Wow. Harnesses for birds. Who knew :rolleyes:
I have also respected Loriā¦up until now. Iām another poster who is surprised and a bit sad at what she has posted here. And my attitude is far from childish. Just sad, more than anything, in regards to the whole situation and at some of the responses Iāve read here.
[QUOTE=Thomas_1;5162134]
Well actually I have no problem with people having different opinions.
What I think is stupid is people not being able to see whatās under their nose.
People seeking to defend neglect and cruelty.
People making up little stories about what might and might not have gone wrong.
People wondering off into the realms of fantasy and conspiracy.
People trying to justify abysmal standards of care.
People trying to argue that keeping horses with a saggy strip of electric tape and a bent gate tied with rope to a cable drum is āfencingā.
People thinking that a load of collapsing gates tied together is a round pen!
People trying to argue that shelter can be a canvas tent but really you donāt have to have anything at all.
People trying to say that the neighbours are puke because they donāt have media skills and wouldnāt fix PPās fencing and properly feed her horses for her.
People talking about sending money to someone they donāt know and havenāt met just because sheās had her horses taken into care by Animal Control
People enabling animal hoarding and condoning poor management and encouraging the lowest standards possible.
Now THATāS terminal stupidity!
So is that you?[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with youā¦
What is irrational about any discussion or posts I have made?
Because I have lost respect for many of the posters defending not only this situation but the minimalist horse keeping standards?
Lori, aka sunkist acres rescue probably surprises and disappoints me the most. Yes, I have lost total respect. Mostly because she thinks once animals are seized, that the owner will never get them back. Uh, hello, last I checked, you do have an opportunity to get your animals back if a judge determines you have made changes or were not given due process. Animals just donāt get seized and end of story, so for Sunkist acres to state that, well, hmmmm.
as far as some of her other comments, read the response from thomasā¦I totally agree.
Will repeat, sensationalized post from someone who is suppose to be knowledgable? yikes.
[QUOTE=Huntertwo;5163183]
If a town received repeated calls of loose horses in the road belonging to the same person, and the town didnāt take actionā¦ Could the town be sued if a Driver was seriously injured or killed because of the same loose horses and the town never took any action?[/QUOTE]
I wouldnāt take the case.
Thereās a thing called the āPublic Duty Ruleā which sort of means the opposite of how it sounds. It means that while the authorities may have a duty to the public at large, they have no duty to keep individual members safe.
In order to sue someone for negligence, one first has to show the person owed one a duty.
So if AC/police/etc. owe Driver no duty, Driver canāt sue in negligence.
The only remedy Driver would have (probably) would be to sue HorseOwner. If HorseOwner had no insurance, then Driverās insurance would have to pay.
[quote=fivehorses;5163762]What is irrational about any discussion or posts I have made?
Because I have lost respect for many of the posters defending not only this situation but the minimalist horse keeping standards?
Lori, aka sunkist acres rescue probably surprises and disappoints me the most. Yes, I have lost total respect. Mostly because she thinks once animals are seized, that the owner will never get them back. Uh, hello, last I checked, you do have an opportunity to get your animals back if a judge determines you have made changes or were not given due process. Animals just donāt get seized and end of story, so for Sunkist acres to state that, well, hmmmm.
as far as some of her other comments, read the response from thomasā¦I totally agree.
Will repeat, sensationalized post from someone who is suppose to be knowledgable? yikes.
[/quote]
Unlike you two - or even me - Lori has a public persona and reputation that directly ties in with her work. And that work, the daily grind is - drum roll please - dealing with AC, seizures and neglect, even abuse.
So, when she comes here, putting her name and reputation out here to state the LEGAL side of things, not even the factual side, just the way things do happen and the consequences of things that are purely semantic to us but have a huge impact of the people and animals involved, some people canāt even read that for content other than that she did not grab a torch and pitch fork!
