Doogie and Tammy

Gloria first sent me the article about Tammy Grimes, the Lancaster, PA woman who was arrested for taking a taking a malnourished, chained dog (she calls him Doogie) from his yard, feeding him, taking him to a veterinarian for treatment, and then placing him in a safe, undisclosed location.

The dog's owners called the police, and Grimes was arrested on charges of receiving stolen property, theft, criminal mischief and trespassing. She was released on $50,000 bail.

Grimes was not there coincidentally.  A neighbor had called the Pennsylvania Humane Society, and when they did not respond, called Grimes, who is the founder of a national, well networked society called Dogs Deserve Better.

The comments and discussion at the bottom of the article linked above put the controversy in a nutshell.  There were two camps:  Good for her to do this for a helpless animal, vs. she deserved what she got for going onto private property and removing something that wasn't hers.  My concern here is the slippery slope.  If we condone what Ms. Grimes did for a dog in obviously dire straits, what will prevent others from similarly attempting to act on their own perceptions, and in less clear-cut cases?

I am an animal lover, let there be no doubt.  I wish, though, that as suggested in those comments, that Ms. Grimes had taken some video footage of the dog and taken that to the Humane Society, and if they did not intervene, then taken that to the media.  It would have focused on the plight of this and other mistreated animals, and taken the question of property ownership and vigilanteism right out of the equation.

I was also wary because of this line from the article:"Doogie's story comes as some of the nation's most dogged animal-rights advocates plan a weekend of events in Lancaster County, including the annual Puppy Mill Awareness Day..."

Ms. Grimes is an advocate, and Doogie's story sure has gotten a lot of attention in the media.  I tried to see if I could find an update but could find nothing more recent in the media, so decided to see if there was anything on the Dogs Deserve Better site.

When I went to the Dogs Deserve Better and saw the photos of Doogie on his chain, then the photos of Ms. Grimes rescuing (yeah, that's what it was) the dog, and later the YouTube video of Doogie eight days later, well, all I can say is:  Thank you, Tammy Grimes.

[Photo from Lancaster Online]

Comments

[CarolR]

“There were two camps: Good for her to do this for a helpless animal, vs. she deserved what she got for going onto private property and removing something that wasn't hers.”

I respectfully disagree. Because your two camps also imply that by respecting private property (land and sentient animal property) one is not out to help a helpless animal.

This whole issue is not about animals as property, therefore, how society and the law animals outside the purview of moral concern and more adequate legal protection. It’s not about property laws in conflict with higher moral laws. It’s not about the charm in protecting the sanctity of private property versus doing what is right. It is not about sides in which one removes (albeit illegally) a dog in possible/actual acute distress in order to help it get veterinary care vs one that would leave a dog to suffer even though authorities were called and had allegedly not responded. It’s not about one who acted on their conscience to ease the suffering of an animal who was perceived to need immediate medical attention vs one more interested in the impact on the owners, whether there or not, and the legal issues involved. It is unfair to polarize in such a way and to say it shows the difference in priorities both sides have. Both sides don’t want the dog to suffer needlessly and both sides should want to do what is both morally right and what’s within the rule of law.

“My concern here is the slippery slope. If we condone what Ms. Grimes did for a dog in obviously dire straits, what will prevent others from similarly attempting to act on their own perceptions, and in less clear-cut cases? I am an animal lover, let there be no doubt. I wish, though, that as suggested in those comments, that Ms. Grimes had taken some video footage of the dog and taken that to the Humane Society, and if they did not intervene, then taken that to the media. It would have focused on the plight of this and other mistreated animals, and taken the question of property ownership and vigilanteism right out of the equation.”

The plight of Jake/”Doogie” and other mistreated animals, as well as the questions of property ownership, and other legalities and vigilanteism should be part of the equation.

Protection from unreasonable search and seizure by self-styled or vigilante rescuers, as well as by police and other law enforcers, of privately owned animals (animate property) is of great importance to many, if not most, dog owners, I would reckon. So is due process under the law, with evidence that is valid (not mucked up by vigilante actions because the real evidence has been removed, even though a veterinary report, video and photos can be useful) and the right to fair trial by jury with a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven via such trial and presenting evidence.

The point is that without police powers to search and seize, Tammy Grimes’ actions undermined dog ownership rights, or property rights of the dog owners, and even undermined the welfare of the dog, and undermined the chain of evidence that could have established (or not) abuse/neglect by the owners and prosecuted the owners. Ms. Grimes, even though she is affiliated to a nonprofit animal-related rescue organization, had zero authority to do what she did. Her actions were totally wrong even if her motivations were noble. We have yet to find out if she had exhausted all legal channels available to her and if the dog was in fact in acute pain/suffering and imminent death. In an emergency, extraordinary measures may be warranted to prevent a severe or greater harm. But, the dog has to be in a life-threatening situation. Some acutely dire situations can be obviously determined, e.g., a dog in a burning house. Some instances can be recognized as outright abuse and severe neglect, where you could intervene, while waiting for the authorities to respond or after intervention telling the authorities.

Otherwise, I think there are many instances of alleged animal cruelty and neglect that are not always immediately recognizable and may be misinterpreted or just difficult to establish, legally but also non-legally, because different people have different standards about what constitutes such and, thus, cannot be established except through an examination by the relevant authorities trained and charged with investigating and enforcing the anti-cruelty laws in the area. Sometimes some friendly advice, education and constructive help, or a warning, solves the problem. Other times removal is the answer. These, especially removal, again, may have to be decided by people more qualified in the field than you or Ms. Grimes. It would be an unjust society were we to allow ordinary people to judge the care of other people’s pet animals and permit them to enter and take away their pets because of assumed cruelty and neglect. There’d be little point in having trained humane agents.

If one thinks it is unfair that one can be prosecuted and punished for helping an animal one **perceives** to be clearly suffering by entering onto the premises and taking the owned animal from the premises without owner’s permission, you need to change the laws, not violate the laws. One can try to lobby for animal welfare rescue orgs to have legal “standing” over privately owned animals, thereby, imbue these organizations’ founders/directors with powers to enter, search and seize private property. I doubt such laws will come to pass, but one can try. Or one can join Best Friends Animal Society in its initiative to pass an Animal Good Samaritan’s law. If one believes the legal status of dogs should be something more than mere “property” and that rights-holding owners should be called “guardians” to reflect their duty-bound obligations towards dogs, it is one’s job to convince lawmakers of such, without taking the law into one’s own hands. By all means advocate and fight for better protection, making the anti-cruelty laws more specific, stronger penalties and punishment for violations, incorporating animals into a Good Samaritan law/”defense of animals” law concept to allow for an interventions such as Grimes’, legal standing for animal protection orgs, etc., but don’t be so arrogant as to assert you have a moral right above the law to arbitrarily decide this constitutes animal cruelty and the moral right above the law to enter private property and remove the dog from its rightful owners.

True, doing what is morally right and doing what is legal is not always one in the same. But, it sometimes is. Our laws are not that inhibiting. It is possible to do the moral, humane thing within the bounds of the rules of law. Many, many rescues have come about of animals in just as bad, and worse, state as Jake/”Doogie” by ordinary citizens and rescuers who did not illegally enter and remove animals, and who never had the backing of a quite well-funded animal group to set up financial/legal defense and a media blitz to go with it. We simply cannot let self-styled rescuers vest in themselves the power to arbitrate what is/is not abuse and neglect and enter, search and seize.

Though, one does not always have to be a vet to know acute suffering, it’s just too easy for people, possessed with every noble intention, to misinterpret a situation. I would suspect more dogs and their dog owners will be unfairly harmed from such vigilantism than not, and that’s immoral. There are laws that protect dogs from their owners’ whim, and laws that protect dog owners from other people. Better to strengthen these laws and strengthen the means of enforcement of both. Or initiate a different approach to help dogs and people, without infringing upon dogs’ well-being and the due privileges with responsibilities of their owners.

