First Ag-Gag Prosecution Almost Comes to Fruition in Utah
Amy Meyer was driving by the Dale Smith Meatpacking Company slaughterhouse in Utah when she decided to pull over and videotape what she saw: piles or horns littered across the property, cows being dragged across the grounds, one cow in particularly who appeared sick or injured being hauled off in a tractor “as though she were nothing more than rubble,” Meyer told the online paper Green is the New Red.
Meyer’s videotaping did not go over well with the slaughterhouse manager, Darrel H. Smith, the town mayor, who told her to stop. She made it clear that she was not on his property, and had every right to record anything she wanted.
At least that’s what she thought.
However, later on Meyer learned that she was going to be prosecuted under Utah’s new law (a law many people refer to as an “ag-gag law”) which is designed to prohibit undercover videos of farms and slaughterhouses.
The charges were eventually dropped, perhaps since Meyer was on the roadside, and not trespassing on private property (although Utah’s law is sketchy on those particulars). However, this brings to light the progress that these ag-gag laws have made over the course of the year.
Ag-Gag Laws aren’t that new. Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota all have had forms of this type of law in place for the last two decades. But in recent years more and more states are considering implementing rules that prohibit undercover videos of animal abuse. Much of this has come as a result of troubling videos made by groups like the Humane Society and Mercy for Animals. These videos were truly undercover, meaning that the videos were taken on the property of the farms (oftentimes by employees-turned-whistleblowers of the farm or slaughterhouse).
Most of the Ag-Gag laws don’t prohibit the ability to film from a roadside (like Meyer did). However, states are finding ways around this. For example, Pennsylvania’s proposed bill criminalizes anyone who “records an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation,” or who “uploads, downloads, transfers or otherwise sends” footage using the Internet.
Tennessee’s bill passed, and is awaiting the governor’s signature. During the process, however, one state rep (Andy Holt) referred to the Humane Society’s use of undercover footage of animal abuse as no different than how human-traffickers use 17-year-old women. He claims that organizations like the Humane Society “seek to profit from animal abuse” using a “tape and rape” method.
Proponents of ag-gag laws share at least part of Holt’s sentiment. Proponents claim that if any animal abuse does take place at a facility, employees have the ability, and obligation, to report to authorities. Videos, they believe, do nothing but sensationalize the problem, and, in fact, those who videotape these abuses for use in supporting a cause are participating in the abuse. Those who videotape animal abuse ought to be required to submit the evidence to police, immediately, rather than to broadcast it to the world.
Opponents of ag-gag laws claim that employees are not likely to openly report abuses to authorities, because they aren’t quick to report themselves or their co-workers. Furthermore, opponents claim that these videos can be used later on as evidence of abuse, if formal charges are ever brought to light.
However, above all else, opponents of ag-gag laws claim that not being able to broadcast abuse severely limits their ability to inform the public of the truth. When people actually get to see and hear the abuse, they’ll realize the problem is far worse than they imagined. These images and videos might stir people into anger and, eventually action.
Currently Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont are considering ag-gag laws similar to that of Utah and Tennessee.
Well-known animal activists, such as Carrie Underwood, aren’t taken this ag-gag progress lightly. On April 18, soon after Tennessee’s bill passed, she tweeted this to her thousands of followers:
“Shame on TN lawmakers for passing the Ag Gag bill. If Gov. Bill Haslam signs this, he needs to expect me at his front door. Who’s with me?”
“How can anyone think, shoving a gavage (pipe or tube) down the esophagus, of geese or ducks then force feeding them with, typically, corn boiled with fat (to facilitate ingestion) so the birds liver becomes over enlarged; so it can then be eaten as a delicacy… is totally beyond me! Of course it’s bloody cruel & barbaric, no other animal that I can think of is force fed via a tube to make any part of their body fatter for human consumption. Yes animals are given extra grain & even growth hormones but they are not force fed it via a bloody pipe…it’s savage & uncalled for; we kill enough animals to meet the demand for meat or other animal body parts! Do we really have to force feed a bird in constant chronic pain from the tube…just for a delicacy?? What will they come up with next, pickled eyeballs, coated in vinegar daily, to get that perfect crunch?? One could say, this is almost as bad as bear bile being taken from a bear!!