I understand it is much more amusing and satisfying to crucify the accused, but there are laws and regulations in place for a reason. And - as we learn time and time again - the devil is in the detail, a word, a comma changes the meaning of the written law, with all the consequences.
And in case you have forgotten already, Lori is - if anything - the champion for the animals. And as such she canāt afford the liberty we have to spout off our opinions, no matter how unfounded, because if she does it, she jeopardizes court cases to put the guilty party away!
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242091
In case you forgot what a starved and abandoned horse looks like.
Maybe I missed it in this swamp of a thread but I still havenāt seen one person ādefend abysmal standards of careā nor have I seen one person say āoh, it isnāt that badā. Iāve seen people question the legality of the seizure, and Iāve seen others say the horses should have been seized regardless.
None of us here make the law, including the poster who proudly pictured himself standing in front of a saggy strand of 3ā tall tape to fence his horses after declaring that a field shelter with electricity is either not being āused properlyā or is probably not a field shelter. Either way, weāre apparently morons to not leave fire hazards in wooden buildings. The mind boggles at that ego.
The ONLY question here is whether or not PP broke the law. Just because some of us are able to grasp that concept doesnāt mean ANYTHING about our own standard of care. It means we are aware that laws must first be broken before someone is charged.
It sounds like we can probably all agree that legal standards of care in this country are often way too low. Thatās not the point though; the current standards must have been disregarded for action to be taken in this instance. If the law in Maine states shelter year round, and there was none, then there you have it. It doesnāt matter what each of us think about shelter necessity (sorry, I think itās cruel to be without), it only matters what the law says. The quoted Maine law requiring a clean environment may well be a big problem for PP in this seizure. We can go on about our horses being fatter/shinier/whatever but it does.not.matter unless a law is broken. We can flip out about the number of times the horses have been loose, but again, we donāt count. Just the law (not sure what Maine laws are re: adequate fencing). Donāt think the lawās good enough? Work to change it. Otherwise, deal with the fact that none of us are above it, no one on this thread makes it regardless of how many seem to think their opinion is, in fact, the law, and we just have to wait and see what happens.
Honest to God - I canāt stand this anymore.
In my opinion, snkstacres is completely on-track with this situation. However we feel about Jaimeās facilities, this was not an abandonment or gross neglect case, by any stretch.
My name in real life is Margaret Odgers. I own Crazy Horse Farm in Paris, Kentucky. Iām the author of Dressage Riderās Survival Guide, and was an exhibitor at WEG. I met Jaime at WEG, and have spoken to several people involved in her ordeal.
I donāt claim to know all the info, but clearly more than most here on COTH. Fwiw, my best assessment of the situation is in agreement with snkstacres.
Which is - based on video weāve all seen - Jaime needs to get the hell out the breeding business and clean up her act. But the horses we saw in video were NOT in any dire condition. Considering the state of the horse economy - this says Jaime was not that far gone, but balanced on an edge many people are facing these days.
Given the precipice many horses live upon - weād only wish they were with someone like Jaime - today, not tomorrow. I live in Kentucky and can recite chapter and verse of horses that live in much more horrible circumstances than Jaimeās.
Meanwhile, this galās life is destroyed. Make no mistake. Shame on all of us - because there by the Grace of God we all go.
I sincerely wish Jaime and her horses the best outcome from this ordeal.
1 Like
Most sensible thing thatās been said on this thread for a.long.time.
bow
thank you.
Thank you, MAO. Exactly.
Lisa Cook, I wasnāt directing my comments to you. You calmly stated your opinion. I certainly respect that.
Mao, you nailed it. Maybe itās time to let this go and then start a new thread when there are new facts.
This situation should scare all horse owners and owners of any animal.
This should scare you because in a sense it is not about do you agree with PintoPiaffeās horse keeping standards. It is about whether the state is following its own processes and procedures. The fact that so many see no problem with the state just coming in and taking property on questionable grounds without following procedures worries me.
