You complain to the Justice of the Peace who issued the Warrant and are informed that you not "cooperating" invalidates their obligation to conform to the law.
Question: Acceptable or not?
Question: Acceptable or not?
Not in any way, shape or form.
There are protections against illegal search and seizure for a reason. Private citizens should be protected from exactly this kind of crap.
you don't need to register dogs.
This isn't universally true. I have to register my dog. If I didn't, she could legally be taken away and I could face a fine or jail time. Laws on this differ between places.
This isn't universally true. I have to register my dog. If I didn't, she could legally be taken away and I could face a fine or jail time. Laws on this differ between places.
I call fascism. Not Nazism, fascism.
Background: Council shows up with Police and a Warrant to sieze your unregistered dogs. They dont identify themselves.
Sounds like you knew who they were. Even if they don't tell you who they are. You do see the P O L I C E .
They force their way in with a Warrant
That's usually the case when they have a warrant and somone steps in their way.
that bares no identifying seals or watermarks
and if it did bear seals and watermarks how would you know if they were legit. I see an opening for a stall tactic.
and could have been printed on any Laser printer.
Well if it is a fake warrant, they are fooling the P O L I C E. And opening a huge can of worms later on just to grab your pooch.
They find they cannot identify which dog they are supposed to sieze (though the council has the information on file),
understandable if there are multiple dogs
they threaten to breach the terms of the Warrant
What now? Breach how?
to get your co-operation and when that threat of criminal conduct fails, they conspire to breach the terms of a Warrant and sieze all your dogs.
Sounds like tensions and tempers ran hot. They went too far, But I am sure the property has been returned by now. File a theft report.
You complain to the Justice of the Peace who issued the Warrant and are informed that you not "cooperating" invalidates their obligation to conform to the law.
He knows more about the law then I do, but that doesn't sound right. Get a lawyer that won't say yes to everything you say.
Is this Mike Vic?
I call fascism. Not Nazism, fascism.
And I call a reasonable social contract that insures that the public (at least in some form) is aware of something that is potentially dangerous.
There's nothing "fascist" about pet registration programs.
There's nothing "fascist" about pet registration programs.
Agreed. I love my dogs, and must register them. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially when you are dealing with various public health issues and such when dog owners go astray.
These instances are rare, but it doesn't take long perusing the headlines to find poor examples of pooch owners. I'd consult an attorney regarding your rights.
Question: Acceptable or not?
Incomplete.
Asking for opinion on an issue based on only one side of a story is like asking a deer for opinions on hunting.
I became an officer to help people. Not overstep boundaries and wave my authority over others. Well.. unless I don't like them.. lol!
All law enforcement should be there to protect your rights, not take them away..
Police: Find the badguys and arrest them.
Security Guards: Protect property.
I don't believe in the FBI or CIA. Finding them to be grotest monsters spawned from a totaltarian government.. I could see the purpose of an IRS. But we wouldn't need an IRS if we had sensible income tax laws like it's just taken out of your paycheck...
I believe if you expect people to follow the law. Then you have to make it a law worth following. Otherwise you should treat anyone, whether they have a badge or not, as a dangerous lunatic.
I think pet registration is ridiculous btw. I wouldn't call it fascism. It's not that hardcore. But it's most certainly anti-freedom.. We should be lucky people have the compassion to take in an animal off the street. Registered or not.
look up the new deal. look up Mussolini.
I actually have to admit I overstepped fascism, it is economic control. but you can see it coming yet. We've had it before. Here.
look up the new deal. look up Mussolini.
I liked Mussolini. He had a very simaler disdain of the establishment like I do.
Every group is vile. Whether it be a nation, friends, or a military.
And his philosophy on life.
Have a knife in the mouth, a bomb in your hand, and a heart full of scorn!
Both good words to liveby..
This is my motivational picture lol!
look up the new deal.
One's a social contract to help keep track of potentially dangerous animals, and the other is a group of government programs that helped keep people fed during the depression.
Similarities lacking.
I don't know what you are talking about, I was referencing the worker-armies of the great depression.
You mean those people who would have gone hungry without the government giving them jobs?
Completely unrelated to dog ownership, believe it or not.
The fact of the matter is government is overstepping it's bounds. What business is it of their's if we have a pet? Why do we need to register it? How detrimental to society can it be for me to have a dog? Or five?
Whether it's fascism or socialism or communism or any other ism is irrelevent.
The fact of the matter is government is overstepping it's bounds. What business is it of their's if we have a pet? Why do we need to register it? How detrimental to society can it be for me to have a dog? Or five?
Good question.
How detrimental are dog attacks? Or the potential for one of your animals to get rabies? How much danger does a loose animal pose to children? What are the moral ramifications of training fighting dogs? What happens when your "guard dog" gets loose?
I don't feel that pet registration is in any way overstepping bounds. Governments are, at their most basic, a form of collective protection; it doesn't matter if that protection is from outside invaders or your neighbor's pit bull.
I don't feel that pet registration is in any way overstepping bounds. Governments are, at their most basic, a form of collective protection; it doesn't matter if that protection is from outside invaders or your neighbor's pit bull.
I don't recall any article in the bill of rights that says you have a right to own dogs. Be glad that the government hasn't decided that you can't have them at all.
Registering dogs is no more intrusive than registering your automobile. It tells the world that this one or that one is yours and that you take responsibility if it attacks someone. It also allows a way to return your pet to you if it gets lost or runs away from your home. It isn't a way for the government to know which houses to send the dogcatchers to when they try to seize power.
. Be glad that the government hasn't decided that you can't have them at all.
Thats a strange thing to say.
Registration isn't a bad thing. When Beurocracy, in any way shape or form, is abused that is a bad thing. The OP's case, as presented, shows unnacceptable bevahiour that is being justified by a law that makes sense. So, no issue with the law here, but major issue with the abuse of power.
Good question.
How detrimental are dog attacks? Or the potential for one of your animals to get rabies? How much danger does a loose animal pose to children? What are the moral ramifications of training fighting dogs? What happens when your "guard dog" gets loose?
Actually I'm both a child rights and animal rights activist. Not that I'm offended by your assetment. As someone who strongly cares about these issues (next to being prolife), I welcome the concern..
Dog fighting should be illegal. And if you ask me is not penalized enough. Maybe it's cause sports stars are doing it, and they can get away with anything cause they have fame and money. But it should be a serious crime. Punishable by torture. Put the human through the sortof pain he put those poor canines through. That'll teach him. It's cheaper then prison, and actually teaches him a lesson. I'm sure there's plenty of sociopaths out there who'd be willing to work as "brawlers" who step into the ring and psychopaths their opponent...
Guard dogs I understand are a concern, and sense there's no registration, a simple claim of "that's not my dog" can be made. But at what cost? Does the possibly of a guard dog let loose outweigh the freedoms lost? Even vicious guard dogs don't just "attack". Either they were provoked, or something happened that messed with their brains like poison or something. I've seen dog whisperer and discovery channel too many times to think that 90% of dog attacks are simply the dogs being mean.
I don't feel that pet registration is in any way overstepping bounds. Governments are, at their most basic, a form of collective protection; it doesn't matter if that protection is from outside invaders or your neighbor's pit bull.
I'd rather people learn to defend themselves. That way we don't have too have government run our lives, and can pay less taxes cause we don't need their "services". (Though it's not really a service if they're forcing you to pay now is it?)
Hell, I'd even privatize the military. Ever heard of Black Water?
The only government programs I've supported (that exist anyway) are The FDA, (so they can't put rat poison in my food without my knowledge) Sanitary Officers, (so I don't get some alien virus cause someone's sloppy) and courts/public trial lawyers. (for obvious reasons)
Otherwise, the government has failed to protect those who really need protection. Like unborn children and animals. Government doesn't have many responsibilities, it chooses to pretend it has more responsibilities so they can takeover your life..
I don't recall any article in the bill of rights that says you have a right to own dogs. Be glad that the government hasn't decided that you can't have them at all.
It shouldn't have to be. We're a democratic-republic. Not a constitutional monarchy.
You know who is a constitutional-monarchy?
England.
The guys we fought to get away from.
Guard dogs I understand are a concern, and sense there's no registration, a simple claim of "that's not my dog" can be made. But at what cost? Does the possibly of a guard dog let loose outweigh the freedoms lost? Even vicious guard dogs don't just "attack". Either they were provoked, or something happened that messed with their brains like poison or something. I've seen dog whisperer and discovery channel too many times to think that 90% of dog attacks are simply the dogs being mean.
Whether or not attacks are "warranted," the fact remains that a dog is potentially dangerous. Particularly those dogs that are trained to react violently under specific circumstances. You register your car so that if it's involved in a crime or a death people know who to turn to for an explanation, or so that there's an official person to return it to should it be stolen or lost. Registering animals is no different.
I'd rather people learn to defend themselves. That way we don't have too have government run our lives, and can pay less taxes cause we don't need their "services". (Though it's not really a service if they're forcing you to pay now is it?)
You'd rather children learn to defend themselves from violent/rabid dogs than require the owners of the dogs to register them. That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.
Hell, I'd even privatize the military. Ever heard of Black Water?
Are you making the case for or against here? Referencing Blackwater as a positive isn't helping the case for privatizing the military.
The only government programs I've supported (that exist anyway) are The FDA, (so they can't put rat poison in my food without my knowledge) Sanitary Officers, (so I don't get some alien virus cause someone's sloppy) and courts/public trial lawyers. (for obvious reasons)
So you don't like roads, schools, fire departments or cops. Good to know.
You know who is a constitutional-monarchy?
England.
...I honestly can't tell if your post was serious.
Otherwise, the government has failed to protect those who really need protection. Like unborn children and animals.
Personally, I'd rather have the government provide police, firefighters, roads, oversight into what can be considered food, oversight into drug saftey, etc than protect fuzzy bunnies and furry squirrels. Oh wait. I forgot. The government does that too. National and state parks, animal cruelty laws, endangered/threatened status, etc. ;)
It's in the market's best interest to have roads. Roads make traveling easier for them, for you, for everyone. Easier travel, means more convience, meaning more customers. Roads would build themselves. And by that I mean people would hire others to pave roads so they could make it to their stores easier..
Police:
Private Investigators are like the police, but privately funded. Granted they tend to solve lesser crimes. But the police could become a competitive militia, investigating murders and things and having to compete with other, beter, police agencies..
Fire Department:
Unesscary to be publicaly financed. If people were responsible. Fire departments would not happen. Nothing the private industry cannot provide.
The more government can give, the more it can take away.
NOTE: The people at 4chan are convinced I'm Ron Paul trying to pretend to be a >20 year old to score with chicks one-third my age and gain young voters lol!
Roads:
It's in the market's best interest to have roads. Roads make traveling easier for them, for you, for everyone. Easier travel, means more convience, meaning more customers. Roads would build themselves. And by that I mean people would hire others to pave roads so they could make it to their stores easier..
What incentive does private industry have to make it's roads available to the rest of us? Seems like their investments would last longer if they were the only ones using them. That means keeping regular folk off of corporate roads.
Free market roads = fail.
Police:
Private Investigators are like the police, but privately funded. Granted they tend to solve lesser crimes. But the police could become a competitive militia, investigating murders and things and having to compete with other, beter, police agencies..
So various corporate entities would be competing against each other to see who could solve crimes faster in order to get paid. Seriously? this actually sounds like a good idea to you?
Fire Department:
Unesscary to be publicaly financed. If people were responsible. Fire departments would not happen. Nothing the private industry cannot provide.
Privatized fire departments put out fires for money. Period. That leaves the people without money to burn. Great system, that.
NOTE: The people at 4chan are convinced I'm Ron Paul trying to pretend to be a >20 year old to score with chicks one-third my age and gain young voters lol!
I don't know where they're getting that idea. Ron Paul is at least mildly coherent, even if he's batshit.
Fire Department:
Unesscary to be publicaly financed. If people were responsible. Fire departments would not happen. Nothing the private industry cannot provide.
... ever heard of forest fires? Personal responsibility can't fix that. Not to mention that no amount of personal responsibility will stop some drunken idiot on the floor above you from setting your building on fire.
I'm really not sure why you don't think un-controlled fires are something that personal responsibility can stop. That would be as silly as if you had responded to the police part with "well, if no one did anything illegal we wouldn't need police".
It's just not realistic.
Police:
Private Investigators are like the police, but privately funded. Granted they tend to solve lesser crimes. But the police could become a competitive militia, investigating murders and things and having to compete with other, better, police agencies..
Actually I find police must remain for cleaning up the mess, but must never be relied on. It takes fifteen minutes for police to show up unless you say you shot someone. It takes only a fraction of a second to pull a trigger.
Defense agencies must remain in place, but cannot be allowed to be all powerful.
Fire Department:
Unesscary to be publicaly financed. If people were responsible. Fire departments would not happen. Nothing the private industry cannot provide.
This is one of the craziest things I have ever read. I had a friend who recently lost their his house to a fire. Personal responsibility? Their house was struck by lightning. What amount of personal responsibility stops lightning?