Goose being force-fed so humans can dine on their enlarged livers!!
“Look at the disgusting filthy gavage (pipe) & other equipment; there is no wonder so many birds die of disease. While force feeding is required to meet the French legal definition of “foie gras”, producers outside France do not always force feed birds in order to produce fattened livers that they consider to be foie gras, instead allowing them to eat freely, termed ad libitum. Interest in alternative production methods has grown recently due to ethical concerns in gavage-based foie gras production. Such livers are alternatively termed fatty goose liver, ethical foie gras, or humane foie gras.”Source-Wikipedia
“During feeding, efforts are made to avoid damaging the bird’s esophagus, which could cause injury or death, although researchers have found evidence of inflammation of the walls of the proventriculus after the first session of force-feeding. There is also indication of inflammation of the esophagus in the later stages of fattening. Several studies have also demonstrated that mortality rates can be significantly elevated during the gavage period.”Source Wikipedia
The ALDF (the same anti-foie group that sued Napa restaurant La Toque) had argued that foie gras is “a diseased product unfit for human consumption,” and asked the court to step in and order the USDA to “remove foie gras from the American food supply.”
In the ruling (warning: PDF), U.S. District JudgeOtis Wright explains his decision to dismiss the case: “Plaintiffs‘ voluminous submission of technical papers and data supports the Court’s view that Plaintiffs are challenging a scientific conclusion and not a legal one … this is an issue falling squarely under the USDA’s discretion by law.”
Although selling and producing foie gras is still illegal in California, the ALDF is not entitled to judicial review on this case so, for now, the rest of the country can rest easily knowing their foie is safe. “For those who partake in this delicacy…I hope it fxxxxg chokes you!”
“Regards the recent news from Germany to outlaw Bestiality…this post has a little more information in than the original one, thought you might be interested”
Ilse Aigner, the German agriculture minister, is reversing a 1969 decision to legalise zoophilia. Photograph: Gon Alo Silva/Demotix/Corbis
Germany is to introduce a ban on bestiality with a revision ofanimal welfare law that will reverse a decision in 1969 to legalise zoophilia.
Animal rights groups have called for the practice to be recognised as animal defilement and rape, using dramatic photographs of animals being cruelly treated by humans for sexualpurposes to put pressure on the German government.
Zoophiles, or those who practise bestiality, argue that they treat animals as equals and never force them to do anything against their will.
“We are going to take legal action to fight this,” said Michael Kiok, chairman of the pressure group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), which has about 100 members. “Central to the beliefs of zoophiles is that we don’t do anything that the animal doesn’t want. “How can one know the animal doesn’t want to, those poor animals used will obviously conform, they will have learnt or been trained to react in a certain way…but try it with a dog who hasn’t & your probably going to get a nasty bite!”
We do not treat them cruelly. An animal is quite capable of showing precisely what it wants and does not want. When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants. Animals are much easier to understand than women,” he said.“WTF…how the hell can an animal tell you it wants to $£%$(&*()£^£()+_- ?? It’s ridiculous, I bet all of the members are ugly (the ones I have seen so far are!) with beer bellies & foul breath, they can’t get a women, that’s their problem!”
The centre-right government ofAngela Merkel, which has shaped the law change, said keyto the new legislation was recognising that sexwith humans was “inappropriate” for animals. “Of course it is, any sane person is disgusted just at the thought of it!”
According to Hans-Michael Goldmann, chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee which will discuss the law on Wednesday before a final vote in the Bundestag on 14 December,animals should not be used “for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species”. “Exactly, forcing them to act in a way that is totally unnatural & unacceptable. Both parties in a sexual relationship must agree to have sex, if one does not but is forced or cohered into doing so, then it is classed as rape!”
Animal rights’ campaigners welcomed the ban, but said it was being used to divert attention from more widespread and pressing animal rights issues. “We welcome the new amendment (to the law) to ban sodomy,” said Thomas Schröder, president of the German Animal Welfare Association (DTSB). “But this achievement in the animal welfare struggle cannot be used as an excuse to conceal other urgent animal rights questions“. “No it can’t, so we the public, will keep up the pressure, until such things are changed!”
