Please Help

[BCBaxter]

Please take time to read this over and sign the petition. We are trying to get signatures on Tammy's behalf.

 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/dismiss-c...neglectorabuser

 

 

With the recent news of the brutal killings of dogs found on NFL Atlanta

 

Falcon's Quarterback Michael Vick's property, we are shocked back to

 

the reality of the horrors inflicted upon these chained dogs.

 

During this time of legal conflict and critique of our insufficient animal

 

laws, we are also reminded of the trial of our founder, Tammy Grimes

 

for saving a dying dog's life. During this time of revelation one must

 

ask: whom would you convict? Michael Vick for fighting, torturing and

 

killing dogs or Tammy Grimes for saving a dying dog's life when no one

 

else would come forward to help? It is difficult to conceive that both

 

are on trial because of dogs when their positions are so opposite. One

 

of the major differences in these cases, besides the obvious, may be

 

that Tammy Grimes is not asking for forgiveness; she is asking for

 

justice.

 

DDB Founder, Tammy Sneath Grimes' trial over rescuing a dying dog has

been a long hard road with a lot of U-turns! If we have learned anything from

the Doogie Trial, it's that court appearance is subject to immediate or not so immediate change.

 

8.27.07

 

Grimes showed up for her jury selection, only to find out that the

 

trial had been continued again. The DA requested another continuance,

 

and was granted one by the judge, even though Grimes attorney objected.

 

The paper newsletter that are just coming out state the trial is

 

September 13th...please disregard that! We did warn everyone...seems

 

nothing is as you think it will be when it comes to this trial. We will

 

update again as soon as we know more. In the meantime, please continue

 

to call the DA's office and tell them to stop postponing the hearing.

 

They do so love to hear from our supporters!

 

Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio, Esq.: 814.693.3010

 

Address: 423 Allegheny St. Suite 421 , Hollidaysburg , PA 16648 .

 

To e-mail: blairda@keyconn.net

 

To Read More About This Case Visit:

 

http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/doogie.html#827update

[painted_ponies]

Sorry, but I can't support your position. As far as I can tell from your website, Ms. Grimes entered someone else's property and took their dog because she didn't approve of how it was being kept. I don't think that's something we want approved by a court of law.

[sea4th]

The fact that the local authorities did nothing, in spite of repeated calls, I would have done the same in this case and screw (I'm using the nice word) the consequences. The fact that Grimes is being charged and nothing is being leveled against the dog's owners to me in an incomrehensible backwoods mentality.

 

What was the alternative? Sitting on your porch and watching this dog, who could not get up, finally die and rot into the ground? and once the smell got too bad, maybe the health department would have gotten in on it then, and only then?

 

Maybe Grimes should be charged for entering the property, but even more so, the dog's owners need their a$$es raked over the justice system's coals even more, because theirs is the greater crime.

 

This just makes my blood boil.

[juliepoudrier]

I agree with Vicki. The fact that animal control wouldn't even return calls puts a different spin on things, IMO. I hope that we as a society haven't gotten so inured to suffering (no need to discuss this comment, since I already know the answer) that we just ignore it because that's the easy thing to do. I couldn't tell from the video or the photos the extent of the dog's physical problems, but really what responsible owner would leave it lying there for days? And what neighbors could just ignore that for fear of legal repercussions?

 

J.

[clara]

I've read the website and watched the videos, and I have to say I agree with what she did. In my state, the defense to what Ms. Grimes did has a very fitting name... it's called "Choice of Evils". The defendant basically had a choice between letting this dog lay there and die and suffer, or to commit trespass and theft. Her actions were in response to what could be seen as an emergency. Animal Control wasn't responding, nobody else would do anything, and the owners hadn't done anything for three days about this poor dog. The jury gets to decide which of those two choices would cause the greater harm. If the defense council has raised this issue, I don't see how a judge could exclude the photos of the dog and vet's report.

 

I understand not wanting every animal rights nut job to come onto your property and take your animals because they don't agree with how you keep them. A general rule that anyone can steal anyone elses pet, or even livestock, because of a disagreement about how they should be kept would certainly cause a lot of mayhem. But there is a line to be drawn as to how much cruelty one should be allowed by one's neighbors to inflict on a pet just because you own it. Maybe it is right for a jury to decide just where that line is.

