-
uh, partially in response to Anonymous who said "We all know from common sense that any dog can attack any time; however, as Silvia, Bob, Francesca and many more have said Brindi is a trainable dog. Isn't she?"
#1. Any responsible dog owner does not let their dog even get close to a red zone case (if you don't know what this is I suggest you look it up)
#2. Any responsible dog owner realizes after the first incident that they need to step up the training and step up the responsibility and abide by the laws set out in the place that they CHOSE to live in.
#3. If Brindi is SO trainable (which I believe all dogs are) why did her owner not train her properly to avoid all these issues in the first place????
#4. It's indisputable that the owner is the one who needs more training that Brindi does. Ignorance for the law is NEVER justifiable.
#5. Brindi's SOLE reason for being in the pound for almost 2 years now is thanks to an owner who can't mentally process that everyone has to abide by the same laws...failing that there are consequences.
#6. Brindi could have been out of the pound in less than 2 months and in a dog knowledgeable home where she would have been given the appropriate training had the owner CHOSEN to give that life to her. Brindi's 20 months of pound living were her owner's CHOICE therefore the owner has NO right to complain about her dog being in the pound. Any reasonable person would deduct that from 20 months of court battles and wasting the public's tax payers money and time that her dog would be 'held up' in the pound.
#7. The Courts have more pressing issues to deal with like rape, murder and child abuse.
#8. Most everyone in Canada (not all as I can clearly see there are still a few nutters left willing to shell out their hard earned tax dollars on this issue)is sick and tired of hearing about how a dog owner can't seem to take the responsibility for her own actions.
#9. a comment was made on another thread that posed the question "what would you do if you were in this owner's position?" (as if to justify this whole farce)The answer? What any sane and reasonable dog owner would do....what is best for the dog. Now if you agree what is best for Brindi is to be in a pound for 20 months instead of having the opportunity this entire time to be rehabilitated then you deserve to have the owner waste YOUR tax money not mine!
#10. Love is NOT enough for a dog to thrive on and to be a balanced happy animal. They need rules, boundaries and limitations....NONE of which this owner provided for Brindi, clearly as Brindi's past behaviour showed. Love would have been doing everyting in her power to keep Brindi from ever getting to this place and having to deal with what I can only call a grave lack of understanding and sheer unwilingness to learn in an effort to protect an animals welfare and well being. And NO, going to court during a span of almost 2 years to get your dog back after you have had 3 or more opportunities to correct the situation does NOT qualify as protecting your animal. That qualifies as a belligerent intent to show how ignorant you really are about animal welfare in general. This owner is down right lucky if she is ever allowed to own an animal again. I can tell you right now.....if Brindi gets returned to her owner and the ignorance continues it will be her death sentence. - March 9, 2010 5:20 PM
Post a Comment
I see there are no comments...could that be because it hit the nail right on the head??!?!?
ReplyDeleteWrong again. It is because some of us lifelong residents of Halifax-Dartmouth (not like come from aways like people from Amherst, Mill Village or Mount Pearl)have to work for a living - we aren't retired, write our blog at work or only work a few hrs a day. We don't live our lives on the internet or being obsessed with Francesca Rogier. So, you would like comments. Here they are.
ReplyDelete1. I don't think you can call Brindi a "red zone case" unless you have assessed her. Have you assessed her? Do you disagree with Silvia Jay's assessment? She did not consider Brindi a red zone case. All available evidence suggests Brindi needs further training but that she does not fall into this category.
2. Agreed.
3. A lot of people believe training, like education, is an ongoing, lifelong process. As well, new issues can pop up with a dog at any time for medical, behavioural, environmental reasons and then must be dealt with.
4. What law was "ignored?" How do you "train" an owner? Rehoming a dog does not train an owner.
5. This is completely untrue.
6. You cannot say that with certainty unless you work for HRM legal. Do you?
7. This is an irrelevant to the topic, and incorrect. These matters take a great deal of precedence in the legal system, obviously.
8. Most people in Canada have neither heard of this matter, nor would they care even if they did. It is mainly of concern to FR, HRM, the SPCA and after that the Franny fetishists, the dog clique types, FR supporters and some media...after that the interest gets pretty slim.
9. You said ignorance of the law is no excuse. You fail to understand that the law is what rules this situation. Feelings do not matter to HRM or the court. They do not make decisions based on feelings. They have been completely unwilling to consider any other alternative other than euthanasia. If FR surrendered her ownership to HRM they would order the SPCA or their subcontractor to kill Brindi. HRM has never offered or indicated openness to any other possibility. If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, I think you should make it publicly available after saying it so many times for so long. If it is just a belief, as I believe it is, then you cannot with any certainty say that it is something FR has rejected.
We all as animal lovers (I presume we are) have our feelings regarding Brindi's captivity but we must be realistic and accept that feelings have no place in the legal system.
10. I agree dogs need those things. It is untrue to say they were not provided to Brindi by FR. Brindi would not have passed Bob's course otherwise. He is a competent trainer, correct?
Love or proper training is not enough to prevent abuse of power by authorities, which is what happened. It can happen to anyone. Tim Hamm had the right to seize Brindi, but he did not have the right to seize her for purpose of euthanization. He had the duty to charge in a timely fashion and he did not. He should have investigated and he did not. What excuse does the law have when it is ignorant of the law? What responsibility does HRM have in passing laws that are unjust and unconstitutional? Why are you not talking about these VERY important matters as well? Why should HRM impound dogs for inordinate lengths of time with no appeal process? It is happening to dogs other than Brindi. What are you doing about them? Do they belong to so-called irresponsible owners as well? Let's hear about them.
Why do believe Brindi will die if she is returned to FR?
Fran, seriously I am far too tired to respond to this drivel tonight so I will do so tomorrow at some point. Except to say judging by your comments you clearly skim over information or just ignore it all together as all your point have already been addressed at some point in time. If you chose to keep askingtge same nonsense questions I will keep posting factual no bull shit answers for you till it sinks into your thick scull. It must be exausting to be you and to try to process reality. Rest assured Fran, I will come right back at you with a point by point response for every one of your ignorant comments.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I find some contradictions there.
ReplyDeleteAs for your last comment 'Why do believe Brindi will die if she is returned to FR?'
I do not think for one minute that Fran yet realizes what she did wrong. I think if Brindi is returned it is only a matter of time before there is another incident and it will be the last. Fran is still yammering onthe fact that Brindi is not people agressive...dah we all know that Fran...she is property agressive and unless you recognize that and take steps to stop Brindi from getting loose, it will happen again. As someone likes to say..PUT THE DAMN MUZZLE ON BEFORE YOU OPEN THE DOOR! Of course you have to buy the muzzle first.
th
No one can predict the future. In our legal system almost everyone is entitled to another chance, even some pretty hardened criminals. FR is entitled to that chance. She is an intelligent, responsible woman.
ReplyDeleteFR aside, I take it from comments like these that you consider Brindi agressive and uncontrollable, because if you considered her to be a dog who acted reasonably most of the time with little need for training or restraint it wouldn't matter if FR was her owner or not. What specifically has Brindi done to be considered such a dog? As far as I am aware of, she bit ONCE, without damage and all the other incidents were running around or barking - which can be disturbing to some, for sure, but hardly the mark of a "dangerous" dog. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that almost 100% of the time she is a patient, well behaved dog.
For sure Brindi, for her own safety as well as others, should not be running freely off property in the roadway. She should be trained to stay on command, preferably, or be restrained from doing so.
I am not sure if a muzzle order is right in her case, but I don't know that it harms her. If she is trained properly with a comfortable, properly fitted muzzle, given positive reinforcement and adjusts well to it, it would keep her from doing any harm. But if she is property aggressive, as you say, then she would have to wear a muzzle at all times, inside and out, wouldn't she? Because if she were let out accidentally by anyone - not just FR - without a muzzle on and did damage then it would be a problem. Is it humane for a dog to have to wear a muzzle all day long for the rest of her life?
FR and a trainer would be accepting responsibility for any further incidents. Any other owner and/or trainer would be accepting the same responsibility, the same risk, regardless of their alleged capability. Brindi would then merely be "property agressive" with another owner in a new place.
If Brindi is an untrainable dog, she may well be untrainable with anyone, because no one can claim a 100% record or complete guarantee of future good behaviour unless she is caged somewhere in solitary for the rest of her life, and that is not a humane thing either.
Thus your portrayal of her as such a risk, as so untrainable means then that you are saying Brindi should be euthanized - even if it is for just one puncture mark.
The best thing for Brindi and the just thing is for her to be returned to FR, to be given further training, and to be kept from running freely and doing any damage. FR should be treated with respect and supported, not bashed and criticized endlessly, regardless of people's hurt feelings or differences of opinion. I do not see how such behaviour encourages responsible ownership, protects 'public safety' or saves Brindi from death.