Agriculture minister Ilse Aigner was said to have introduced the amendment to appease animal rights campaigners angry that more is not being done to tackle perceived animal rights abuses in theagricultural industry. Campaigners want bans on cutting off piglets’ tails, and the castration of piglets and branding of horses without anaesthesia. In the end Aigner has affected a change only on the issue of castration, but not until 2018, when the practice will only be allowed to be carried out under local anaesthetic. “There is much work to be done to put all the wrongs humans do to animals, right, this we know. Especially in the agricultural industry as animals have always been seen as objects without feelings; but it is changing slowly for the better!”
Kiok, 52, a university librarian from Münster, southern Germany, who lives with his 8½-year-oldAlsatian called Cessie in what he calls a relationship, said zoophiles had been “put on the sacrificial altar of a lazy compromise“. Estimating there are about 100,000 active zoophiles in Germany, he said the group remained deeply misunderstood.“Of course it’s misunderstood because normal people don’t see animals as sexual partners!”
“We don’t have anything to do with people who abuse animals,” he said. “We only want what’s best for the animal. “It cannot be that the mutually gratifying sexual contact between human and animal is forbidden because it’s unfavourable to the species, but the abuse of animals in the agricultural industry continues.” “What’s best for the animal is for human sexual predators to stay away from them. One can not say sex between human & animal is mutual, because animals can’t tell you otherwise.”
He said he had received death threats from campaigners who were threatening to remove his dog. The protesters posted on Facebook that they had the addresses of 800 zoophiles and would campaign to have their pets taken from them. “Humans who only see other humans as sexual partners will of course think pets are better away from those who interfere with them!”
Koik said he had been through years of therapy and despair due to his zoophilia, only discovering on the internet the “huge number of zoophiles, especially in the US,” he said. “It was a relief to feel I wasn’t a monster as I’d heard for much of my life,” he said.“Of course other people who dabble in bestiality, zoophiles, sodomy etc. are going to stick together & confirm what they do is not wrong etc.; as do those of us who think what they do, is totally wrong!”
“YES YES YES YES…..THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SIGNED THE PETITIONS ETC…. THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING NOTICE; BUT WE MUST CONTINUE TO SIGN UNTIL ALL ANIMALS ARE PROTECTED FROM HUMAN SEXUAL PREDATORS.”
“This is terrific new’s, Hans-Michael Goldmann, please do the right thing & forbid this disgraceful, sinful, disgusting & immoral habit.
BERLIN, Nov 26 – Germany is set to tighten its laws against bestiality in a bid to improve animal welfare, a lawmaker involved in drafting the legislation said on Monday.
Bestiality was removed from Germany’s penal code in 1969 and since then has only been against the law if “significant harm” is inflicted on the animal.
But Hans-Michael Goldmann, head of the parliamentary commission looking into the subject, told AFP he wanted to “ban bestiality in a draft law on animal protection”. “My new Hero”
According to left-leaning daily Tageszeitung (TAZ), the new legislation will make bestiality punishable by a fine of up to 25,000 euros (Sh2.7 million).
The act will no longer depend on whether harm is inflicted, but rather on whether the animal is forced to commit “actions alien to the species” according to the draft legislation. “Are not most animals forced into these sexual relations with humans? They wouldn’t normally want to perform sex with a human!!”
A spokesman for the agriculture ministry told a regular government briefing that the new legislation aims to clarify the legal position.
“With this explicit ban, it will be easier to impose penalties and to improve animal protection,” Goldmann told mass circulation Bild. “Improve animal protection… that’s what we like to hear”
But the president of a group representing people who engage in the act of bestiality said he would take legal action. “This group is called ZETA…If they do we will double take it, bunch of sickening perverted Neanderthals”
“It is unthinkable that any sexual act with an animal is punished without proof that the animal has come to any harm,” Michael Kiok said in an interview with the TAZ.
Zoophiles are up in arms.“We will take legal action against this,” Michael Kiok, chairman of zoophile pressure group ZETA (Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information), told SPIEGEL ONLINE. “We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don’t force them to do anything.”
He said sex with pets wasn’t demeaning to the animals, and that they make it evident if they’re not interested.
“People have tried to create the false impression that we hurt animals,” said Kiok, who lives with an Alsatian called Cessie. He said he has had special feelings for animals ever since he was four or five and that the fascination took on erotic elements in his teens.
