Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 138

Thread: Victoria; Seized Dog's Future 'up to VCAT' *BUTCH IS HOME*!

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter70 View Post
    Beloz you still fail to accept that had they registered thier dog 6 years ago there would be no story.
    How come you can't accept it?
    The whole story is a tragedy but it began 6 years ago will they chose to ignore THE EXISTING LAWS that were in place
    What they did or didn't do 6 years ago is irrelevant. And that is an ideal that is built into our justice system. If you get convicted for something that you did 6 years ago, you will get the penalty that was relevant at the time you committed the crime, not what it happens to be at the time of sentencing.

    6 years ago the penalty for not registering a dog was a fine. Now it means the death of your dog if it happens to look like a pitty. The only thing that matters here is whether their dog was registered when these laws came into effect. And they tried to do register the dog before that date.

    By all means, charge them the fines for those 6 years that their dog was not registered. But what happened in those years before the new laws took effect does not justify the harsh punishment and from a legal (and moral) perspective has absolutely nothing to do with it.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    If they had chosen not to register their dog at all...there would be no story either. And the dog would still be alive and well.


    And thats a very responsible comment Hyacinth, i truly thought a dog forum would be about encouraging people to abide by the law regardless what their own personal opinion was, (again we dont get to pick which laws we like and dont like).
    I guess i was wrong and giving the number of likes its clear others feel the same way as you.





    What they did or didn't do 6 years ago is irrelevant. And that is an ideal that is built into our justice system. If you get convicted for something that you did 6 years ago, you will get the penalty that was relevant at the time you committed the crime, not what it happens to be at the time of sentencing.

    6 years ago the penalty for not registering a dog was a fine. Now it means the death of your dog if it happens to look like a pitty. The only thing that matters here is whether their dog was registered when these laws came into effect. And they tried to do register the dog before that date.

    By all means, charge them the fines for those 6 years that their dog was not registered. But what happened in those years before the new laws took effect does not justify the harsh punishment and from a legal (and moral) perspective has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Beloz, they should have registered thier dog six years earlier and every year after that, it would have covered thier ass. The penalty they are facing now would not apply. Nothing justifies the harsh penalty they face now. You guys seem to think im happy with that????? I'm not.
    This whole matter could have been avoided had they followed their legal obligations originally like most responsible dog owners do. Others should take note of this case and not leave things to the last minute.
    Last edited by peter70; 06-06-2012 at 11:04 AM.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    But your posts do read like you think their lack or responsibility in relation to registering their dog justifies the harsh punishment? Saying that it could've been avoided if they would've just registered their dog earlier is pretty much saying exactly that? And this legislation is all about the punishment - not so much about a change in the rules from an owner's perspective. And the penalty just has become 1000 harsher for anyone owning a pitbull-type dog than for anyone else.

    And Hya was merely pointing out that the way the government reacted in this case does not encourage dog owners to do the right thing at all. Which is simply not a very wise way to go about. You could also argue that their registration laws are pretty p!ss weak if someone can get away with not registering their dog for 6 years without being caught. And the only reason why they got caught this time is because they took the initiative to go to a government counter after they saw the error of their ways. How many people would read that and think: better to just fly under the radar?

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    I never said anywhere it justifies the punishment, and saying that it could have been avoided in no way condones the punishment. Ive always maintained they have left themselves open to this, just because i dont agree with the punishment doesnt lessen the fact that they did the wrong thing.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Well I'll just repeat what the others have said...
    6 years ago - doing the wrong thing was a fine.

    Now trying to do the right thing - remember there was an "amnesty" for getting these dogs registered... is a death sentence.

    In this case - it's not the dog owners doing the wrong thing.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Yea Im with Beloz and that...

    really it doesnt matter what the owners did or didnt do.....it matters what the dog did or didnt do, and from what I can see, thats nothing that deserves death.

  7. #117

    Default

    At the end of the day, what does council registration actually do/prove? I have my dog microchipped, i pay rates, i pay all sorts of fee's for certain services, why should i pay to register my dog?

    Note : my dog is registered with the council as much as i hate paying for nothing

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    At the end of the day, what does council registration actually do/prove? I have my dog microchipped, i pay rates, i pay all sorts of fee's for certain services, why should i pay to register my dog?

    Note : my dog is registered with the council as much as i hate paying for nothing


    I guess it proves that you abide by the rules/laws of owning a dog. I pay registration on a few vehicles yet I can only drive one, why? I could go on about all the things I don't like paying for but if I choose that hobbie, pet whatever I follow the rules.
    You know you guys go on and on about the registration and these people may have been lovely people with a nice fluffy pit bull and its ok they didn't register their dog because registration sucks etcetera........ What about the di~#heads that own this breed? Is it ok for them to ignore the laws? I mean why not keep ten fighting dogs in a backyard? Without any laws in place what can any council officer do ?

  9. #119
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter70 View Post
    I guess it proves that you abide by the rules/laws of owning a dog. I pay registration on a few vehicles yet I can only drive one, why? I could go on about all the things I don't like paying for but if I choose that hobbie, pet whatever I follow the rules.
    You know you guys go on and on about the registration and these people may have been lovely people with a nice fluffy pit bull and its ok they didn't register their dog because registration sucks etcetera........ What about the di~#heads that own this breed? Is it ok for them to ignore the laws? I mean why not keep ten fighting dogs in a backyard? Without any laws in place what can any council officer do ?
    This is nothing to do with the di~#heads that own this breed; by your comments about "ten fighting dogs in a backyard" you out yourself as just another anti pit bull vigilante. How does the fact that some individual pit bull owners are sh#theads make it OK for this council to unfairly target the Thurstons? Did the Thurstons have 10 fighting pit bulls in their back yard?

    Thing is, pit bulls are just another dog breed, but the popular press has a thing about them at the moment and a lot of simple folk just believe what Rebekah Brooks and her ilk likes us to believe.

    I have lived a long time; back in the 60's, the dog breed that everyone was conditioned to be scared of was the German Shepherd and any young thug that wanted a tough dog bought themself a German Shepherd. Then it was the Dobermann, and then the Rottweiler. Now it is the American Pit Bull Terriers turn.

    Next could be the Ridgeback or the Hungarian Puli or the standard poodle. None of this makes sense.

    There are di#ck wads who own all of the individual breeds; that is not the breeds fault. Only a fool would blame the dog breed for the failings of the individual owner.

    ricey
    Last edited by ricey; 06-11-2012 at 12:24 AM.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Are you for real, seriously you need to take deep breaths when writing posts, outing me as a anti pit bill vigilante, lol next thing you'll be defining me as a whistleblower.
    I never said anywhere it was OK to target the Thurstons did I? I do however believe its ok to target those who break the law, again just for those that choose to ignore certain parts of my posts, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE PUNISHMENT

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •