Actually, the claim is that the authorities can’t take the dogs because they’re ON private property… unless the victim presses charges or the owner surrenders the dogs. I agree it sounds weird, but on the other hand, I think it sounds refreshingly fair. For a change, it’s nice to see a situation where an actual victim is in control of what the state should do to serve and protect her, and that the state doesn’t get to go out and overreach on its own authority.
I love Arizona.
Of course, the reporter could have gotten it all wrong, which is always one of the top three options.
8/29/2017 1:40 PM
Well look what stopped it. I thought that never happens...? [More]
Per the video report, authorities couldn't take the dogs into custody without owner consent because they're property? Funny, because if the owner had been the one attacking, they sure could have taken him in.
posted by David Codrea at 10:16 AM on Aug 29, 2017
1 Comment
Close this window Jump to comment formActually, the claim is that the authorities can’t take the dogs because they’re ON private property… unless the victim presses charges or the owner surrenders the dogs. I agree it sounds weird, but on the other hand, I think it sounds refreshingly fair. For a change, it’s nice to see a situation where an actual victim is in control of what the state should do to serve and protect her, and that the state doesn’t get to go out and overreach on its own authority.
I love Arizona.
Of course, the reporter could have gotten it all wrong, which is always one of the top three options.
8/29/2017 1:40 PM