Anon: I find it frustrating that you don't do your homework prior to posting....
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how your first paragraph attacks us for speaking the truth, calling us CFA's when you are one yourself....not only is this Contradiction #1, it's also a very good indicator that you have nothing note worthy to say.
Now before you read my responses and go off on another ill informed tangent, I suggest you take a good long time to review what I am saying because I am getting really tired of repeating myself just because you don't have the patients or are too lazy to process this information.
#1 R: Absolutely I would call Brindi a Red Zone case. Any dog that attacks another, I would put into this category. That's not to say I believe the dog should be put down, no, contrary actually....I believe this dog need guidance more than ever. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the behaviour of an animal to deduce that they are not getting the leadership they need. Brindi was CLEARLY the pack leader of Fran's household which is WHY Brindi is where she is now. All the comments about Brindi's behaviour being so great now is also another factor I took into consideration...you have to ask yourself, why has her behaviour changed so dramatically for the better???
#3 R: Agreed HOWEVER, Training isn't worth a damn if the owner takes the dog home and doesn't use the training there. There are also different forms of training....you are wanting so desperately to come across as knowledgable so you should know this...1 form of training may not be enough to address a particular issue adn in this case clearly it wasn't. AGAIN....Brindi's training is not the issue here, we all know she is more than capable...the issue here is the owners training and willingness to use it in this lifelong ongoing process.
#4 R: 4. All the laws that applied...are you that thick?? Do you not know how to train an owner?? it's called educating. Teaching the owner how to take control of the animal in question using certain tool and techniques. The issue here is that the owner needs to be WILLING to be taught. Rehoming is an option best suited to a dog where the owner is not respecting the laws and has proven more than once that they are not WILLING to follow or continue training at home. This is PROVEN in the dog's behaviour...again getting tired of repeating myself!
#5 R: Not rteally sure how you can disagreee with this one..the proof is in the puddin' darlin'.
#6 R: Again, doesn't take a brain surgeon or lawyer to know that if Fran had asked for Brindi to be rehomed (without conditions attached of course) that it would have been an option looked at. Just because one ignorant owner gets caught with her pants down and decides to make a reality show out of it doesn't tell me that HRM or SPCA are out to kill every dog they see. Like it has been said over and over and OVER....Fran was given numerous chances to correct the behaviour and to abide by the law... now I have even heard some Fran supporters comment that that means HRM wasn't doing their job...well To me that proves that they are NOT the heartless bastards that the Fran supporters make them out to be. Again..contradicting themselves.
to be continued...
#7 R: 7. This is an irrelevant to the topic, and incorrect. These matters take a great deal of precedence in the legal system, obviously.
ReplyDeleteSo, are you telling me that you feel this case is right up with the ranks of rapes, murders and child abuse cases? YOU MUST BE ON CRACK! THIS IS NOT AN IRRELEVANT POINT TO THE TOPIC AT ALL, IT IS MEANT TO PROVOKE SOME THOUGHT AS TO JUST HOW RIDICULOUS KEEPING THIS CASE GOING THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM AND WASTING TIME AND TAX DOLLARS IS WHEN IT COULD BE USED FOR CASES INVOLVING WHAT IS MENTIONED ABOVE. If you feel that this case is equal you need to give your head a serious shake to dislodge some of the stupid.
#8 R: Are you serious?!? How could most people in Canada have NOT heard of this case?? Fran has supporters Fran as far away as Africa and you are trying to tell me that no one is Canada knows about it? Pfffftttt...I'm pissing myself laughing eight now. Get a grip. Fran has made this into a world wide joke, do you live under a rock or something?? If the interest is pretty slim why are you here commenting on it? And everyone else for that matter. I'm sure you have done your homework and know this isn't the only blog on the internet...you do have a computer don't you?
#9 R: That is exactly what I said, good to see you are finally listening....I don't fail to see that law is what rules this situation, that is exactly the point I am trying to make! Did I ever once say HRM or the court makes decisions based on feelings?? I think not. Not sure where you pulled that one from!