The original article cited lack of feed and water and referenced shelter issues as grounds for the seizure. When it became apparent that the horses were not in poor condition, somehow the complaint/seizure has morphed into an issue of loose horses (or at least on this thread).
Due process, right to a timely hearing, rights against unreasonable seizure of property all seem to be out the window.
Horses are property. We have a duty to care for those in our control, but a horse is property.
Newspapers can be and are often wrong in reporting. Neighbors can and do have their own agendas. Judgments in court are overturned because law enforcement has lied on the stand. Some who are guilty go free.
Do we know what is the truth in this situation? No, we donāt. The accused cannot speak, but everyone else can and is. Innocent until proven guilty, what happened to that concept?
So many people are willing to trash a personās life based on limited information from sources that may be biased and/or are sensationalizing the story. And the neighbors in this case are biased and have their own agendas.
Standards of horse care vary. Some variations are regional, some variations are discipline related, and some just vary by person. Very rarely are two people going to completely agree on anything related to a horse.
The fact that so many leap to judgment saddens me. The fact that people who question the process are getting jumped on scares me. The state apparently feels free to take property and not set a hearingā¦and so many appear to be okay with that. If that does not scare you, it should.
Ask yourself: what if animal control showed up with my worst enemy at my worst moment in time?
For my horses, I would hope that someone like snkstacres is involved.
Still, it comes back to IF AC found the horses with no water - especially for over 12 hours they had no choice IMO but to act. If those were my horses with no water, I would be thankful someone saved their lives.
AMEN Mao!
I cant believe people here are going to drag sunkissed acres through the mud for stating fact backed by her years of experience in the fieldā¦ Shame on those who did.
We are moving in circles.
I donāt think anybody disagrees that things were not peachy, but all things considered, due process needs to be followed to make things stick. For all we know the neighbors could have dumped the water and called ACā¦
Many things did go wrong, but that does not excuse AC from the nagging little question: Why are you here when few things are amiss, but not āthereā when the animals are actually starving!
Even the comments in the paper stated that.
Plus, you cannot make one person an example and throw him - or her in this case - under the jail for the missdeeds somebody else committed and got away with!
Excuse me. But people ārush to judgmentā every day. Part of living, learning and coping with life involves evaluating situations and making judgment calls about them.
Yes, a lot of people have tried to piece together what happened on this thread. We may not know much, but there is a fair amount of information floating around out there. There are all of PP own postings. There are not just news stories, which may or may not be accurate, but there are also pictures and videos. There are also court records.
The scenario I came up with at least tries to peice together what facts we have AND give PP the benefit of the doubt. Itās more than her supporters have done. They are just happy to slam the system and act like āthe gobāmentā is out to get PP. I get so tired of that attitude.
I my opinion, there is no more compelling reason to believe that the AC did anything wrong anymore than there is to believe that PP did. PPās own words posted on this BB do more to impinge her than any other.
What boggles my mind is that just because someone has met her in real life or on the internet and thinks sheās nice somehow translates into some type of knowledge that she didnāt break the law. Esp. when there is already a cruelty charge, conviction and fine on public record less than a year old.
There are probably people who think that the AC people who made the seizure are good hardworking people who have dedicated their lives to helping animals. Treating them like they are terrible people isnāt so nice either. Why is one so much more moral than the other?
SCFarm
Pray that you are never in her shoes.
Youāre so right. AC should have left them there without water. Until PP came home. In another 12 or so days.
Many things did go wrong, but that does not excuse AC from the nagging little question: Why are you here when few things are amiss, but not āthereā when the animals are actually starving!
Even the comments in the paper stated that.
Um, they would be at PPās place, the place with no water. Instead of helping the other ones that they didnāt have quite enough to go in and seize yet. Probably because those animals still had water.
Plus, you cannot make one person an example and throw him - or her in this case - under the jail for the missdeeds somebody else committed and got away with!
What is heavenās name are you talking about? Whoās under the jail? What āmisdeedsā?
:rolleyes:
