. He has deeply imbibed moral relativism and cultural Marxism whether he believes it or not.

I can tell you that had he got a dog since his child's birth, as any reasonable father might do, and he said this nonsense to his child's face, that child would hate him for it.

I would say I pity this man family, but I do not--they are "in the end, insignificant" to me.

The editor was right to apologize, and Mr. McNair should be shown the door.

"Old Yeller" should have been mandaTory viewing before the Harper Conservatives passed the animal rights amendments to the criminal code that the Conservative Senate had fended off from the Liberals.

Viewing animals as morally the same as people is reverting echoes back to an ancient paganism.

By the way. If anyone has seen the film John Wick, starring Keanu Reeves, I think its a very interesting (if subtle) comment on this exact issue. Every other revenge action flick you've ever seen from Robocop to Schwarzenegger, they kill the star's whole family in front of him. He survives and takes revenge.

This time, [SPOILER], the wife dies of a disease. The bad guys kill the -dog-. So the star goes on his choreographed rampage and kills 100 people over a dog. Then at the end gets a new dog. For the next movie in the series, no doubt.

None of the critics noticed this. They all gave a good rating because of the action, the acting, whatever. But they all thought that the main character going on a major rampage over a dog didn't warrant a mention. or worse didn't even notice it was odd.

Now perhaps I'm reading more into this than it deserves, but if it is deliberate its a pretty black comment on the state of Hollywood, and done with some considerable finesse by Reeves and the producers. Reeves' "Man of Tai Chi" movie makes me think this is deliberate.

@ totalclaptrap.....You live up to your moniker as 99% of your entire diatribe is claptrap. The author gave an opinion on a sentence a woman received for her crime. Too bad you don't like his opinion and too bad for all the other whiners, many of whom care more about a splinter their dog or cat gets than when a human is abused.

I all too often correct people when they refer to their cat or dog or any other pet as their baby. That is delusional thinking. Period. End of sentence. Full stop.

A pet is a pet. I've had numerous and felt bad when they died and then purchased another -- as the author said 'easily'.

I testified in a trial where two guys beat up another guy for no reason. They got 16 months probation. Not a minute in jail so this woman making a mistake is going to serve six months in prison because dogs died. Oh yah, that makes sense.

What is really frightening is your last sentence. The editor was 100% wrong in apologizing as he likely kowtowed to pressure from advertisers (always follow the money). The opinion piece was factual from the writer's perspective (his opinion). As an American you should be more cognizant of free speech, yet you, like so many of the pathetic Canadians responding to the original article seem to not relish freedom. You are a disgrace to your country.

I will add this incident and the resulting furor to my collection of empirical evidence supporting a personal theory of mine, namely that exposure to dog dander leads to brain damage in humans.

Sporty : you join Mt McNair is argumentation mere buttress by ego. For future reference, this is generally know to the educated as "pontification".

Moreover, I clearly delineate my position, a fact that you chose to ignore altogether.

Instead you merely project you self importance on to be, and with Jr. High Hchool level psycho-babble, not less.

You give no meaningful agreement other than your opinion merey issue form your tedious slef-regard. It may please you to think that you have the the moral authority to "correct" those around, but I imagine that they find you a pompous and insufferable arse. I most surely do. You have not made one meaningful moral argument whatsoever, and it appears that you have neith the wit not the knowledge to do so. Some conservative.

Indeed "sporty" is most apt for you--a bit of purely accidental honestly, no doubt.

Do real conservatives a favor. Keep your yap shut; you give the rest of us a bad name.

Six months is not an unusual sentence for animal cruelty. It's generally against the law to leave animals or small children unattended in cars on hot days, for obvious reasons. Taking a living thing into one's care obligates the carer to accept certain responsibilities.

BTW, that lady is going to be looking for work once she gets out of jail. Hey, MacNair–how about hiring her to babysit your kid?