I never said Fran should have surrendered ownership to HRM or SPCA did I? You ASSUMED that! The point I was trying to make that escapes you is that Fran has been in court long enough to be able to ask or suggest to the judge alternates to euthanasia where by there are no conditions attached and Brindi could lead a full life. She could have made it abundantly easy for the court to put forth a ruling where by Brindi could have been rehomed, therefore avoiding euthanasia alltogehter. Do you honestly think HRM or the SPCA would not abide by this type of court ruling? Sad thing is that it was never made easy for the court to consider this option...why is that?? If HRM has not offered or indicated openness to any other possibility....as you say why are they praising Brindi's progress and behaviour??? These are not that actions of people that wish any ill will on a dog that they can clearly see wasn't the issue to begin with! Never said Fran completely rejected it, just said she didn't try hard enough and didn't make it easy enough to make it an option for them to consider. Can you not tell by my blog name that I am realistic? Duh....
To be continued....
#10 R: Never said love was not provided for Brindi, just that love was provided before anything else and that makes for an unbalanced, unhappy dog where the guidance is not given. AGAIN...this is proven by the dog's behaviour...are you listening? Brindi's passing Bob's course tells me that she is a capable dog and that she had guidance at teh course....what happened to that guidance when she got home is anyone's guess. Can you not see that VAST difference in behaviour? Absolutely Bob is a competent trainer..that isn't the issue, the question is....is the owner a competent owner? Does the owner have what it takes to continue the training and guidance at home? no, clearly from the outcome of the dogs behaviour....see where I am going with this?
ReplyDeleteI really can't understand how you can ramble about abuse of power anywhere other than the owner..that is the only abuse of power here. She had ultimate control over how this all played out. This doesn't JUST HAPPEN to anyone, it happens to people who think they are above the law and are unwilling to COOPERATE! You're damn right Tim Hamm had the right to seize Brindi and quite frankle after that many warnings he actually DID have the right to seize her for purpose of euthanization. I am not by any means saying I agree with euthanization HOWEVER under the LAW it was his right to order it seeing that Fran wasn't in control of her dog. YOU fail to understand the law and the consequesces of not following it. Anyone in their right mind would not have put Brindi in that situation after being warned!
He had the duty to charge in a timely fashion and he did not and you consider being given multiple opportunities to correct an issue a bad thing??? Wasn't his fault he gave her chances and she blew it time and time again!!! What do you consider investigating? Is going to her home, talking to her, talking to victims involved not investigation?? Is getting both sides of the story not investigation?? Like I have said before, if you're not happy with the laws in your area maybe you should do your homework and check them out before moving there....regardless of who make the laws you ALWAYS have a choice at to where to reside. Why should HRM impound dogs for inordinate lengths of time with no appeal process? Because this is only done after several warnings where the owner has proven that they are not capable of following the law. Because the court process is holding it up? Would you disagree with me on that one?
Give me some examples of other dogs it is happening to as you say....I can guarantee you it will be for the same bullshit reasons too, unwillingness to follow the law. Why are you SO concerned about me and what I am doing about it? My contribution is none of your business....have I asked you what you are doing about it? No, why? because some owners just will not be told what to do now will they??!?! It is my firm belief Brindi will be killed if she goes back to Fran because Fran has proven more than once that she is not willing to follow guidelines given to her to protect others living in the community and that shows me that Brindi will not get the proper guidance she needs. Plain and simple!
One point that I would like to make is that Fran has placed HRM in a very serious situation. "IF" Brindi is returned to Fran in all likely hood there will be further attacks,(history has a way of repeating itself), and who is going to be responsible if another dog is biten,yes you got it HRM,along with Fran.
ReplyDeleteI know if I was walking my well behaved poodle,on a leash past Frans (ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY) and Brindi attacked,you can bet your life I would not only sue Fran I would also sue HRM.
OH but wait Fran would just get on the internet and beg for money,something she appears to be very good at and fight the legal system again,however by than Brindi would have been put down.
Its time that Fran stood up shook her head,got on her knees and beg the Judge to rehome Brindi with out restrictions;to do otherwise is a death sentence for Brindi.
Cheers
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWrong again. It is because some of us lifelong residents of Halifax-Dartmouth (not like come from aways like people from Amherst, Mill Village or Mount Pearl)have to work for a living - we aren't retired, write our blog at work or only work a few hrs a day. We don't live our lives on the internet or being obsessed with Francesca Rogier. "
Seems we are the ones being stalked. BTW.... STAY AWAY FROM MY CHILD. One more time of any of FRAN'S cult follows her I will do something about it. That is not a threat but a PROMISE and you will not like what I will do. I don't care if it is bob riley, fran herself, scott saundars, jenn richardson or any of the others. I will see your ass in jail. FINAL WARNING!!!!!!!!
In response to the original post(s) by Dog Lover, Clara and the Realist.