Still Legal in Denmark
Sex with animals has been banned in a number of European countries including France, Switzerland and even the liberal Netherlands. Sweden is preparing a ban too, said Kiok. “But it’s still legal in Denmark.”
In most cases, the sexual partners are likely to be dogs because they are such common pets now. In the days of old, it used to be cows, horses, sheeps, goats and pigs, said Kiok.
Sexual research in the 1940s suggested that 5 to 8 percent of men and 3 to 5 percent of women engaged in zoophilia. “That would put the figure in Germany at 1.6 million but that’s definitely too high. Taking a wild guess, I’d say it’s well over 100,000,” said Kiok.
He criticized the planned legal amendment because it still didn’t ban the unanesthetized castration of piglets in the meat processing industry, or the branding of horses. He also said the farming industry sexually abuses animals by allowing breeders to ram electric rods into the backsides of boars to make them ejaculate, and tying up mares so that they can be mounted by stallions.
Kiok knows what his first priority will be if the law is passed in parliament: “I’m going to make sure I keep my dog.” “Well that tells you what he intends to carry on doing…doesn’t it!”
“The sign below is the ZETA logo, so zoophiles can recognise one another!”
“Related articles: Below are just a few of the posts regards bestiality…Please click the last one which has the best petitions to sign. We also need Animal Abuse Registry’s…you will find a petition for this within the lick. Please keep signing & passing along…we must stop sentient beings having their innocence taken away by human sex pests.”
(I know, I know, I am behind with a lot of posts, so some news has been & gone… I’m going as fast as I physically can do… )
“I honestly don’t think anybody should have the right to own & especially breed wild animals. If want to see a wild animal then go to its habitat instead of being lazy & growing one in your backyard!”
COLUMBUS, Ohio(AP) — Four owners of exotic animals in Ohio are suing the state’s agriculture department and its director over a new law regulating dangerous wildlife, contending the restrictions threaten their First Amendment and property rights.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in Columbus federal court. It comes as the owners faced a Monday deadline to register their animals with the state.
In this Aug. 25, 2010 photo, Cyndi Huntsman poses in front of caged tigers at her Stump Hill Farm in Massillon, Ohio. Huntsman is one of four owners of exotic animals in Ohio suing the state’s agriculture department and its director over a new law regulating the dangerous wildlife. Photo: Mark Duncan / AP
The owners’ attorney said Monday that the state has agreed not to enforce certain provisions of the law until there’s a hearing on the lawsuit. Attorney Robert Owens said lawyers were still reviewing the agreement, but a court order detailing the arrangement was expected in the coming days.
For instance, under the agreement, Ohio officials wouldn’t refer owners for prosecution if they didn’t register their animals by Monday.
Under the law, owners who don’t register could face a first-degree misdemeanor charge for a first offense, and a fifth-degree felony for any subsequent offenses.
A spokeswoman for the agriculture department declined to comment on the lawsuit and the agreement.
The owners claim the law forces them to join private associations and possibly give up their animals without compensation. They also take issue with a requirement that the animals be implanted with a microchip before they’re registered, so the creatures can be identified if they get lost or escape.
The state has said it would work with owners on the microchip requirement.
As of Monday, Ohio’s agriculture department said it had received 130 registration forms accounting for 483 dangerous wild animals in the state.
In this Aug. 25, 2010 photo, Cyndi Huntsman holds a baby zebra at her Stump Hill Farm in Massillon, Ohio. Huntsman is one of four owners of exotic animals in Ohio suing the state’s agriculture department and its director over a new law regulating the dangerous wildlife. Photo: Mark Duncan / AP
Ohio’s restrictions on exotic animals had been among the nation’s weakest.
State lawmakers worked with a renewed sense of urgency to strengthen the law after owner Terry Thompson last fall released 50 creatures from an eastern Ohio farm in Zanesville before he committed suicide.
Authorities killed 48 of the animals, fearing for the public’s safety. Two others were presumed eaten by other animals. The six surviving animals were placed under quarantine at the zoo. Five were later returned to Thompson’s widow, Marian Thompson. The zoo had to euthanize one leopard.