Well, if we follow this columnist's views to their logical conclusion, then we shouldn't ever punish animal abusers, since animals are just property.
However, unlike other property, animals can suffer and feel pain, and the dogs who died in that woman's sweltering van certainly did suffer. If you are a decent person, then you would want to see someone who caused an animal to suffer to be punished, and no, it doesn't mean that you equate animals' lives with human lives.
And why does the columnist assume that the dog walker has a mental illness? Is it because she's a woman? Because we all know (cough, cough) that women are NEVER negligent, or stupid, or evil. No, when a woman does something bad, it must be because she's mentally ill (or influenced by a bad man and of course, being a woman, is helpless to resist the bad influence). After all, we must never hold women accountable for their misdeeds.

The phanton: Your "comment" on "John Wick" chastens no one; you merely embarrass yourself.
How embarrassing it is that you actually think you had made some sort of point there. More disturbingly, is that you think this movie germaine at all.

The "plot" of that film, feeble thing that it is, uses that dog merely for emotional manipulation of the pubescents and urban hispters targeted by this ghastly bit of choreographed "Violence Pornography". It is but a foil to enable a virtual orgy of violence, blood and homicide. You might posit that it works by prodding what paltry little bit of sanity, morality or humanity is left in what its producers slickly call its "demographic", but even the intended audience are not fooled by this; it is merely an excuse to let the mayhem proceed, and they of course instantaneously and gleefully aware of this, and are glad that it has been dispensed early enough in the film as to not take up any more time from the carnage ahead.

You appear to be the only one fooled here. You indulge here in a form of moral cretinism.

This movie has nothing whatsoever to do with "animal right". How preposterous that you imagine that this is so. It is a movie completely opposed to the notion of morality altogether.

Better that you instructed others is what a hideous thing this movie is and what viperous souls its creators surely must have. I had to suffer through this "movie" and thus I "corrected" those about me.

Again, you position is absurd. Let me explain something to you. No, there is not hotel in the Flat Iron building for contract killers; No, there is no "Code of honor" among contract killer; No they do not rampage up and down Broadway shooting people or taking on Russian mob bosses because their dog was shot. In real life they are remorseless, sociopath and psychotic killers for higher who have complete contempt for life, human or otherwise. No doubt their attitude is much like yours: callous disregard for the innocent and the defenseless. At least they are honest about it and know what they are about, which is more than I can say for you.

"Wide disparity exists in sentences for leaving kids to die in hot cars"

http://tinyurl.com/o5afojl

Adrian, maybe you shoulda stayed with Glazing!

I blame Bluetooth.

Have to side with Phantom on this one. Animals are NOT people and this nonsense about "animal rights" is just that. Doesn't mean it's OK to be cruel to them, just that in no way rises to the level of mistreatment of a human.

Number 1 the dogs were not her property she was entrusted and paid to look after the dogs by other people.
Number 2 because of her negligence the dogs died a horrible death inside her van.
Number 3 by lying about and attempting to cover up her negligence she was committing a crime.
Anyone who's ever loved an animal would be rightly outraged over this woman's callous actions and she deserves every ounce of vitriol and scorn coming her way.
If anyone ever abused or killed one of my dogs they would find that their life had become a never ending series of unfortunate incidents and bad luck.
If she's lucky shell only be hounded out of town upon her release from prison.

Priorities Eh?
Lets see, so Scott of Antarctic infamy was a cannibal?
The inuit were savages because they ate dog, rather than starve?
All Asian residents are committing genocide?

The lady screwed up. then tried to cover her ass, because she knew the pet lovers would be insane?
The Just Us System is working as I would expect, contempt of court is a rational position in this society.

The deification of pet hood is merely a symptom of our collapsing civilization.. enjoy.
Now I was told a great story by a colleague years ago..
He lived in a trailer park, with a cat owner on one side and an elderly Vietnamese patriarch on the other.
The cat would use his children's sandpit as a litter box, he would comment on this to the cat lady.
Then the cat went missing, suspicion and stalking from the cat lady, he must have done for the cat, to protect his children's health..
Few months later the elderly Vietnamese gentleman requested help with a problem in his kitchen, my friend went to see and rectify the problem, while repairing the devise he noticed ornaments lining the kitchen window sill and a delicious smelling stew simmering on the stove.
Pet collars complete with city tags…
The old man was so happy to have his kitchen functioning again he started to open up, on life and changes ..
"This country is so good.. the food it comes to you".

