Scary Legal Interpretation
"Surely if the dog’s unregistered it has no legal owner. At that point you have an unlicensed dog with no legal owner, and who has committed an attack on an individual. You don’t require consent of somebody who doesn’t own the dog legally. “I will definitely be taking this up with the chief executive (David Warburton) on his return to work next week,” Mr Laws said.
I haven't seen this logic before. So, if your dog is unlicensed, the law will deem the dog has NO owner, you lose your rights to due process, they can pick your dog up without your consent or notice, and put it to death. This is a completely unreasonable and dangerous legal theory. What if they are wrong? What if they get the wrong dog? What if the owner is falsely accused? What if the bite was provoked by the actions of the person who was bitten?
"Surely if the dog’s unregistered it has no legal owner. At that point you have an unlicensed dog with no legal owner, and who has committed an attack on an individual. You don’t require consent of somebody who doesn’t own the dog legally. “I will definitely be taking this up with the chief executive (David Warburton) on his return to work next week,” Mr Laws said.
I haven't seen this logic before. So, if your dog is unlicensed, the law will deem the dog has NO owner, you lose your rights to due process, they can pick your dog up without your consent or notice, and put it to death. This is a completely unreasonable and dangerous legal theory. What if they are wrong? What if they get the wrong dog? What if the owner is falsely accused? What if the bite was provoked by the actions of the person who was bitten?
No comments:
Post a Comment