[painted_ponies]

I'm having a good bit of trouble finding an account of the facts on the website. I see where the neighbor said the dog was outside for three days, and an unatrributed allegation that animal control did not respond to someone's call. I haven't found the rest of the facts y'all mention.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying the situation should've been ignored. I wouldn't have ignored it. I'm just saying that, by handling things the way she did, Ms. Grimes has painted her local solicitor's office into a corner.

 

I did find on the website an assertion that existing animal cruelty laws weren't being enforced. The way to have handled this, IMO, would've been to force whoever was shirking their enforcement responsibilities to step up to the plate. Might've reduced the likelihood of future shirking.

[clara]

Well, I've been pondering my position on this issue, and while I still believe she did the right thing, there is something else that has kind of been nagging at the back of my mind since posting. Ms. Grimes was quoted as saying

I would accept all consequences of my decision.

While I fully support anyone's right to present any valid defense at trial when accused of a crime, I find this statement implies that she knew she might be held accountable for going outside the law and would accept the legal ramifications for doing so. It kind of bugs me when people say that, then when they get prosecuted they freak out like they weren't expecting THAT consequence.

 

The long version of the story and photos is written out at the bottom of the second website link in the OP.

[BCBaxter]

Would you just stand by and watch as a child was being beaten because it wasn't yours and it wasn't occuring on your property? Would you hesitate to assist someone in need because the circumstances were less than ideal? I doubt many of us would stand by and watch a horrific crime being committed and do nothing....and yet when it comes to animals it appears to be a different story.

 

As I noted in the title of the thread..."unchain THEIR hearts". I think it is time we started educating people that there are humane ways to treat animals you no longer want and leaving them to lay out in the elements is not one of them. Just as there is the Good Samaritan Law for people, maybe there needs to be an equivalent for people assisting animals in need.

[sea4th]

I don't doubt that she knew what she was doing was illegal. In fact, wasn't she the one who suggested contacting the proper authorities first? And only when that produced no results, did she go in and do something about it herself?

 

Is it possible that enough people rallied around her and got this publicity rolling? I don't find anything wrong with that either.

 

And a question and a comment.

 

First, if you saw a dog in distress on a hot day, sitting in the car, what would you do. What if, when you called the proper channels and got no response, what would you do. Would you take it on yourself to break the window and remove the dog?

 

Over the years I've been to plenty of dog events where year after year, some Bozo left their dog in the car on a hot August day with the windows slightly cracked. Ever year you'd hear the announcer over the mike say that there is a dog in distress inside of a car, license # and description of car given, so that the owner would go to their car and take care of the dog. There were several times I remember that after numerous announcements and no owner showing up, the windows to the car were broken to get the dog out. Most of the time it was done by the cops on the premises, but there were times when someone from the public intervened in this manner. What would you do?

 

Now the comment - re: one of the reasons Grimes in being prosecuted is because she trespassed on the property, right? Last week, an ex-boyfriend of one of my daughter's forced his way into her home and wouldn't leave. She was afraid of him and wouldn't stay in the apartment with him and stood outside. Calls to the cops, several of them, waiting for hours outside, produced nothing. So I took the matter into my own hands. I went into my own home, got the big mean bitch, Juta and barged into my daughter's apartment with this big hairy beast by my side. He must have been too much in a stupor to move fast, and I didn't want the dog to bite him, just scare him. So I put her in another room, cold cocked this jerk in the head, threw him to the floor and my daughter and I dragged him out by the legs. Only then did the cops come and took him away.

 

Again, after going through proper channels, and no response, I'd have to take care of some matters myself, including removing a dog from the situation described in the original post.

[painted_ponies]

But this wasn't a situation where a dog was being beaten, or in danger of immediate heat stroke. According to the facts as I know them, the poor dog was in ill health and had suffered outdoors in bad conditions for three days. With efffective persistence and persuasion most people can be motivated to do their jobs - should they wish to keep them - in a lot less time than that. And the person who has been so motivated will then know that ignoring his or her responsibilities is not an option. So more dogs than just the one benefit.

 

The term "Good Samaritan Law" at least in my part of the country, refers to laws that prevent someone from being sued in civil court if they try to offer help in an emergency but injury still results. It's not a law that forces people to act, nor does it absolve one of responsiblity for criminal acts.

 

Here's an example of why I think it would set a dangerous precedent to allow people to do this sort of thing. There's been some trouble in Virginia recently, or so I'm told by friends who live there, over PETA folks are catching people's hunting dogs, taking off their radio or blaze orange collars that clearly identify them as hunting dogs, and putting them into their cars and disappearing with the "strays." And we know what PETA folks do with strays. *shudders* But I'm sure, if we asked them, those folks would think they'd done a noble thing. They'd rescued an animal from a life of servitude in a brutal sport, and maybe saved the life of a deer or coon or two while they were at it.