ReplyDeleteYes I am a lifelong (born at the old Grace) resident of HRM, from long before it became HRM. I remember going to the public meetings about it. Such a waste of time - Gloria McCluskey, Peter Kelly (I think it was before he shaved off his mustache) and Randy (don’t remember the last name, warden of Hfx County) sitting on the dais and almost no one showing up, just like now, with people not bothering to show up for elections. Sad. Things have been totally for the worse in metro and the county since that time. That’s my point - many of us in Hfx-Dart esp have seen how downhill everything has been and this case is just one of too many examples of how power has gone to the heads of the city. Not even so much the elected members, because many come and go, but the behind the scenes people who are the real power behind the thrones. That’s just my point, as far as I know (from your own internet postings) none of you are from here or have lived here all your lives - and who cares - my point is just that I don’t think you people who come from other places really understand how HRM works. It’s not the same as growing up here and knowing how much better it was and how different and frickin scary it’s getting now. At least a known American like FR, who has had to learn the hard way, knows that to kiss their ass and call it honey is NOT going to make it better. Anyway I digress…
1. Did Brindi “attack” ? Are you using A-300’s super crappy definition or the one that the rest of the common sense world would use?
If she is supposedly ’property aggressive’ how has her alleged behaviour “changed” ? Brindi is confined almost 24 hrs a day.
3. Agreed, if Brindi is property aggressive she will require training at home. FR is an essential part of that process. It should be the proper kind for the situation - not, say, agility training.
4. Educating is a better word, but I think all of us should be open to further educating. No one is a know all and be all. Who is the qualified expert on what pet owner behaviour should be?
5. The sole reason Brindi is in the pound is that Hamm and Kelly came in a truck, put Brindi in it, drove to Burnside and there she has been since. AC and HRM refuse to release her. The SPCA hasn’t done anything to help get her released legally. FR has failed to get her released. Judges have refused to release her, to FR or anyone else. Other dogs and owners have done what Brindi and FR have done (and worse) and they aren’t there. Why is that? And don’t call me darlin, you’re not my type.
continued...
ReplyDelete6. I don’t believe they are “out to” kill dogs, nor are heartless bastards (though I can’t say that for sure, I don’t know them). But I doubt it. However, Tim Hamm did make a mistake, IMO. He should have charged FR and not seized Brindi for euthanization. Simple pimple.
7. You completely misunderstood me - what I meant was that serious crimes ALWAYS take precedence in the system. They would never neglect a rape case just to hear a traffic ticket case, which is the legal equivalent of what FR is charged with, frankly a minor matter legally but one of more importance than usual because of the abuse of power and the life of an animal. It’s only important to HRM because of the face they have been losing, and to the court not important at all.
The courts are pretty open to everyone who brings matters to them, and they decide what goes further. There is a lot of criticism like yours of the system but they usually do a reasonable job IMO, all things considered. I do agree that it is ridiculous how long this situation has gone on, when it could have and should have been settled as FR requested to HRM in August, 2008. It would have saved Brindi and many people from a lot of suffering.
8. I am commenting because the life of this animal, and all animals, matters to me. Having fair, humane laws and enforcement in MY city matter to me. I don’t want to feel afraid to own a pet with the knowledge that one pissy neighbour can call AC and my pet will be dead before I can say boo, as happens. IT IS WRONG. I don’t trust that AC or HRM will act properly when I see that sometimes they don’t, and don’t apologize, don’t do anything to fix the problems that exist in their laws or with some employees. They aren’t instilling confidence in me when I see they don’t put the welfare of living things or “real” justice above their own egos or self-interest. They write their own laws for their benefit and then hire people who don’t understand the law to enforce them any way they like or can get away with. This is the kind of city you want?
I assure you, there is NOT widespread knowledge of this case. It just isn’t big news. There’s been a wee bit of local coverage, very little beyond that. Maybe a few thousand through Facebook. Most blogs have a few dozen readers, at best. This one has, like what, probably six or seven?
continued...
ReplyDelete9. The original point you made was that FR should do what is “best” for Brindi. My point was that from a legal point of view, the city’s position is that it is best for Brindi to be killed, or wait in a cage until she is either killed or ordered released. It doesn’t matter to them at all that us ‘animal lovers’ feel that either of those choices is humane. Neither of them are strictly legal. I’m not sure that sending secretaries flowers is going to make them love dogs or dog owners, either. It will put a smile on a secretary’s face then in a day they will wilt and go in the trash.
