Fairfax why dont you go back to the thread you started? Whats that ? You didnt get any adoration over there? You say people are calling you an asshat there? Poor dear. I guess they meant to say tinhat. Kinda follows you from thread to thread doesnt it ?
<just shaking head wondering how you could not understand how blithering preposterous you appear to others>:no:
[QUOTE=BabyGreen;6575908]
Correction, Roy. Fayette County Courthouse is in Somerville. Collierville is in Shelby County. The abuse took place in Fayette County, just east of Collierville.
I mention this because I’m proud of the Fayette County Sheriff and prosecutors who are willing to bring the hammer down on animal abusers in this rural, conservative, Southern county. Just Sunday, the Sheriff busted an animal hoarder and confiscated 168 animals (as well as two children), living in deplorable conditions.[/QUOTE]
:)Good to know about Fayette County ! Jackie picked the wrong county to screw up in. Im sure the judge will do the best he can do. Too bad the teeth :mad: of the animal abuse law were added after Jackie was caught, but at least they are there now.
[QUOTE=WalkInTheWoods;6575967]
Fairfax why dont you go back to the thread you started? Whats that ? You didnt get any adoration over there? You say people are calling you an asshat there? Poor dear. I guess they meant to say tinhat. Kinda follows you from thread to thread doesnt it ?
<just shaking head wondering how you could not understand how blithering preposterous you appear to others>:no:[/QUOTE]
Absolutely right WalkInTheWoods! Fairfax will never get it, he needs to go to a Big Lick board.
Agreed - Fearfacts acts like someone off their meds or needing to be on meds.
[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6575135]
interesting link
Tennessee state law re: Animal Cruelty
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cruelty/tn_cruel.htm
excerpt: (all italics mine)
“39-14-202 Cruelty to animals.
(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly:
…
(5) Inflicts burns, cuts, lacerations, or other injuries or pain, by any method, including blistering compounds, to the legs or hooves of horses in order to make them sore for any purpose including, but not limited to, competition in horse shows and similar events.
…
(d) In addition to the penalty imposed in subsection (f), the court making the sentencing determination for a person convicted under this section shall order the person convicted to surrender custody and forfeit the animal or animals whose treatment was the basis of the conviction. Custody shall be given to a humane society incorporated under the laws of this state. The court may prohibit the person convicted from having custody of other animals for any period of time the court determines to be reasonable, or impose any other reasonable restrictions on the person’s custody of animals as necessary for the protection of the animals.
…
(f) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.”
Reading the State statute, ‘at home’ soring can also be punished IF there are charges and a prosecution and conviction.
Note that the Federal law HPA in this case does NOT take away horses; and the State may.
Maybe some energy ought to be expended toward Tennessee enforcing it’s laws.
By the way, the original HPA does have a statement ‘any device…’ that would cover ALL the possible ways to mechanically sore a horse, so listing XYZ in the new version is superfluous anyway. If it results in soreness, charges can be attached, it doesn’t matter if it is your grandma’s lace hanky.
How about finding some funding or backing for enforcement of laws already here?[/QUOTE]
Under the criminal law of any jurisdiction a prosecutor must plead and prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So not only would a prosecutor have to prove a horse was sored under the law they would have to prove who did it. Frankly, unless the State has a witness that can testify that they observed the defendant apply the offending materials the State has problems.
Can “circumstantial” evidence (like care, custody, and control) be used? Certainly. But if it’s a much “dicier” situation.
Further, animal abuse cases are in competition with murder, rape, drug dealing, DUI, larceny, etc. for prosecutorial time and other assets. Every District Attorney General has to allocate the scarce resources of their office to the highest priorities as they see them. Under these circumstance you’re not going to see a tidal wave of State prosecutions for soring.
The HPA has both civil and criminal elements. The inspection system is built around the civil side of the Act as the standards of proof in a civil care are lower. The Feds got lucky with Jackie (due, largely, to his arrogance). There are a few others they might get “lucky” with. But note that the Feds, at the end of the day, did a plea deal rather than go to trial. Juries are always an unknown quality. Trials also take up enormous resources (remember that “competition thing” with other serious offenses). The judge may have some “heartburn” with the sentence agreed to but the prosecution decision to get a conviction (with an admittedly modest sentence) might be a much better thing than an acquittal and no sentence at all.
Put another way, the prosecutors made a decision based upon the totality of circumstances facing them. While be might disagree with their decision, it was neither rash nor “cowardly” nor otherwise morally or ethically reprehensible.
G.
[QUOTE=walknsound;6576029]
Absolutely right WalkInTheWoods! Fairfax will never get it, he needs to go to a Big Lick board.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean that Fairfax will never get it? I think he/she has more sense about this whole TWH problems then most of you on this thread.
