Tammy Grimes goes on trial next week

Actually, I don't even think what she did was wrong, but the way in which she did it. Assuming that she is telling the full truth, then her heart was in the right place, and taking the dog was the right thing to do. My objection, and my reason for supporting the charges, was not because I don't think she should have taken the dog out of that yard and to a vet. I think she should have, assuming her story is true. My objection is to her attitude, her exact methods and the ammount of attention she drew to herself. Rescuing a dying animal, when there is no other choice but to stand by and let it die, is the right thing to do. Its just how she went about it that I have a problem with . . . it shows a lack of respect for the law (forget the owners, just the law) that I find disturbing. You are permitted to break the law in times of necessity . . . but those who think they are entitled to break it are dangerous . . . there's a subtle, but important difference between "The only way I can do the right thing here is to break the law, so I will break the law and do the right thing, and apologize afterwards, and explain that I couldn't think of any other way to do the right thing, please forgive me." and Tammy's attitude, which seems to be "I'm right, the law is wrong, and if the law gets in the way of me doing what is right, screw the law, because I'm right. If I break the law because I'm right I shouldn't be punished because I'm right. And I'm not going to applogize, in fact, I'll publicize, because I'm right." Well, she may BE right, but she's not going to get a lot of sympathy with that attitude . . . not from a judge, and not from me. I DO sympathize with wanting to help the dog, and with doing so . . . but her belief that she had some kind of RIGHT to do so . . . no.

Very well said.

I am sorry, but the photos just don't do it for me. I see an old skinny dog laying on the ground. The vidoe shows an old skinny dog being reluctant to get up. Not that he can't get up, just that he would rather lay there and roll than stand up. Having had old skinny dogs (who sleep in the house on beds mind you) that act this way, I just can't find the horror that other people are seeing. Do I like seeing a dog that old on a chain? No. But maybe he had bladder issues and it was the only way to keep him from soiling all over the house while they were away. No one knows. But the dog was 18+ years old...that speaks VOLUMES for the care that it was recieving. Dogs don't live that long if they are not being well fed and well cared for.
I am 100% guilty of taking dogs that were neglected by owners, dogs that I have felt were not being properly cared for. But I never-ever took those dogs without law-enforcement backing me up and getting AC involved. If there was a problem I let that problem be known, I filed a report...but I never stole anyone's dog just because I thought it should be inside sleeping on the couch rather than in a dog house or on a dirt patch it had scratched out on the ground. I have bought neglected dogs to get them out of bad situations and I have gotten law-enforcement to confinscate them and offered to house them for them and cover the vet bills....so I know from experience that there is a certian way to "save" a dog, just taking them because you feel that you should be empowered to do so is wrong....and those who steal them should be prosecuted. What Tammi did was theft, it would be no different than some one breaking into your house and liberating your dog from his crate and freeing it into the wild to run free....all because they think dogs should run free and never stay in a crate.

We will never know for sure what her true intentions were as she is the only one that knows them.

The woman stole a dog that "in her view" needed immediate help. Was she right, maybe, but she may have been wrong as well. If her pure intention was to aid the dog, it would have sufficed to take it to the vet, get it treated, then return it to the owners with a plea to care for Jake better. And a video tape of the process would not be necessary.

Look, I'll never be able to make you look at the other side, that's a trip you need to take on your own. I just don't like letting the "Tammy's" side get full say without introducing alternate theory's. It actually has very little to do with what I believe, I always chose to support the under-supported side. It's what makes for good debates...

With that said, I'm done...

Like DryCreek, I tend towards devil's advocacy. But what it boils down to for me is where this will lead. Tammy got probation. The next time a dog is stolen, maaaaybe it'll be a shorter probation. Maaaybe people will start thinking that if a dog is a little underfed, its grounds for theft. I don't even chain my dogs, and everytime there's a case like this, it makes me nervous. (I can't imagine what kind of rabble would start looking at me once I start conditioning my dogs for ADBA.) Whenever someone gets applauded for taking the law into their own hands, it makes me uneasy. When they get off with a slap on the wrist, it basically verifies what they're doing. And I don't want anybody thinking they can leave my property carrying one of my dogs. (If that's the case, I will also take the law into my own hands. I know where my husband keeps his firearm, and I'm a better shot than him.)