FR can only do what she has the legal ability to do. Other than HRM simply allowing Brindi to be released, a judge who will rule in FR’s favour is needed if Brindi is to go anywhere other than where she is right now. If HRM was going to do anything differently, they would have done it by now. They are content to let Brindi sit forever. They have deep pockets to keep litigating, based on our tax dollars. If FR proposed that Brindi be rehomed, how can you be sure a judge would accept that? Or where Brindi would go and what would happen to her? There is no guarantee that she would not be euthanized or mistreated somewhere else. FR would not euthanize her, that is certain.
To rehome Brindi, FR would have to surrender ownership (unless it is otherwise ordered). If she did that, it would condone what HRM has done in the first place and it wouldn’t necessarily solve Brindi’s “problems.” It would just sweep everything under a carpet, which is what they and so many of you seem to want. HRM should have allowed Brindi to go elsewhere long ago, when they were asked, the SPCA should have pushed them to move her and FR or a lawyer should have gotten an order to get her moved.
Where has HRM “praised”Brindi’s “progress” ??? I missed that. Or are you mixing them up with the SPCA? Easy to do…they’re on the same side I guess. Is she getting more training from someone unqualified at the SPCA? How can she progress in a cage?
Maybe some AC people don’t have “ill will” (according to FR, Brad Kelly is a nice man), and I doubt Leah Parsons, with her great rescue work, would want to see Brindi put down etc but Tim Hamm did seize her ONLY to kill her, the AC bosses signed the order to do so, and neither they nor the city have said anything otherwise ever since.
I don’t judge anyone by their blog name, though some are inappropriate for sure. Not sure I understand your blog name.
continued...10. It is possible for FR to be further ‘educated’ as you would say. Is it not better to see Brindi go back to her and they continue training together than to just give up? If Brindi was truly an unstoppable, vicious dog with a history of serious attacks, or FR was a blatantly irresponsible owner then I might be more inclined to agree with you. However, Brindi isn’t that dog and FR isn’t that owner, despite your dislike for her. She provides good shelter, quality food, fresh water, exercise, medicine, regular vet care, pet insurance, and has Brindi micro chipped and licensed (and the city didn’t ask to license her as “dangerous”, despite Hamm’s insistence that she is, all because he issued a muzzle order that wasn’t really needed). She has deep love for and is gentle with her animals. She puts their needs ahead of her own. She took Brindi to training where many owners don’t. She is open, ready and willing for more. She acknowledged from the very beginning she had made some mistakes and would correct them and accept consequences such as fines, etc. She essentially pled guilty to the world…she just said PLEASE DON’T KILL MY DOG!!! She has sacrificed her dreams, having a comfortable home, time to attend to important life issues JUST to save the life of one dog. I seem to recall someone saying it wasn’t worth it to the SPCA to risk everything over one dog. I am sure there are many owners who may love their animals and are so-called responsible who wouldn’t have gone as far as she has to save their pet. They would just move on.
ReplyDeleteSo isn’t this someone who already IS a GOOD OWNER??? She is already there. Further training, having Brindi be top of her game at recall and/or be controlled by device is all that is needed to correct any issues. If you weren’t so fixated on using FR as a scapegoat you would see this.
continued...You are VERY wrong - unjust things do happen to innocent people - and I’m not talking about FR, but in general - Donald Marshall, etc. There’s plenty of people who get treated badly and are wrongfully convicted. Law enforcement, the legal system and gov’ts aren’t always right. Another example is how they let Karla Homolka get away with what she did. THEY AREN’T ALWAYS RIGHT.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t say Tim Hamm had the right to seize her to kill her, I said he DIDN‘T. I know HRM passed a bad law, and he’s not the brightest bulb in the drawer, so they all thought it was ok, but it ISN’T. The one good thing that has happened so far is FR spending 20 grand that she desperately needed and got a piece of one of OUR bad laws changed where none of us have managed it. He never had the right to do what he did, as the judge ruled and HRM did not appeal, therefore they agree - they passed a bad law, and they have a bad employee on staff. Too bad they aren’t fixing those wrongs instead of wasting court time and our tax dollars trying to kill a dog that should live, putting FR and everyone else through this rigmarole. Too bad we don’t have RESPONSIBLE government, which frankly is a hell of a lot more important than responsible pet ownership - most pet owners are reasonably responsible already. I don’t think overpaid gov & civil servants who don’t even know how to do their jobs properly are all that qualified to say what is responsible and what isn’t. They don’t know what responsibility is apparently! I guess you don’t think so, but many of us think A300 (among others) is a BAD and flawed law, and AC leaves a lot to be desired. What about BSLs? If they brought that into law would they be right about that too? Oooohhh don’t even question it! You would have to say they have the same righteous authority, that they have the damn right to stupidly ban breeds based on the same BS that they‘re “protecting public safety“!
