For Grif
Moderator: RLG MGMT Team
For Grif
Silence is golden - Duct Tape is silver
No I suppose not. But then he should probably be held to care for the rabbit. I wonder if the 50k must be used solely for the rabbit? If he uses it for anything else, then what? Or, what if there is no rabbit? Then that would be fraud no? LOL
You know, we've got way too much time on our hands. Truth be known, I'm avoiding my taxes.
You know, we've got way too much time on our hands. Truth be known, I'm avoiding my taxes.
-
PanzerMeyer
- Posts: 4798
- Joined: 10 Feb 2004, 08:54
- Location: Miami, Florida
Well, people, and not just qualified people, kill animals every day in order to feed - chickens, cows, sheep, dogs & cats, pigeons etc., So I would say the motive of this individual for killing the animal, and the method intended in order to carry out the killing of the animal would ultimately determine whether or not this is a crime.
If he is not able to carry out the necessary welfare for the animal what are his options other than killing the animal - he surely has the option to hand the animal to the SPCA in his area, or ultimately set the animal free. Animals DO have rights, and one of those rights is freedom, human beings only have the right to set rules for themselves imho.
And finally, how is this message perceived by the public in general? As a simplistic statement of the potential fate of the rabbit or as a threat to the public in general to stump up money (blackmail). On that point, you ARE correct in saying that every penny donated must be accounted for and may ONLY be used for the welfare of the animal in question. Further to that, the money donated may NOT be used for the welfare of any other animal, until the previously specified amount has been allocated to the first animal mentioned on the website.
Maybe I shoulda been a friggin lawyer!
If he is not able to carry out the necessary welfare for the animal what are his options other than killing the animal - he surely has the option to hand the animal to the SPCA in his area, or ultimately set the animal free. Animals DO have rights, and one of those rights is freedom, human beings only have the right to set rules for themselves imho.
And finally, how is this message perceived by the public in general? As a simplistic statement of the potential fate of the rabbit or as a threat to the public in general to stump up money (blackmail). On that point, you ARE correct in saying that every penny donated must be accounted for and may ONLY be used for the welfare of the animal in question. Further to that, the money donated may NOT be used for the welfare of any other animal, until the previously specified amount has been allocated to the first animal mentioned on the website.
Maybe I shoulda been a friggin lawyer!