Laws are Quite Clear

I just do not understand why so many of these animal rights quacks seem to think Tammy Grimes should get off for the crimes she has committed. It is a plain and simple case if you ask me. She even publicly admits to committing the crime, but yet she expects to have the charges dropped. She stole a dog, she refused an order to return the dog to it's owners. She should be punished accordingly. Had she used her brain and waited for animal control to come and see the dog, things would be different. They would have been able to see the supposed neglect and charges the Arnolds accordingly. But she didn't, she took her own video and pictures and stole the dog.

Now the animal rights quacks are petitioning that she not be charged for her actions. The very same actions she claimed to accept "Full Responsibility" for. Last time I checked, accepting full responsibility for ones illegal actions entails serving your punishment, not harassing the courts in an attempt to get the charges dropped. Once again we see the animal rights quacks offering up big words to drum up publicity, but no one is laying down the cash when the bill is due. She claims this trial should be about canine rights, and that it should be about the governments inadequacies in enforcement of the law. A little ironic given that she is the very reason they were unable to enforce the existing laws against the Arnolds. Animal control visited the house while she had Jake(the dog's actual name) at the Vet. Had she kept her meddling hands off him for a few more hours, they would have been able to decide if charges needed to be brought against the owners. But that doesn't draw nearly the same amount of publicity as an animal rights trial, not to mention nearly as many donations.

Last but not least, did she actually accomplish any good? NO, she prolonged a 19 year old dogs life for a few months. Based on the pictures they posted, it isn't what I would call a life. They say he looked happy, I say he looked drugged beyond recognition. I do not consider a dog being so drugged that he doesn't have a clue what is going on as being "life". It is my personal opinion that there most likely wasn't any abuse, just a case of a dog owner not getting their dying dog euthanized quick enough. He was 19 years old, which is old for a small breed dog, ancient for a large breed. Big deal that he laid on the ground for three days, like most owners they probably had done what intelligent owners would do and give it a few days to see if he turned around. It is hard to have a dog put to sleep, and you certainly don't want to do it if the dog might just be going through a slump. It happens with OLD dogs. And I do recall they had stated they were intending to put him to sleep, it was just a hard decision.

I hope Grimes is awarded the longest prison term permissible so she has plenty of time to think about the best course of action when presented with a similar situation. Hopefully next time she won't steal someone else's dog.