I could say a lot of things about HRM legal, but I’ll leave that at “no comment.” Suffice to say that they are not deserving of respect. There are, I’m sure, lots of nice people involved with the SPCA, but as an organization they’ve been lacking in brains and backbone, and I would bet not all the hands are clean there. They’ve got a lot of history - it's not all past tense. The ganging up on FR by their supporters, so called dog advocates or nit-twits in the lazy local media has been a shameful display.
I do agree with you that I too would have been wary after the first time I had contact with AC, but that’s because all of us are used to being under a thumb and I don’t think FR is. What are these “multiple” opportunities?
ReplyDeleteOne call to AC - running at large, and the officer told FR to keep Brindi from running and get her licensed. She did. Next call, dog named Flower had a puncture after the scuffle in FR‘s yard, when Brindi was offleash - Hamm issued a muzzle order, no charge. That means he didn’t think the law had been broken or was worthy of a charge. Last call, July 08. No one from AC came out to E Chez that day, nor did an officer speak to anyone for quite a few days. He just went to the JP and got a warrant, then went and got Brindi. He and HRM swore under oath they did a “thorough” investigation, and the judge found they did none. It is the duty of a peace officer to do a timely, thorough and objective investigation, otherwise it is negligent. HRM has already been essentially found to be in the wrong by a judge in that regard, and did not appeal (because they have no defense - they are guilty). Instead they promptly laid charges for something that was almost out of date. Tim Hamm may not have laid charges because he’s such a great guy, or something - I don’t think that’s why he didn’t do it - nor did he care about FR’s financial status. Cops never ask how you’re doing financially when they stop to give you a speeding ticket, nor should they. Only Hamm knows why he didn’t lay charges then - he’s yet to explain satisfactorily why he did what he did.
If he or his bosses thought that charges should be laid they would have laid them in July or August. The fact that they thought the “right” thing to do was just kill Brindi, as they apparently still do, speaks to their lack of good judgement.
I have lived in the metro area all of my life and I am more than familiar with its laws.
HRM should not be impounding animals for longer than, say, 30 days maximally. There should be an appeal process for anyone whose pets have been seized. This is the only thing that is fair and humane for animals and owners. AC officers, city government should NOT have a one sided power where they don’t have to be accountable when they make mistakes or harm people. This is why we have a legal system in the first place - that there are two sides to every story - if you don’t hear from two sides in front of one neutral party, you don’t have justice. You have fascism. Then you don’t even need to bother with laws - then ‘might is right’ rules and whoever has the bigger gun wins. Maybe that’s what you guys want - to be vigilantes, some kind of heroes. I doubt most people want vigilantes or fascism. My grandfather didn’t risk his life in WW2 just to have you people piss on having a justice system - hundreds of years of British tradition where people are considered innocent unless proven guilty. No animal should be seized unless their owner is also charged at the same time. Then the provincial and municipal laws would be in line with the Constitution, which overrides all of these local laws. It is ironic that in HRM you can be charged as a property owner as having a dangerous and unsightly premise and there is an appeal process for that! But not for a pet. Why? Because pets lives are less important than decrepit old sheds!!!
The court process definitely holds it up - it is shameful of HRM to use it to uphold their authority and evade responsibility. It would end for FR tomorrow if they spared Brindi and returned her.
You have “guaranteed” knowledge of other cases? I think you should share it then. The public has a right to know.
ReplyDeleteI am not really concerned with what you do or don’t do - but by publishing what you do you invite commentary and debate. You have been taking a great deal of effort and energy to talk about this case, FR etc for well over a year all over the place. I would presume it is because you are interested in dogs, and the law…if you aren’t involved in or interested in other cases, wonder why…why this one to this extent…isn’t there lots of other cases, other people you could or should be talking about? Where are all those blogs, groups, pages etc so we can go read em?
Dog Lover: I don’t think anyone could successfully sue HRM if the city follows the law properly…
Most courts use ‘strict liability’ and the owner is usually 100% responsible, as you see from FR’s conviction. Very few governments get sued and lose. You almost never see successful suits for bad roadways, insufficient health care etc. From the court’s point of view, it is bad public policy to encourage litigation against governmental decisions unless they are illegal or truly malicious. The idea is what governments do is to be held accountable through voting, legislative change etc.
