Rabbit raid?

[NellaBean]

Quote:
I'm sorry, but after working Animal Control for years, nearly every "large volume seizure" we dealt with used that same excuse. "Of course they are in bad shape, we JUST GOT THEM." Uh huh.

This case is bizarre and hard to figure out at this point becuase none of us have all the info. But the picture show cages that are unacceptably dirty regardless of whether they are pet rabbits or livestock rabbits. Calling them livestock doesn't mean they can live in filth. They are still rabbits.

I'm curious to see how it all plays out during/after the trial. I'll reserve judgment for now

 

[86121]

Quote:
I'm sorry, but after working Animal Control for years, nearly every "large volume seizure" we dealt with used that same excuse. "Of course they are in bad shape, we JUST GOT THEM." Uh huh.

This case is bizarre and hard to figure out at this point becuase none of us have all the info. But the picture show cages that are unacceptably dirty regardless of whether they are pet rabbits or livestock rabbits. Calling them livestock doesn't mean they can live in filth. They are still rabbits.

I'm curious to see how it all plays out during/after the trial. I'll reserve judgment for now

I definitely have to agree with you 100%

 

[sommrluv]

I wasn't responding to you, mom2jedi, but those who didn't address the issues I posted and were rather nasty. Sadly just 'saying' cohabitants cannot grant a search doesn't make it correct. They can.

And as nasty as some cheerleaders were to me, I got an ANIMAL RIGHTS??? warning. Seriously. I guess that's why I have eight rabbits in a grow out pen for butcher currently. Laughable.

Did you listen to the transcripts on the 18th? She addressed the photos one by one and discounted many of them because they were animals she had a few days that were ready to be killed, so they weren't part of her herd, supposedly. Not the rexes but the angoras.


I really don't care if anyone agrees with me...I was addressing some questions people had and wanted to clarify my position.

 

[MaryHammond]

Quote:
I'm sorry, but after working Animal Control for years, nearly every "large volume seizure" we dealt with used that same excuse. "Of course they are in bad shape, we JUST GOT THEM." Uh huh.

This case is bizarre and hard to figure out at this point becuase none of us have all the info. But the picture show cages that are unacceptably dirty regardless of whether they are pet rabbits or livestock rabbits. Calling them livestock doesn't mean they can live in filth. They are still rabbits.

I'm curious to see how it all plays out during/after the trial. I'll reserve judgment for now

Having "worked animal control for years", then you are aware that zoning plays a huge part in probable cause, and are also probably aware, that getting the zoning so very wrong as their probable cause, can get the case thrown out of court, correct?
Also "having worked animal control for years", you are also aware that AC must prove it's case. Debe Bell is not required to prove anything. She doesn't have to prove the rabbits were dumped on her, she doesn't have to prove she owned them. She needs to prove nothing at all. That is our justice system in action.
9 pics out of 200 pics taken by AC simply proves nothing at all. It doesn't even prove those are Debe's rabbits, Debe's cages. Without the rest of the 200 pics NOT published by animal control, there is testimony as well required.
What is wrong with the media end of the Debe Bell case is every single person demands that Debe Bell prove something, and assumes animal control was correct in it's actions simply because animal control TOOK action. The same mindset that says if the police arrest someone obviously they are guilty, which of course, demands the question, why do people think we have trials in this country?
Fortunately, having the best justice system in the world, we know the burden of proof is on animal control and we are still waiting for animal control to justify it's behavior. What I see is probable cause based on a cash reward for anonymous tips, (always weak in court), probable cause based on ACs failure to determine what her actual zoning was, (really shows incompetence), and the publishing of nine inflammatory pictures out of two hundred they could have published and didn't, and the untimely arrival of a seizure warrant, (again always bad news), and the refusal to allow Bell to photograph the actions of the law enforcement, (again, bad form as it is a violation of her first amendment rights.)

In answer to these glaring errors on the part of AC, you have based your opinion on the nine pics and some unproven generalisation of "people always say that".

I believe you are correct. You probably should wait for the trial outcome before you make anymore judgements........