I just wanted to add this, Tammy knew what she was doing was not right as far as the law was concerned and did not believe herself to be over the law

When she arrived and saw the dog she took him immediatley to the vet...

So again, Tammy knew that her actions were wrong, but EVEN the OFFICER agreed that the dog needed to be seen by a professional.

Why she did what she did

So, Tammy fully understood the actions that she took, she knew that legally she was not in the right to remove the dog, but made the call based on her own fears for the dogs, which apparentley were agreed upon by the humane officer who first saw the dog.

So with this being said, even Tammy herself, agrees that to take the law into her own hands was not the right thing to do, but COMPASSION took over her emotions.

With this said, I am done with this thread. I can understand the anger people feel for Tammy breaking the law and the worry that others may do the same, BUT I'm not looking at this in the big picture (and I fully understand and can see the big picture), I'm looking at this as one woman saving one dog.

The lack of compassion some have shown in this thread is just disheartening.

I WAS going to stay out of this but.....

The dogs name is Jake at least it still was at this point, unless they had already renamed the dog prior to the removal :yikes: j/k

A truer statement would be that she hadn't seen the dog get up since Saturday. Unless she watched not stop she has no way of knowing if the dog moved or not.

Low weight is not emaciated, old dogs can be very thin. Sores are common on older dogs that spend more time laying around aka bedsores. Hair loss is also age related. The only medication I read about was a shot of painkillers for the bone spurs and a shot of vitamins...not really an intense therapy program.

And the officer is medically/legally qualified to make this judgment? In Ontario, our agents are not allowed to remove animals on their own judgment. If they want a legal leg to stand on a Vet must visit the site and approve the removals. Saves a lot on the embarrassing misjudgments they may make.

In my eyes she was a coward for not talking to the owners as any respectable rescuer should.

Using Tammy's text to prove she did right doesn't do a thing for showing her side. Of course she believes and stands by her actions. To do otherwise would make her look worse than just a thief, she would be a liar as well.

And to this....

Who are you to judge?

Your forming an opinion out of a post that includes debates about an issue. To support the opposite side in a discussion such as this does not preclude that person from having compassion. In fact, to support the opposition shows more compassion than following the common trend.

I can understand and empathize with ALL sides....can you?

I try to know as much as I can before I condemn somebody. But I know enough to know I have no love for a dog thief. It was not Tammy's job to save anybody. Animal control should be doing their job, and if people want to see true change wreaked, let them hold AC responsible for the dog's continued bad condition.

If there's one thing I've learned in Rescue, it's that it's not always about doing a 'job' or diminishing the number of unwanted animals. If we wanted to do that, we could humanely euthanize every homeless animal out there. But once you get involved with an animal, it's about that individual. It's a life. They suffer. They feel, just like we do. It's like leaving a dying child. It wasn't about ending that owner's cruelty, it was about saving the dog's life.

I feel that if they truly tried to get Animal Control out there before Tammy took the dog, they did the right thing. And not to mention, AC met them a short while later at the vet to see the dog, anyway.

All they had to do was wait a little longer and they would have been able to do it the RIGHT way...

If there's one thing I've learned in rescue, it's that it does not matter if they were right or wrong, they are always right until proven wrong in court. We can always hope that it's not to late by the time the court case is concluded.

Maybe it's different where you are but I can't count how many times a dog was brought into the SPCA by an agent that didn't need to be there. After helping the Vet with an intake exam the dog would go right back to the owner for lack of sufficient evidence. This is why a Vet needs to be included in EVERY seizure. We may think the dog is dying or suffering, but we are NOT Vet's, we have neither the knowledge nor the qualifications to make such judgments.

I really really really hate this type of comparison. A dog is not a child!

Plus, Jake was NOT at death's door, granted he could have used some help as most seniors do, but not enough to steal him from what I've seen.

Kim Eicher says she tried to call AC, though their records don't show multiple calls. Tammy, however, never did call. If she had talked to someone at AC she would have known that an officer was on the way.

AC did not meet them at the Vet's, AC was ready to leave the Vet's when they showed up.