My friend says he never did enlighten the cat lady, to this day 15 years, she still accused him of killing her darling cat.

I don't agree with the article, but I disagree even more with the editor's decision to apologize for it, as if taking an offense position is going to harm the readership.

Notwithstanding the relationship our society (or what was) with pets....

Disclosure, I have a dog who is my constant companion....he is my companion...not my kid....I'm not his parent....

What burns my posterior about this gal is not her lapse which killed 6 dogs....

There are venerable rules about "bearing false witness".....see Brian Williams...that permeate our morality....

IMHO she got 6 months for claiming the dogs were stolen....a waste of Police resources.....adding more minutes to Police response when seconds count.

Seems like the issue is people harming other people get prison sentences that are far too short. So in making the comparison with person to person crime, it would seem that he woman got too severe a sentence. So lets toughen up on sentencing.

I have my doubts that this was a one time brain fart on the part of this woman - my guess is that on this particular day the weather was not quite as cooperative as on other days.

Yes dogs might "just" be animals, but I think they occupy a different strata than other animals in terms of their relationship with man.

As for Adrian McNair, not exactly news that he's a childish jerk.

The article was despicable and the author was rightly raked over the coals in the comments. What was utterly stupid was him getting into arguments in the comments where he compounded the confirmation of his ignorance such as saying the dogs weren't sentient and therefore would not have panicked. What about putting this unfeeling "journalist" in a hot vehicle and seeing if he started to panic? Maybe he wouldn't, he is clearly not sentient.

Incidentally the dog walker got off essentially free for the animal cruelty, she got six months for lying to the police.

"It’s also disturbing to think that somebody who may be suffering from a mental illness will now go to prison for it."

No it is not. What is disturbing is that the alleged mental illnesses is an automatic get out of jail free card. I could not care less if she was mental or not. You do the crime you do the time. And you suffer for your deeds. Good. I would be happy with a longer sentence and some public flogging. It starts with bs like this and then the murderer of Sgt Russel ovoids his punishment and Sgt Russel's grieving widow is humiliated in court, patronized and lectured to by heartless leftists media scumbags and lawyers.

A good reporter will know how to pick the pet stories that don't create a lot of controversy.

http://www.emirates247.com/news/wife-catches-husband-having-sex-with-family-dog-chihuahua-2015-02-07-1.579805

If she had carelessly killed my dog and lied about it prison time would be the least of her worries.

Well, at least they weren't ducks.

His article is a great example of how journos have lost all respectability: they write articles that reveal a regrettable personality, character, or intellect. Would it have killed him to recognize that losing a dog is a horrible blow to many much different in nature from losing property? Another great example of why professional journalism is disappearing. Who needs it?

Seems like a false premise.
Where did the assumption come from that there is this limited amount of compassion and love within us, and if we squander it on mere animals we have none left to give to fellow humans?
Why can't I feel for a tortured animal AND for beheaded humans?
I've got news for you - I can and do feel for both, and if you cannot, you're not doing it right.
Shame on any so-called "conservative" in these comments who argues that way.
You are doing the emotional equivalent of progressive's economic manifesto - there's only so much wealth and they want to take from those who have to give to those who don't.
The article was self-important finger-waving and tut-tutting.
Fine - his right. How convenient.
Now if I ever give a rat's @ss what he thinks I won't have to ask.

Pedophiles get less time. we are screwed.

The comments over at the now shows a true hatred for the concept of free speech, so many wish upon the writer things like death, assault, job lose, etc.
I bet if they ran their mouth off in the middle east like that......OH yeah, never mind.

I'm a dog person, and don't want to weigh in on the stupidity or otherwise of the original column. I just would like to point out that the way a society treats its dogs is a good indicator of the way it treats its humans. Sure, they eat dogs in China but don't eat humans. My point is, places where they shoot dogs in the street (Russia) or break their legs and sell them as food (China) are places that take a pretty cavalier attitude to the treatment of people. I have no problem with the woman in the column getting 6 months in jail.