I wouldn’t worry about poor little deep pocketed legally powerful HRM, who carry insurance to protect them for legal claims, who have a full staff of very well paid legal beagles (when they’re not trying to kill them) and outside talent on call to protect them, largely based on the outrageous property tax WE are paying.
It is an interesting thought, owner suing owner. I would also consider it myself, if I had an animal of mine injured and someone else was at fault, and we couldn’t settle it between us. Why haven’t any of the owners of these supposedly injured dogs filed any claims against FR - even before Brindi was seized? I guess either 1) the dogs weren’t injured; 2) the owners didn’t care if they were injured; 3) if they were injured the owners didn’t want to bother with court. Then these injuries couldn’t have amounted to much. The only one who has said publicly her dog had injury was Pettipas, Hamm’s friend, and FR offered to pay the hundred or so for the vet checkup and minor treatment the dog needed from one shallow puncture. Other than that, there is no documented injury to any dog. The dog Java who was allegedly attacked, which is only charge FR faced for such a thing, has no record of injury, no photographs, no vet records, even when Hamm asked them later on, after he‘d seized Brindi. Why do you suppose that was? Because gee, maybe the dog wasn’t “attacked” after all? That Brindi likely just ran up and barked at her? And didn’t even try to bite a man who was kicking her? So Brindi didn’t bite a dog or a person? And didn’t pursue them? What a dangerous dog.
The only thing that should happen here is FR get her dog back and keep her under control. It’s just that simple.
Well now that was a "COMMENT",one comment which I won't respond to because anon.just hasn't got her facts correct,and it appears that she has a hate on for HRM.
ReplyDeleteI will say that Fran keeps saying that Brindi attacked the other dogs on Brindi's property,which is a bauld faced lie,the other dogs were being walked on leash on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY past Brindi's property a FACT which is stated in the SUPREME COURT RECORD.
Now since Fran continues to lie about that FACT , I suspect that she has lied about other facts as well.
I imagine you aren't going to respond because you cannot do so ably, no surprise.
ReplyDeleteWhich facts are incorrect? If I am mistaken, point it out and we can back check each other's sources. Opinions are of course personal and to each their own.
I don't have a "hate on" for HRM or anyone, but I am bothered by incompetence, greed, corruption and unlawful activities undertaken by those in authority. Everyone can make a mistake, sure, but if they don't show the strength of character to admit it or correct it then they lose my respect. To have so much power and money and have no accountability as well can make people arrogant and dangerous, IMO.
Every decent Nova Scotian and Canadian feels the same - we want good government, business that treats us fair, communities to live in that are comfortable and welcoming. We want rule of law that is tempered with mercy.
The only people who know what happened during any of those incidents are those who were there. None of the other owners were part of the Supreme Court case. They filed no affidavits nor did they testify.
I know Francesca and you do not...I will tell you however she is an unusually truthful woman. However, if my family member was going to be killed I might be tempted to fudge unimportant details to achieve that aim. I would...would you?
This is exausting.... Like banging one's head against a brick wall. Useless to respond to those that just aren't willing to see the truths of why Brindi is where she is.... What a colosal waste of time these FR supporters are. I for one am tired of repeating myself and won't do it anymore.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the Realist, It appears that Fran has her cult followers,and can't face the truth, instead of putting brindi first and doing what is right,it has now become all about Miss Sweet Cheeks.
ReplyDeleteAnon. need not respond as any more of her long winded crap will hit the trash pile.
I like that 'fudge unimportant details'. LMAO. They are only unimportant to one person and we all know who that is.
ReplyDeleteAnon, you have been told of one fact that you have gotten wrong but choose not to acknowledge it and spend your time asking show me where I am wrong. Brindi was off her property in the attacks!
Now I am not wasting any more time on you either. You seem to think your long winded crap is going to change minds. HAHA.
BTW you are not the only long time resident of HRM...you as usual assume too much. Are you suggesting the only tax money being wasted here is HRM tax??
Frankly I think you shoukd have let Anon go on blabbing all the nonsense...it just further proves how weak and easily brainwashed some people really are. Furthermore, it solidifies the reason we are all speaking up for Brindi. If Anon wants to continue making themselves look and act the fool I say being it. It's laughable anyway.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. I would post all their crap. I just don't have time to waste answering their stupid questions that have been answered so many times before.
ReplyDelete