Tammy Grimes goes on trial next week

What perhaps can happen is that AC's may feel they are being harrassed by certain types of folks...and eventually stop listening when calls come in several times per day from people they may see as "fanatical". When on either side of the dog debate...you have to always couch your concerns with respect...and I could see that lacking on both sides here.

Totally not the right way to do things...ignoring people because you think they are telling you how to do your job. But the face you show authority figures matters...and being respectful and minding the p's and q's can foster a good relationship where they are willing to listen, and do know you want to help them do thier jobs...not criticize them for what they don't do.

In short...some good honest butt kissing can likely help more dogs than harrassment or constant complaints and comments on how uncaring a organization is.

Just the view from my knothole here...

On the other hand, and I'm reviewing my backlog of articles on the case, I remember where she stated she called AC & the local police numerous times, however when phone records were pulled it seems that the calls just did not exist.

Personally, I belive she's 100% guilty. IMO it was done nothing more than as a publicity stunt and sadly it has worked.

And Baha is right in that we never once heard a word from the other side.

My Cairn lived to be almost 20 years old. I put her down as soon as her quality of life was no longer there, but even when it was she was skinny, frail, almost blind and deaf, and wobbled when she walked. Thank goodness Ms. Tammy Grimes didn't see her out in the backyard one day...........

Miakoda....agreed. She has some sighthound people really worried,

I think she's over publicized. I really do. But I think she has rescued way too many dogs to be written off like that. I don't think that Tammy called the Animal Control, the person that called Tammy did.

And when they got there, that dog was quite obviously dying. He was dying that day, He was malnourished, nearly emaciated, couldn't stand at all, couldn't lift his head, and wasn't receiving any medication. You can see all of that in the Videos they posted on Youtube. After she rescued him, he lived for 6 months. Very much able to walk and stand on his own, despite being 17 or 18 or however old he was.

I consider that abuse, when the dog hasn't stood up for 3 days and they don't go out and see what's wrong with their dog. I think it wasn't considered abuse because the Animal Control wasn't who found the dog, and made the case.

It only became a publicity stunt after the owners began fighting to get their dog back, and Quite honestly, I would have done the exact same thing that Tammy did. I don't think any dog deserves to die on the end of a chain, before his time, with no shelter, unable stand, without his owner even caring. And I never, ever would have given the dog back to the owners. Maybe it's a fostering thing, but once you live with a dog, or even just get to know a dog, I don't think anybody on this forum could give a dog up to go back to that kind of life.

:hail: :hail: :hail:

did the media blow her off too as she claims the AC did?

Seeing a dog that is thin, and seeing a dog that is dying and in obvious IMMEDIATE distress is two different things.

Tell me, if you passed a dog that was obviously in bad shape daily, had tried to get help for the dog legally and nothing was done, and drove past it yet again to see it laying there, lifeless and obviously in distress, would you keep on driving, hoping that someone else would care, or would you pull over? Would you put it out of your mind and forget about it?

Personally, I don't think this was about publicity or anything of that nature. I know how urgent things like this can be, and how it can make one forget about what is "right and wrong" when a life is on the line.

I personally would not keep driving. It's not in my nature to see things suffer if I can stop it....right or wrong.

That's me though, and no I'm not a fanatic. No I'm not going around liberating animals. But if I see something in pain, I try to help.

Danes...that's what the media is for. They move mountains when a mere citizen cannot even push a ball down a hill.

That is fine and dandy when there is time to do it that way....

And hell, in some towns, the media could give a cold crap about a dying dog. Unless it's a "pit bull" attack, you really won't find a whole lot of dog stories on the news....not in my neck of the woods anyways.

well...here ya sure do...
It's not about the dogs when they do a story...it's their chance to make the CITY look bad when citizens call to complain about strays or neglect that they've called AC about and got ignored. Very common subject matter on the news here...

Anytime the media can seize upon a story that will show city run offices in a bad light...they will break their necks running to cover it. It's all in how you approach it.

Clearly law enforcement and the DA really have too much free time in that area

I would not steal a dog. When it comes down to it, I do nobody any good behind bars. If the dog dies, then the authorities who didn't follow up bear culpability in the matter. Look how many communities are overly concerned with passing laws banning breeds and criminalizing every minute aspect of dog fighting (even the legal ones). If these same communities can't write laws that require reasonable veterinary care, then they have no sense. I'm not going to jeopardize my freedom to do what the I-must-do-something politicians should be tackling.

ETA: If it wasn't publicity-motivated, she wouldn't have plastered the dog's picture all over thong underwear and the like (ew).

I haven't read the story in detail, but I suspect the reason she got in trouble was a combination of her exact actions and arrogance. She knew she was in the right (and in a moral sense she probably was) and so she acted like she had every right to do what she did, and let everyone know it. Here is how I might have handled this situation . . . not because I'm a better person, but because I perhaps have a better feel for the law. (required caveat . . . this is not legal advice)

I would have called the authorities, and made sure that I was calling from a phone that would have a record. (it looks like she might not have called at all). If they would not help, I would have taken the dog, and left a note for the owners of where I was taking the dog and why. I would then take the dog to the vet, get the required tests, informing the vet honestly that I was not the owner, just a concerned citizen. From there I would take the dog to one of the shelters in the area (not my own rescue, if I had one). Why would I do it this way? One, by leaving the note and taking the dog to the shelter, I have made it very clear that I do not want the dog and have no right to it . . . I am simply helping an animal in need. By telling the owners what I am doing, I am respecting their property rights. I would honestly tell the authorities that I did what I thought was best for the animal, and the problem is now in their hands. They can determine if the animal has been mistreated.

If was charaged at all for doing this, the crimes would be lesser crimes than those that Tammy was charged with . .. and I'd likely get more sympathy from the judge too. Humility and honesty can go a long way . . . arrogance and deception, even when you are in the right, can, well, get you charged with rather serious crimes.

Just in case somebody hasn't seen the videos--

This is the day they rescued him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN9t1rv4pj4

And this is him one week later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCzbtQ7unp8

In another video, they mention that they met the "Humane Officer" at the vet, when they took Doogie.

Hrm . . . then frankly . . . I'm not sure what the problem is?

but see, you don't know that. you don't KNOW what was going on in the owners' heads or hearts. i have seen many MANY owners take their pets home when they were in horrible condition but the owners could not bring themselves to euthanize them yet. i have seen many animals brought in for euthanasia who were almost dead already but the owners couldn't bring themselves to bring the animal in before that point.

were those animals suffering? yes. were they suffering because the owners didn't care? absolutely not. do i think the owners were making poor, selfish decisions? certainly. but they were grief-stricken over those decisions.

i don't know what was in these owners' heads, but i don't think we have the information to know. i don't think it's fair to them to make assumptions.

This blogger has a different (and somewhat irate) view of these events...

Found here....

http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog/2007/12/guilty-tammy-gr.html#more

Wait, so DDB is allied with ALF? Yep, I think I have to most definitely stand by what I've said so far.

Well after ready that "argument" against "Theft" I can't help being reminded of the twisted logic of slave owners who argued that abolishists were stealing and law breakers.

Before anyone flames me for comparing Slavery to this dogs sad state....relax and read what I wrote again, I am comparing the logic and thought process; I am not comparing 400 years of slavery to this dogs abuse. Just Thought I would add that before someone gets all worked up.

This was my point earlier.