 

[NellaBean]

No, actually I am basing my opinion on the years of my own work with animal control, not on any of the strange stories surrounding this case. I don't care about the zoning or the warrant or any of that, I'm not prosecuting or defending this case....thats all up to them.

I am just pointing out that its convenient to say, when faced with undeniable proof that you have animals in poor condition, that they aren't yours. I believe considering the animals are on her property means it is on her to prove that they were not hers. Whether they were hers or not, she had care and control of them at that moment in time......and it sure appears that she was failing to provide care. But we'll see what the judge says, cause I'm not here to argue. I'm just pointing out a very common theme amongst people being accused or prosecuted for something. Kind of like the thug who gets caught with drugs in his car....you've all seen it on an episode of COPS. Yes its my car, but NO those are not my drugs....they must be someone else's. Yes, thats it.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Actually I said..

Cohabitants don't have the power to consent to search of the whole of the property. Only that which is theirs to use.

Why? Strait from the transcripts of Georgia vs Randolf, the court case you brought up.

Justice Souter: It was... it was the... it was a search only of premises with respect to which she had, supposedly, common rights.

I mean, we take the case on that assumption.

Mr. Goldstein: You do--

Justice Souter: If--

Mr. Goldstein: --Justice Souter.

Justice Souter: --If she and her husband, you know... if she had a right to be in only two rooms, she couldn't authorize the search of the whole house, right?

Mr. Goldstein: That is--

Justice Souter: Okay.

Mr. Goldstein: --correct.

Supreme Court Justice Souter an Mr Goldstein (a lawyer) both agree that case law says you can not consent to search of the property as a whole, just the part that is yours to use. An remember they are talking about a married couple too.
An non of the other Supreme Court Justices disagreed. ​

 

[redhen]

Quote:
I'm sorry, but after working Animal Control for years, nearly every "large volume seizure" we dealt with used that same excuse. "Of course they are in bad shape, we JUST GOT THEM." Uh huh.

This case is bizarre and hard to figure out at this point becuase none of us have all the info. But the picture show cages that are unacceptably dirty regardless of whether they are pet rabbits or livestock rabbits. Calling them livestock doesn't mean they can live in filth. They are still rabbits.

I'm curious to see how it all plays out during/after the trial. I'll reserve judgment for now

I definitely have to agree with you 100%

Yes, those cages were filthy, and if thats how she keeps her rabbits then i pray that she doesnt get them back and is banned from EVER owning them again...
Yes, rabbit cages DO get dirty VERY quickly(but those cages in the pics had been flithy for a looong while...).. SO?? Does that make it acceptable to keep in animal in filth? Really??.. thats a pretty lame excuse.
If you have 200 rabbits and cant keep them CLEAN..then you should NOT have that many rabbits. PERIOD.
Its not rocket science folks...
If those WERE her cages.... then thats all i need to see. Those animals were living in flith. And it makes me SICK to see. How cruel...

I actually HOPE that those pics were false or something and those rabbits were not kept LIVING in those nasty conditions.... i really hope the lady is innocent, for the rabbits sake. I hate to think of any animal living like that.... poor things TRAPPED in that enviroment.
So lets hope those wernt her cages and the pics were faked somehow...
Again, i say, just another disgusting rabbit mill situation.
But we will see...
Also, just because a judge says shes innocent, does not mean she is.
We will see... Lets hope our justice system actually works in this case...

 

[redhen]

Quote:
Yep....

 

[Judy]

We've received several reports about this thread. Since the court date is soon, we have been trying to keep it open for the outcome to be posted. Further arguments about the legalities, etc. seem futile at this point, so let's keep it civil, please.

And please do not get into discussions about AR groups. From the rules:

14. No discussions about animal rights organizations or Cock fighting​

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Hey flockwatcher, do you mind clarifying those rules? For instance, if someone mentions a certain breed of chicken was "originally bred for cock fighting", that would not be locked based on the rules of cock fighting I'm assuming. Basically, what exactly is allowable? Thanks.