Oregon court just majorly changed the rights of pets | Animals | Forums

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed F-Animals
Oregon court just majorly changed the rights of pets
Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31785
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
24 Jun ’16 - 8:26 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Don't understand why people get animals and do this

There are plenty of pet owners out there who love their furry friends more than they love most (if not all) humans. However, pets have always been considered mere “property” in the eyes of the law. . . until recently, that is.

Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling that viewed an emaciated dog named Juno as a living being, rather than just a “thing.” Of course, any human with a heart knows that dogs are more than just “things,” but under the law, they were considered to be property just as much as a bookcase or a car. Oregon law cared more about who *owned* an animal rather than the animal’s rights. However, in the case last week, the court unanimously ruled that Juno’s negligent and abusive owner is guilty, despite a vet’s gathering evidence via medical exams and treatments without a warrant.

The case began six years ago, when the Oregon Humane Society found that a Portland resident, Amanda Newcomb, was beating and starving Juno. Juno had “no fat on his body” and “was kind of eating at random things in the yard, and trying to vomit,” according to Oregon Live.

When Juno was brought to the Humane Society, he was given a body condition score of 1.5 on a scale of 1 (emaciated) to 9 (overweight). The Humane Society vet also drew blood from Juno to make sure he didn’t have a condition that would have caused a low body weight. Finding nothing, Newcomb was charged with second-degree animal neglect.

 

During the trial, the defense tried to argue that because the vet had obtained evidence without a warrant, it was like searching through a chest of drawers — it was illegally obtained, because Juno was Newcomb’s property. However, the prosecutor argued in response that it was rather like drawing blood from a child suspected of abuse, which is legal. Luckily and awesomely, the court agreed.

more https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-court-cast-just-majorly-200050228.html

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 476

Currently Online:
6 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

easytapper: 2149

DangerDuke: 2030

groinkick: 1667

PorkChopsMmm: 1515

Gravel Road: 1455

Newest Members:

deeno

Clearview Cladding Concepts

Summar

Yeager

Mariesays

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 12

Topics: 11467

Posts: 58659

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 1925

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Administrators: K