Marian Thompson was among those who registered animals with the state. She submitted information for the two leopards, two primates and a bear that survived.
Registration forms obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request also show she has two 11-week-old leopards on the property.
The owners suing the state have multiple breeds of exotic animals. They are Terry Wilkins, who owns a reptile and amphibian store called Captive Born Reptiles in Columbus; Cyndi Huntsman, owner of Stump Hill Farm in Massillon; Mike Stapleton, owner of Paws & ClawsAnimal Sanctuary in Prospect; and Sean Trimbach, owner ofBest Exotics LLC in Medway, where he breeds, raises and sells exotic animals.
In their lawsuit, the owners say the cost of implanting a microchip in the animal can exceed the animal’s value. They also contend that joining certain groups to become exempt from the law means they would have to associate and fund organizations with which they disagree.
While the law took effect last month, some aspects have yet to kick in. For instance, a permit process for owners won’t begin until next October.
Current owners who want to keep their animals must obtain the new state-issued permit by Jan. 1, 2014. They must pass background checks, pay fees, obtain liability insurance or surety bonds, and show inspectors that they can properly contain the animal and care for it.
One of the factors of obtaining of permit includes timely registration.
If owners are denied permits or can’t meet the new requirements, the state can seize the animals.
The New Jersey Senateunanimously passedS1303, designated as Patrick’s Law, yesterday afternoon.
Patrick
The bill is named for thePit Bullnamed Patrick, who was rescued in 2011 after he was starved to the brink of death, then dumped down an apartment complextrash chute in Newark.
The proposed lawrevises penalties foranimal cruelty, toughening both civil and criminal penalties forabuse and neglect. Photographs of the emaciated dog with the big haunting eyes that accompanied his story rallied activists and the general public to the cause.
The bill increases tocrimes of the fourth degree the offenses of depriving an animal of necessary sustenance, or abusing an animal, and it increases the grade of these offenses to crimes of the third degree if the animal dies as a result of these acts. The civil penalty for these offenses will also be increased under the bill to a fine of $1,000 to $3,000 for a first offense, and $3,000 to $5,000 for a second or subsequent offense.
The bill will additionally increase the criminal and civil penalties for inflicting unnecessary cruelty upon a living animal or creature by any direct or indirect means, unnecessarily failing to provide a living animal with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather, or leaving it unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions. The criminal penalty will be increased to a fine between $500 and $2,000,imprisonment for a term up to six months, or both, at the discretion of the court. If an animal is killed or dies as a result of one of these violations, or the person has a prior conviction, the person will be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. The civil penalty recoverable will be a fine of between $500 and $2,000.
Court ordered restitution to the animal’s owner will include the monetary cost of replacing the animal, plus any costs for food, shelter, veterinary care, euthanasia, if necessary, or other costs.
The bill was sponsored by Senators Tom Kean Dick and Codey. It heads to the Assembly for consideration before it becomes law.
Senator Kean said in a statement after yesterday’s vote, “How someone treats animals in their care is a window into his or her soul. Caring for an animal comes with basic responsibilities that include finding a safe, humane environment for that animal if you cannot or do not wish to care for it any longer. Patrick’s Law will make the penalties for those who shirk those responsibilities appropriately more severe.”
A significant aspect of Patrick’s Law is its recognition of extreme neglect as an act of cruelty comparable to any other.
Patrick, called a miracle dog, recovered and continues to thrive.
“I know this beautiful dog passed over Rainbow Bridge in 2010, but it didn’t stop me from shedding a few tears for him. Such a gentle giant, he didn’t deserve to be ill treated, no animal does! Why do people get pets, only to abandoned them when they’ve had enough. Can’t be bothered to walk or play with the dog anymore, CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO FEED THE DAMN DOG either”. R.I.P Zack x
They could face up to one year in jail on the charge after discovery of their emaciated dog, Zack.
A Farmingdale couple whoseGreat Danewas found emaciated from neglect has been convictedof animal neglect by aNassau CountyJury.
Rose Neira, 32, and her husband Danny Neira, 41, a New York City police officer, were convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect after being accused of failing to provide food and medical care for their dog, Zack. The jury took just three hours to convict the couple, whose dog weighed just 87 pounds when it was found by authorities.