[QUOTE=walknsound;6576029]
Absolutely right WalkInTheWoods! Fairfax will never get it, he needs to go to a Big Lick board.[/QUOTE]
I DO get it…and that is the problem Interesting it has to turn PERSONAL…that only occurs when one is losing the battle
WE GET IT…Bald Stockings has posted THE LAWS…
If you change the laws and they become wide sweeping they are almost IMPOSSIBLE to change or exclude breeds
When those inspectors turn out to be HSUS Animal Control trained individuals…they will proclaim every horse is sore.
I have read some of the most absurd posts from you and a couple of others…owning a horse that twenty years later still flinches due to the soring…maybe the horse is sore due to a conformation problem
You can not lay all the problems with your breed on the soring issue and the fact that many of you have clearly stated you don’t care if it negatively impacts other breeds…too bad … etc…doesn’t leave the door open for other breeds to give you much more than lip service support
[QUOTE=Guilherme;6576050]
Under the criminal law of any jurisdiction a prosecutor must plead and prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So not only would a prosecutor have to prove a horse was sored under the law they would have to prove who did it. Frankly, unless the State has a witness that can testify that they observed the defendant apply the offending materials the State has problems.
Can “circumstantial” evidence (like care, custody, and control) be used? Certainly. But if it’s a much “dicier” situation.
Further, animal abuse cases are in competition with murder, rape, drug dealing, DUI, larceny, etc. for prosecutorial time and other assets. Every District Attorney General has to allocate the scarce resources of their office to the highest priorities as they see them. Under these circumstance you’re not going to see a tidal wave of State prosecutions for soring.
The HPA has both civil and criminal elements. The inspection system is built around the civil side of the Act as the standards of proof in a civil care are lower. The Feds got lucky with Jackie (due, largely, to his arrogance). There are a few others they might get “lucky” with. But note that the Feds, at the end of the day, did a plea deal rather than go to trial. Juries are always an unknown quality. Trials also take up enormous resources (remember that “competition thing” with other serious offenses). The judge may have some “heartburn” with the sentence agreed to but the prosecution decision to get a conviction (with an admittedly modest sentence) might be a much better thing than an acquittal and no sentence at all.
Put another way, the prosecutors made a decision based upon the totality of circumstances facing them. While be might disagree with their decision, it was neither rash nor “cowardly” nor otherwise morally or ethically reprehensible.
G.[/QUOTE]
Too many cases in the courts that disprove your theory. Many illegal rescues are initially charged by a county prosecutor.
Under ANY law you are going to have to PROVE someone is guilty. It doesn’t work like this thread where a person can be convicted before their trial…so much that has been printed here has bordered on slander…
[QUOTE=Fairfax;6576115]
Too many cases in the courts that disprove your theory. Many illegal rescues are initially charged by a county prosecutor.
Under ANY law you are going to have to PROVE someone is guilty. It doesn’t work like this thread where a person can be convicted before their trial…so much that has been printed here has bordered on slander…[/QUOTE]
I don’t doubt that there are successful county prosecutions. But a local DA has far fewer assets than a U.S. Attorney. You’ll not see a sweeping wave of prosecutions unless there’s a big increase in prosecutorial assets.
There is also a vast difference in proof in a case of mass lack of care for a herd of horses and “who hit John” when dealing with one, sored up horse.
You’ve stated that “action devices” don’t sore horses. I believe you are in error. The HPA agrees with me, in that action devices are very specifically addressed. Just what can and cannot be used is regulated. In DQP training inspectors are taught how action devices “sore” a horse (mostly as a result of alteration of native movement, causing pain and discomfort that translates into a “winning” gait). When somebody tells me that “heavy shoes don’t sore up a horse” I know they are either ignorant (and should educate themselves) or have an agenda.
I’ll say it again: Chemical and mechanical devices both can sore up a horse under the Act.
That some people choose to not believe this does not make it false. The evidence on the matter is clear to anyone who chooses to evaluate it with a neutral eye.
G.
Thanks Guilherme for factual information.
I cant remember if this link has been posted before. It is an older article. It explains how soring methods are many and as secretive as Aunt Jean’s pecan pie recipe. It goes into a bit of detail about different methods of pressure shoeing, soring and mechanical soring. It also says that pressure shoeing offenses can be detected with hoof testers as i said a few posts back.
http://www.americanfarriers.com/pages/Soring-(Part-1)-Disgraceful-Practice-Continues.php
I cant confirm this but am hearing that Jackie McConnell’s trial today may have been postponed until Nov 13.
[QUOTE=WalkInTheWoods;6576344]
I cant confirm this but am hearing that Jackie McConnell’s trial today may have been postponed until Nov 13.[/QUOTE]
Here is the confirmation.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/sep/25/collierville-horse-trainer-mcconnells-trial/
“I think this law above is a very recent addition to Tennessee. Current news is enforcement is commin on this. The McConnell’s are soon to be in state court on this.”
Only if you consider 1997 recent -that would be 15 years.
The Tennessee statute I linked to scroll to the bottom for date:
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cruelty/tn_cruel.htm
I don’t argue that shoes, devices and pads can’t be used to sore, I argue that misuse should be unlawful, not correct use.
