Big Brother

LMTC · Apr 25, 2008

kidr said:
So "suspected child molesters " shouldn't be reported or investigated? How is someone convicted before they're suspected and investigated?

You circumvent the issue entirely. You referenced them as "criminals." I made NO comment about whether or not "suspected dog fighters" (and I certainly don't know how you determine who they are) should or should not be reported. I said "They are not criminals unless convicted".

You said "I guess criminals have more privacy rights than decent people." My point was, and remains, that the people you apparently reference as criminals are only "suspected", even according to your own use of language. It's a long leap, and a completely unjustified one, to go from referencing someone as "suspected" in one sentence to calling them "criminals" in the next sentence when no evidence has been presented and no trial has taken place. The only out to that that I can see is that your "criminal" reference was to something/someone other than the "suspected dog fighters" you referenced one sentence earlier...but in that case your post becomes completely non-sequitur.

So...where exactly did you read something I said about not reporting suspected child molesters? Or are you just tossing that issue out there because it might be inflammatory?

LoneCowboy · Apr 25, 2008

Why would my dog need a license?
it doesn't drive?
it doesn't pay taxes

ohhhhhhhhhh, it's just another tax, I see

No, i'll pass.
I think I pay enough taxes I don't think I need to be adding another one out of nowhere.

NuBota · Apr 25, 2008

LMTC,

I think you took the statement too literally. I took it to mean that if a person actually engaged in dog fighting brought their dogs to a vet, they don't have to fear being turned in. The vet could turn a blind eye and not be held legally responsible. If the "person engaged in illegal dog fighting activity" had licenses for the dogs, he is all set. If Al Capone paid his taxes, he would never have been a "criminal" either, just a suspected murdering racketeer.

Many folks post on these forums in a kind of shorthand, trying to convey a deeper meaning. I feel I understood the OPs attempt of pointing out the irony of the situation and did not feel he was indicating that all "suspects" were automatically criminals. However, since it was not written in legalese, I can understand that interpretations may vary.

riptides · Apr 25, 2008

LoneCowboy said:
Why would my dog need a license?

Perhaps because as a domesticated animal in case of disease, accident, theft or some other circumstance having it licensed and registered proper ownership can be established.

-Mike Z.

riptides · Apr 25, 2008

Texashayman said:
What about us that vaccinate our animals on the farm?

Animals or dogs?

How can one estabish proper medication or vaccines have been given?

How does on GET proper medication without consultation of a vet?

-Mike Z.

LMTC · Apr 25, 2008

NuBota said:
LMTC,

I think you took the statement too literally. I took it to mean that if a person actually engaged in dog fighting brought their dogs to a vet, they don't have to fear being turned in. The vet could turn a blind eye and not be held legally responsible. If the "person engaged in illegal dog fighting activity" had licenses for the dogs, he is all set. If Al Capone paid his taxes, he would never have been a "criminal" either, just a suspected murdering racketeer.

Many folks post on these forums in a kind of shorthand, trying to convey a deeper meaning. I feel I understood the OPs attempt of pointing out the irony of the situation and did not feel he was indicating that all "suspects" were automatically criminals. However, since it was not written in legalese, I can understand that interpretations may vary.

I took the statement as it was written.