The animal, despite extensive rehabilitative efforts by veterinarians including surgery, died about a month later.
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said the couple faces up to one year in jail. They are due back in court Dec. 11 for sentencing.
“There is no excuse or explanation for this level of cruelty and neglect, and I am shocked that these two people, one of whom is a police officer,did nothing while Zack wasted away in front of their eyes,” Rice said.
The case dates to Nov. 22, 2010, when district attorney investigators andmembers of the DA’s Animal Crimes Unit went to the Neiras’ home after receiving multiple tips that an animal was being neglected there.
Investigators found a 2-year-old Great Dane named Zack, “grossly emaciated with protruding ribs and its backbone visible through its skin,” Rice said.
When questioned by investigators, Rose Neira initially claimed that the dog’s condition was due to parasites, but she could not provide the name of a veterinarian for the animal, nor could she produce any medication that was being administered to the animal. She stated that she kept the Great Dane in the kitchen, taking it out only once a night, and that she had not sought veterinary treatment for more than a year.
Danny Neira is an officer with the New York Police Department, the district attorney’s office said.
Prosecutors obtained a warrant to seize the dog the following day and the Town of Oyster Bay’s Animal Control transported it to Oyster Bay Animal Hospital, where it was treated by a veterinarian for 10 days.
In addition to the dog’s emaciated appearance, its nails were damaged and overgrown and its ear cavities were caked with dirt and grease. Zack’s multiple health issues forced veterinarians to feed him intravenously, authorities said.
A normal, healthy Great Dane should weigh between 120 and 150 pounds. Zack succumbed to multiple health problems on Dec. 1, 2010 while still receiving around-the-clock veterinary care.
Assistant District Attorney Matthew Libroia of the Animal Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case for the DA’s Office. The Neiras are represented by Robert DelGrosso.
Numerous reptiles, turtles, birds and fish were also observed living in unsanitary conditions inside the Neira home, many of which were seized by authorities.
“I strongly encourage anyone who is aware of an animal being abused or neglected to contact my office’sAnimal Abusehotline at (516) 571-ACHL,” Rice said.
Danny and Rose Neira were convicted of neglecting their their Great Dane, Zach. This video was taken by an investigator from District Attorney Kathleen Rice’s Animal Crimes Unit. Though vets tried to save Zach, his organs had deteriorated too much to survive. His visible ribs and vertebrae, unclipped nails, and dirty ears are additional evidence of neglect. DA Rice created the animal crimes unit to protect animals like Zack, but also because those who are cruel to animals often harm people too. To report animal abuse in Nassau County, call the anonymous Animal Crimes Hotline at (516) 680-8624.
Raul Ayala claims his dog was shot ‘in cold blood’ by police officer Ray Huffman
Video shows the cop firing several shots at the dog before dragging it away and washing the blood away with a hose
Town stands by Officer Huffman, saying that the shooting was justified
A heartbroken father claims a police officer shot his family’s dog ‘in cold blood’ in a gruesome act by a local police officer – all caught by his home securitycameras.
Family tragedy: The Ayala family looked to Bos as a guard dog
Raul Ayala of Lyman, Nebraska, said he had gone into town on September 22 with his wife and children, leaving his 18-month-old Rottweiler, Bos, in the yard.
He later received a call from his brother-in-law, saying that he had heard shots being fired and went to the house to find Bos was dead.
After returning to his house, Mr Ayala looked at his home security tapes, where he saw the officer fire about four shots from close range.
Bos can be seen spinning in place before collapsing and writhing on the sidewalk.
The video was also posted onYouTube on October 14 by Pittsburgh Cop Block, an organisation dedicated to naming and shaming police officers believed to have used excessive force or brutality
The police officer, Ray Huffman of the Lyman Police Department, claimed that he had only shot Bos after pepper spray was ineffective – and that the dog had lunged at him.
A post on the ‘Justice for Bos Ayala’ Facebook page reads: ‘He protected us with all he had he wasn’t just a dog he was more like family my baby who didn’t deserve what happen (sic).’
Also on the video, the officer comes into the shot as Bos lays dying, grabs the animal by one of his back legs, and drags him off to the side.
He then takes a hose that was hanging nearby and uses it to rinse the blood off the concrete. He tosses the hose on the ground just before the video ends.