Private corporation roads? You can't be serious.
Personally, I don't mind paying taxes for services. I like roads, fire departments, police departments, and trash pick up. I like the fact that we have prisons, and criminals don't run the streets.
Is there waste in government? Sure. But, I don't mind paying fees and registering my dog. In my community this helps pay for the dog catcher, so that when a dangerous animal is on the loose they go out and round it up.
This is especially comforting when I don my IPod and go for a jog on my (publicly) maintained sidewalks next to my (publicly) maintained streets and through the (publicly) maintained parks, crossing streets on (publicly) maintained crosswalks, returning home to turn on the faucet and have a tall glass of (publicly maintained, provided, and tested) water to quench my thirst. And I can do all that without worry of being chased down by a pack of wild and neglected urban dogs.
Some minor complaints aside, I love the convenience of modern technology, and modern civilization. A private corporate sponsored world is insane.
Privatized fire departments put out fires for money. Period. That leaves the people without money to burn. Great system, that.
I can see it now. The private cops would see a serious upswing in arson cases. Conveniently, the privatized courts would convict easily and they would send the offenders to privatized prisons. In those prisons they would be used as slave labor, err, temps, yeah, that's it.
No way a system like that could be exploited, is there?
But that scenario you described is really no different then what we have now. Only businesses would be competing to get our slave labor rather then we all be slaves under the same regim..
We have to answer to some higher power anyway, why not atleast have the comfort in knowing our masters have to sleep with one eye open or lose everything?
Capitalism isn't altrustic, far from it. It's the leverage of savage, self-destructive, nihilism.
That's exactly what mankind deserves.. I'd like to think I'm an objectivist if Atlas Shrugged had been written by Nietzsche.
I'd like to think I'm an objectivist if Atlas Shrugged had been written by Nietzsche.
So what are you in reality, then?
Edit: If I'm reading you right, your position seems to be; "Life sucks, then you die. Might as well be corporate-owned in the meantime."
in any case, their view appeared to be that designing a society around altruistic principles, and enforcing them, is a blueprint for destruction. Maybe, but maybe its the combination of selfishness and "enforced altruism" rather than altruism alone that does it.
On subject of dogs: they are personal property: no-one has right to confiscate them. If they are not a danger.
On subject of co-operating with police: in general, makes sense. In corrupt society, police are probably more likely to frame people who annoy them by "asserting their rights" If society and police aren't corrupt, dogs will be returned if they have commited no crime.
Whether it's fascism or socialism or communism or any other ism is irrelevent.
The fact of the matter is government is overstepping it's bounds. What business is it of their's if we have a pet? Why do we need to register it? How detrimental to society can it be for me to have a dog? Or five?
The purpose of dog (& cat) registration is rabies control. It isn't to control the number you have or what you do with them. It is to ensure that you get them vaccinated.
There has been a long public health push in this country to eradicate rabies and it has helped tremendously. There are very very few cases of human or canine rabies cases in the country.
Rabies is a universally fatal (except for one documented case a few years ago) and untreatable disease once symptoms appear. How is preventing rabies any different from the FDA keeping poison out of your food?
On subject of dogs: they are personal property: no-one has right to confiscate them. If they are not a danger.
Sure they do. If they are running loose on the streets and around the town, society absolutely has a right to confiscate them even if they aren't a danger. If you park your car in the middle of the road and leave it, wouldn't you expect that it might get towed? How do you know who is responsible for the dog, and the damage that it may cause to either a person or property if not by registration?
Don't get me wrong, I am a dog owner, I love my dog, and I have no problem with registering her. It makes our community a better place.
Sure they do. If they are running loose on the streets and around the town, society absolutely has a right to confiscate them even if they aren't a danger. If you park your car in the middle of the road and leave it, wouldn't you expect that it might get towed? How do you know who is responsible for the dog, and the damage that it may cause to either a person or property if not by registration?
Don't get me wrong, I am a dog owner, I love my dog, and I have no problem with registering her. It makes our community a better place.
But your dog out running loose on the streets is in danger.
But your dog out running loose on the streets is in danger...
Mostly of being eaten by a hobo or hit by a car.
A dog sitting in its own back yard? Not typically a danger.
Example would be if government passed a law requisitioning all dogs, or banning all dogs of any kind. It would be a matter of government-authorized theft.
That is, if you hold by that view, that a government who steals perople's property is no government at all. Or, a government who declares that all property is its, and holding your property is a privilege granted you by them, not a right.