I'm not debating on whether Jake needed help or not, I was not there during the exam. I also have strong doubts about the immediacy of his needs. But to support someone in this type of issue is opening up a can of worms for dog owners.

Imagine one day that your dog is in your yard and a fanatic that has been following this story decides that your dog isn't being cared for properly. Your dogs not injured, your dog is healthy, but they don't like how the situation looks. Well, they think, the most I'll get is probation if I'm caught so it's worth it to try to save this dog from it's horrible unloving home.

If you think this is NOT possible, that it won't happen, just check to see how many people are devoted to freeing our pets from the slavery they must endure at the hands of humans. Is your neighbor a PETA donor? Are they an ARA fanatic. With groups like ALF and ELF et al, you should be concerned. They don't advertise their beliefs, they just do what they want no matter how it hurts the people involved.

Do I sound paranoid? Maybe, maybe not to some. It's never about just one issue, one animal, one family. It IS about having our rights to be tried for any crime in an unbiased way being overrun and trampled on by those that feel they know what's best. And I'm sorry if you disagree, but to save one dog at the expense of how many later is NOT worth it in my eyes. The bigger picture needs to be considered.

A Philosophy like that often leads to a lot of bad things being ignored. I hear that mantra all the time in the inner city...."its not my job" or "its not your job...just mind your own business".

Sometimes when the "Powers that be" don't do their job, someone has to step forward.

What's done is done . I know I couldn't have ignored the poor dog .

Ditto!! :hail:

All I know is that 18 years old is an absolutely phenominal age for a larger breed to reach. They usually only get to 8-12 years old.

I mean, Jake was between 105 to 120 years old in human standards.:yikes:

Is she going to come back for the next dog, and the one after that? If AC isn't doing their job, someone needs to step up and address that. Or make the focus of this whole story "why isn't AC doing their job," rather than "this is what happens to chained dogs." Of course now AC can get behind that statement with "yeah, we told you so," rather than answering for their inability to do something in this situation. Somebody should be in there reaming the heck out of the local animal control. But instead, that issue got pushed to the wayside, IMO. There could have been a positive change made overall.

First of all I understand you sensitivity to the "Chain" issue. But I would hope your love of dogs would trump your wariness over someone telling you how to confine your dogs.

I do agree that the AC not doing their job should be a much bigger part of the story here but the number one thing still has to be the welfare of the dog....that supersedes private property rights and the failure of bureaucracy.

I agree with both of these posts. This whole act just screams "publicity stunt" to me. If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that there are two sides to every story. I am NOT going to start cheering for Tammy.

All the articles I've read on this case are from obviously biased sources that I wouldn't trust at all. And nothing makes me more suspicious than calculated bleeding-heart stories, designed to play on people's emotions while showing a shocking lack of facts.

I want to hear about this from both sides. Were there *really* calls made to animal control, especially if the phone records showed that no calls were made? If so, what time, and what day? How many calls? Why didn't Tammy allow to vet to examine the dog? Does the owner have a history of neglecting animals? Do any of the owner's other pets show neglect? What is Tammy's personal history in the rescuing of dogs and cats? Does she have any prior criminal record or recorded confrontations with pet owners? If the dog was about to die, why did the owner file charges and demand that their dog be returned?

There are far too many holes in this story.

I don't see lack of compassion. I see people who are unwilling to jump on a bandwagon without knowing ALL the facts.

Okay, someone has got to tell me where these Mordor pictures are coming from. I need one that says One Does Not Simply Chuck Norris Judo Kick Into Mordor with Boromir's head on Chuck's body. Mua ha ha!

AmStaffer, FWIW, I do feel for the dog, and I do not feel that a chain is acceptable for the lifetime of the dog, if you have other options. But I'm a "big picture" kind of person, and I cannot support theft in the name of kindness. This should fall on AC's heads, but instead I see it being used as fodder to continue the push against tethering. I don't like support for vigilante actions any more than I like things like BSL and MSN. I think that if this kind of thinking is allowed to continue, after a while we're all going to have to answer to groups like DDB, PETA, HSUS and the like for things that are accepted parts of dog ownership. It scares the heck out of me. I don't want extremism ruling my household.

It should be the ACs head...agreed but in the mean time someone had to do something for that poor dog. If you ignore wrong doing then you are complicit.