Police said that Huffman washed the blood away because he did not want the family to see it.
The family is now calling for Huffman’s dismissal from the Lyman Police Department.
But the village won’t budge, saying that it has numerous witnesses ‘who saw the dog acting aggressively and that it was not the first time.’
The Village of Lyman said in a statement that it ‘supports the actions taken by Officer Huffman and will defend such actions unless it is proven that Officer Huffman acted negligently in his duties as a police officer.’
But Ayala claims the security tape shows that the village is wrong, and that the shooting was not justified.
Mr Ayala told the Star Herald: ‘Nothing in the Village of Lyman’s statement is consistent with what is shown on my video. Furthermore, nothing said by Mr Huffman is consistent with what is being shown on my video.’
A heartbroken father claims a police officer shot his family’s dog ‘in cold blood’ in a gruesome act by a local police officer – all caught by his home security cameras.
Raul Ayala of Lyman, Nebraska, said he had gone into town on September 22 with his wife and children, leaving his 18-month-old Rottweiler, Bos, in the yard.
He later received a call from his brother-in-law, saying that he had heard shots being fired and went to the house to find Bos was dead.
A day after police shot one of two loose pit bulls they say “terrorized” an East Boston neighbourhood attacking a boy and killing a cat, Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed to resurrect a city pit bull muzzling rule that will be fixed next month when a state law takes effect that bans breed-specific legislation.
“We’re going to continue to press for legislation that will deal with the issues of putting pit bulls in the city of Boston. … They do need a special law. … Pit bulls have that little strain in them that are vicious,” Menino said, calling it “ridiculous” that state legislators acted to override the Hub’s 2004 pit bull ordinance and similar lawsin Lowell, Winthrop and elsewhere.
ROUNDED UP: Mayor Thomas M. Menino vows strict rules on pit bulls despite the current law getting cleared off the books on Nov. 1. Below, a pit bull is loaded into a van after going on a rampage Friday in East Boston.
The city’s doomed pit bull control law requires owners to register their dogs, muzzle them in public, post “beware of dog” signs and limit them to two per household.
Boston Animal Control Director Mark Giannangelo could not say yesterday whether the two pit bulls that escaped a Sumner Street apartment Friday were registered.
Bruin, the dog police shot, and the other dog, Max, which was corralled by cops, are being held until a city hearing to determine their fate, which under state law could be as severe as having the dogs killed or as light as having them returned to their owner.
Backers of the law that revamped state animal control codes, which goes into effect Nov. 1, argue Boston’s pit bull muzzle rule has not reduced dog bites.
“The ordinance is still in place and didn’t prevent this incident. Breed-specific ordinances don’t work,” said Kara Holmquit, the MSPCA’s director of advocacy. “To truly prevent dog bites, a comprehensive dangerous dog law that is well-enforced needs to be embraced.”
State Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville), who sponsored the law and called Friday’s attack “horrible,” said there are provisions in the state law to deal with dangerous dogs that don’t discriminate by breed.
“I really want to protect people against dangerous dogs. I believe what we did is a good solution for that,” Jehlen said.
But City Councilor Robert Consalvo, who penned the city’s pit bull law and now may seek a home-rule petition to exempt the Hub from the ban on breed-specific laws, said a pit bull’svice-like jaws and history of being bred as a fighting dog make it more dangerous.
“I get that poodles bite. But if a poodle or beagle bites me, I can defend myself,” he said. “A pit bull’s a much more aggressive attack.”
One of two rampaging pit bulls was shot by cops in East Boston yesterday after it bit a 14-year-old boy in the buttocks, mauled and killed a cat and frightened residents — all just weeks before a city law requiring the breed to be muzzled in public will be revoked.
BITING CRIME: Animal Control officers and Boston police respond in East Boston yesterday, after two pit bulls struck fear in the neighbourhood, injuring a teenage boy and killing a cat.
“These two dogsterrorized the neighbourhood … Theyhad already lashed out and bit a young boy and a cat. If we didn’t take a shot at the dog, who knows who else would have been bit,”Boston PoliceSuperintendent William Evans said at the scene.Boston City CouncilorRob Consalvo, who drafted the city’s pit bull control law six years ago, said the city should brace for more pit mull mayhem as the state’s new animal cruelty law goes into effect Nov. 1, wiping muzzling rules off the books.