[sea4th]

That is one of my concerns as well, the fact that AR extremists take it on themselves to serve their own agenda.

 

I think, though, that this case went beyond a dog being ill-kept. Apparently it was a way of life for these dogs, one which maybe most don't agree with, but there was no cause for alarm until one of the dogs went down and didn't move for three days. It appears that in the minds of those who eventually helped the dog, that time also played an important factor. IOW, how long can you go screwing around with an unresponsive agency, until you yourself take action. It appears that they attempted to go through the right channels before they made the decision to do what they did.

 

While I don't agree with Grimes being prosecuted for what she did, by far, my biggest objection is, that if Grimes is being prosecuted, why are no charges being levied against the irresponsible owners of these dogs.

 

Also, can someone explain to me why, if the videos and vet records are crucial to the defendant's case, that they would not be allowed entered into evidence.

[painted_ponies]

Also, can someone explain to me why, if the videos and vet records are crucial to the defendant's case, that they would not be allowed entered into evidence.

 

I don't practice criminal law, so this is just a guess, but I reckon the prosecutor objected to them on the basis of relevancy. He's trying to prove the elements of trespass or theft or whatever crime she's charged with. So the issues would be, for example, did the woman enter onto the property of another with the intent to take away that person's property. Relevant evidence is the evidence that helps the trier of fact decide whether or not those things happened. Why she might have been motivated to do it doesn't help establish the facts of the case.

[clara]

Relevant evidence is the evidence that helps the trier of fact decide whether or not those things happened. Why she might have been motivated to do it doesn't help establish the facts of the case.

 

I do practice criminal law, and you're right about relevance. However, as I previously stated, this falls pretty clearly into a choice of evils defense, which means the defendant admits she did commit all of the elements of the crime, but had a legal justification for her actions. If the judge rules in favor of the defense, he/she is allowing the defense to be raised. If not, then the judge is saying that choice of evils does not apply under these circumstances. At the trial level, it's just up to the judge whether a defendant can make those kinds of arguments to the jury or not. Then she'd have to appeal if she lost.

 

I understand the fear of a "slippery slope" with this issue, with activists who could use this justification to free EVERYONE'S animals. What about your lambs you're going to slaughter? Those certainly should be saved, right? But we have to decide, as a culture, what standards of care we're going to have for companion animals. In Oregon, it's a more serious crime, for example, to steal a companion animal than other property. And we're required, by law, to provide food, shelter, and medical care for all of our animals. The owner of that dog was committing the crime of animal neglect, and Ms. Grimes was acting as a vigilante. Sometimes that's legally justifiable. I believe we can make those kinds of judgement calls without falling down the slippery slope of letting everyone steal everyone's animals on a completely subjective basis.

[painted_ponies]

I do practice criminal law, and you're right about relevance. However, as I previously stated, this falls pretty clearly into a choice of evils defense, which means the defendant admits she did commit all of the elements of the crime, but had a legal justification for her actions. If the judge rules in favor of the defense, he/she is allowing the defense to be raised. If not, then the judge is saying that choice of evils does not apply under these circumstances. At the trial level, it's just up to the judge whether a defendant can make those kinds of arguments to the jury or not. Then she'd have to appeal if she lost.

 

Thanks, clara. Somehow I missed that part of your earlier post. I just did a quick Westlaw search on "choice of evils" aka necessity and got clued up. What parts of that defense are a matter of law for the court and which are issues of fact for the jury? Does her lawyer have to convince the judge there was no legal alternative to her behavior before he can raise the defense?

[clara]

I've never actually raised the defense at trial, but *almost* did, so I have done some research. My understanding is that the only matter of law for the court is whether the defense can actually be raised (whether it can be applied in a particular case). The other factors, such as whether the conduct was necessary as an emergency measure, whether the potential harm was imminent, and whether the belief that the threatened injury was greater than the harm from violation of the law was reasonable, are up to the jury. And once the defense has been raised, it's the prosecution's burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In Oregon, a court of appeals case has ruled that the defense can apply to defense of property - ie. a dog- as well as people.

[sea4th]

I'm wondering how subjective some of these determinations made by judges as to whether or not something can be admitted into evidence. Justice isn't always blind and those dispensing it aren't always impartial. I'm wondering how much this is coming into play in this situation.