-a horse’s head can be tied short to one side to a saddle or surcingle and damage a horse: so reins should be banned by your logic because they could be used in that manner.
I disagree.
[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6576426]
“I think this law above is a very recent addition to Tennessee. Current news is enforcement is commin on this. The McConnell’s are soon to be in state court on this.”
Only if you consider 1997 recent -that would be 15 years.
The Tennessee statute I linked to scroll to the bottom for date:
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cruelty/tn_cruel.htm
I don’t argue that shoes, devices and pads can’t be used to sore, I argue that misuse should be unlawful, not correct use.
-a horse’s head can be tied short to one side to a saddle or surcingle and damage a horse: so reins should be banned by your logic because they could be used in that manner.
I disagree.[/QUOTE]
Please define “mis-use” and “correct use.” Be specific.
Then please give an example of language that you might like to see in a law that applies these in a Constitutional fashion.
G.
“Then please give an example of language that you might like to see in a law that applies these in a Constitutional fashion.”
The crime is ‘to sore’.
The proof is ‘lameness’. Or the state of ‘being sore’. Or scars or other evidence of prior soring.
The existing laws already have excellent language. Feel free to read them. They are not enforced.
Money shouldn’t be going to lobbyists for new law amendments - unless you are actually upping the $$ and jail time penalties for Soring; which should be a simple inflationary proof not needing mass publicity and name-calling.
Otherwise you just get to have a new law on the books (and feel good about doing something?) that can again be un-enforced for the next several decades.
Just for curiosity, what happened at the last Celebration?
How many horses passed the HPA inspection and were shown?
I’d ask how many weren’t sored, per the legal definition that the inspectors had to go by and which would equal every horse they passed; that would be too inflammatory.
[QUOTE=D_BaldStockings;6576588]
“Then please give an example of language that you might like to see in a law that applies these in a Constitutional fashion.”
The crime is ‘to sore’.
The proof is ‘lameness’. Or the state of ‘being sore’. Or scars or other evidence of prior soring.
The existing laws already have excellent language. Feel free to read them. They are not enforced.
Money shouldn’t be going to lobbyists for new law amendments - unless you are actually upping the $$ and jail time penalties for Soring; which should be a simple inflationary proof not needing mass publicity and name-calling.
Otherwise you just get to have a new law on the books (and feel good about doing something?) that can again be un-enforced for the next several decades.
Just for curiosity, what happened at the last Celebration?
How many horses passed the HPA inspection and were shown?
I’d ask how many weren’t sored, per the legal definition that the inspectors had to go by and which would equal every horse they passed; that would be too inflammatory.[/QUOTE]
So you have no problem with the current language? You just want more vigorous enforcement?
I did ask two questions; you’ve answered one.
G.
the USDA has given the TWH trainers and owners time to end the problems in their industry,many many violations have been written,many many violations have been ignored,people like David Howard and the twhnc have placed abusive trainer’s names in the Hall of Fame, Jackie McConnell’s name removed after a video they could not cover up was shown world wide.does this sound like trying to change,NO. it does not take 40 yrs to change it takes people that want to change. they don’t
some are saying well the Law is on the books just enforce it,when done in dark barns,having the HIO looking the other way,judges bein told what horse to pin.and people that know a trainer sores,people will not turn them in to the Law so it can be enforced.
I blame YOU the ONES that scream i don’t sore my Horse, you that turned a blind eye,you yes you are guilty if you had stood up these past forty years forced your registry to do something. we would not be here. Soring and beating would have ended.
How is I have used chains, rollers stretchies, bell boots leg wraps and I have NEVER sored a horse. Soring CHEMICALS AND devices…no one doubts that.
I have used pads…again…no soring…
Of course don’t use them in the show ring…
None of the posters seems to want to address the soring versus the way of going issue.
I am all for getting rid of BL…but NOT at the expense because the TWHA can not control their members
As for county prosecutors…many times the penalties are harsher…
[QUOTE=WalkInTheWoods;6576044]
Agreed - Fearfacts acts like someone off their meds or needing to be on meds.[/QUOTE]
How funny… darn it…I wish you at least understood the premise of sarcasm.
AARAPASO…why should I even be aware of the issue. Most shows do not have BL. Why should we be held accountable that your much loved Danes couldn’t do
For you to point fingers while blaiming us for your problems does NOT make other breeds even wanting to hear about your problems let alone say something about them.
According to child welfare MORE black babies are apprehended in proportion to the number of births than white babies. Does that mean ALL black babies should be seized at birth?
The logic on this forum is now just childish…a group who started out by trying to do something positive and now…like the Salem Witch trials…they are accusing everyone. Result…others will just block your efforts in their states
If your law enforcement can not do anything then sign a pak with the devil HSUS and tell them you will back them to help them prosecute. Bet you will be laughed out of Maryland and Washington D.C.
So why then, since your breed is not TWH and this doesn’t concern you or your horses, are you constantly coming back to this thread to argue?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