“This is a scene that’s going to get replayed over and over again when we don’t have an ordinance in place that gives police and animal controlthe tools to control this,” Consalvo said.
The new animal rights bill signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrickblocks municipalities from creating any “breed specific” rules.
The Hub’s lame duck law requires owners to register pit bulls, keep dogs muzzled in public and post “beware of dog” signs on their property. It also bars residents from housing more than two pit bulls. Similar laws in Lowell, Canton, Winthrop and elsewhere will also be nullified.
Yesterday, two pit bulls — Max and Bruin — chewed and clawed their way through a screen and jumped out an open first-floor window of their owner’s Sumner Street apartment while the couple was dining out. The dogs then went on their rampage.
After police shot and wounded Bruin at the corner of Maverick and Cottage streets, the dog ran a block away and had to be cornered by cops in a driveway. Max ran home.
Louis Gizzi, 85, was sweeping his deck at his Everett Street home when the dogs ran up to him.
“It snarled at me. He came after me. One dog spotted the cat and chased him out of the yard. He killed him. He shook him so hard I thought it was a rag doll at first,” said Rizzi, who used his broom to smack one of the pit bulls in the snout. “If it wasn’t for the broom, I think they would have attacked me.”
Calvin Clemons, 24, and his wife, Amanda Bright, 22, questioned why the police had to shoot their dog.
“I know he wouldn’t hurt anybody. He’s only a puppy,” said a teary-eyed Bright, 22. “Everybody thinks just because it’s a pit pull, he’s a vicious dog.”
Neighbour John Rizzo, 26, disagreed, saying the pit bulls have gone on the run before.
“They came up to our porch barking, pinning my wife inside with a 2-month-old baby in her arms,” he said. “They are menacing, big dogs … Without muzzles and leashes these dogs can’t be controlled. They need to reconsider that law.”
DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS BLOG - SOME PICTURES & VIDEOS CAN & WILL BE VERY GRAPHIC - SO PLEASE, VIEW THIS BLOG AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION.
You can find out more about me & this blog by reading "ABOUT THIS BLOG" on the menu.
PLEASE NOTE.....
Not all of my posts will be current news, or even about animal abuse! I do like to share other animal news, uplifting stories or videos; some that are funny or just touch the heart!
If I have anything to say on any post, you will see it in bold blue writing. I try to remain a lady, but it's hard to contain my anger & emotions at the some of the stories I post; I don’t have a heart of stone, tears stain many articles I write!
Lastly, my apologies for any errors; I am learning whilst posting, so if you find anything that doesn't work or a broken link, sorry, I'm only human!!!!
PLEASE REPORT THESE MF’s If you know who they are!
Face Book – Please Take Notice
For anyone wishing to connect to me via my Facebook page...PLEASE NOTE, ONLY PEOPLE I ADD AS ANIMAL ADVOCATES CAN SEE MY WHOLE PAGE...I do this out of respect for those friends I have who do not wish to see graphic images, videos or links of animal abuse!
As 99% of my page is animal related; anyone not in the above group of friends; will only see a limited amount of posts!!
DUE TO ANIMAL HATERS...I WILL ONLY ADD PEOPLE WHO CAN PROVE WHO THEY ARE via Face Bool, Word press, Twitter etc. & WHO HAVE A GENUINE INTEREST IN ANIMAL WELFARE... i.e. if your Face book page has absolutely nothing to do with animals, I see no point in joining my page. My Face book is solely for animal welfare, I am not interested in playing games etc. I don't mean to sound rude but I am not interested in the amount of friends I have, its the quality of those friends that count...PLEASE DO NOT SEND REQUESTS FOR YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN. I do not want anyone to be upset by graphic images etc.
My aim is to educate & raise awareness to the horrors animals face, at the hands of humans, every day, around the world!!
We can not hope to achieve better laws, to protect animals, unless we unite as one, to speak up for those who are voiceless!!
.
)
DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS BLOG - SOME PICTURES & VIDEOS CAN & WILL BE VERY GRAPHIC - SO PLEASE, VIEW THIS BLOG AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION.