I hope Ms. Grimes won’t be judged too harshly, though punished appropriately, as I believe she did do wrong and that there was, in my opinion, still time enough to take the proper channels for qualified investigation and other legal action. She made a mistake and has to pay the consequences. She should not get away with crime – unless her actions can be proven as and protected under the Good Samaritan doctrine - and should not be made an example for other vigilante activism in the name of rescuing dogs. There are so many websites with advice on what to do if one suspects animal cruelty – how to evaluate and interpret the situation, understanding the laws, gathering evidence, when and how to approach the transgressors, who to report neglect/abuse and what happens to your report and how to follow up, pursing your case if you are unsatisfied with your local law-enforcers, forms advocacy to strengthen existing laws and supporting new laws, public awareness and education, etc. I think most websites do not advocate taking the law into your own hands. Would Grimes’ Dogs Deserve Better website now promote the notion that people trespass and remove dogs they suspect are neglected and abused?

Though I don’t have the facts, just from reading, I don’t think – as I’ve read on other websites - she was exploiting the dog for her passionate cause of unchaining dogs. Being in her profession, she knew the laws and the options, and chose to break them and forego the proper channels. She chose to believe that an owner who chains their elderly dog in this kind of condition and then effectively abandons it by leaving the premises, surrenders whatever rights they had over the dog, regardless of what the law says or implies. She knew she was breaking the law and let raw compassion take over and felt justified in such in defense of what she genuinely believed to be (but it was her unqualified perception) a dog in a life-threatening condition who needed medical help more or less immediately. Maybe she felt that because the dog is mere property, she’d get a light sentence; after all, owners whose pet dogs have been mistreated are remunerated merely the sale value price of the dog, and people who commit genuine animal cruelty get so little in the way of punishment it’s almost ridiculous. If the video, photo and veterinarian’s testimony can provide enough evidence that Jake/”Doogie” was in a life-threatening condition and showed he was a victim of abuse/neglect, regardless of whether the situation could or could not be remedied in time via following the proper, legal channels, she will get off light. Whatever, we’ll have to wait and see when she has her day in court.

Not sure this will even go to trial, or whether instead there will be a plea bargain. It reminds me in some ways of the incident in 2002 when the Farm Sanctuary’s shelter manager, Susan Coston, responded to a cruelty concern phone call about a sheep at the Tyrone farm of Roy Miller, located a few miles from the Farm Sanctuary. She found a black lamb whose back was broken and back legs paralyzed being trampled by adult sheep in a crowded barn. No one was at the farm to help. Coston removed the injured lamb from this life-threatening situation and brought it to Cornell University Animal Hospital, where the decision was made to euthanize the animal. She was accused of stealing the lamb and initially charged with third-degree burglary for stealing the lamb, but which was later reduced to misdemeanor criminal trespass. The issue was given more attention by the Farm Sanctuary leader, Gene Bauston, with e-mail alerts to pro-“AR” and vegan websites, and the local district attorney, Joseph Fazzary, was clamoring for Miller, the farmer, to be charged with animal cruelty. As it turned out the lamb was not a victim of cruelty, but had a birth defect that would not have been ordinarily detectable until the lamb was slightly older. The lamb’s plight and Coston’s actions could not be covered under the duty-to-rescue/Good Samaritan concept. But, the judge, I guess, did see her intentions were probably well-meaning, though mistaken and unfair to the farmer, for she got off quite leniently. Under a plea bargain, Coston just had to perform 100 hrs community service, pay $200 in restitution/for the lost value of the lamb, and send a letter of apology to the farmer whose lamb she stole/rescued.

“I applaud both Ms. Grimes and the people who called for her assistance—perhaps had they been around in 1964, Kitty Genovese would not have been slaughtered while a crowd watched and did nothing. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." —Edmund Burke”

For me, this is an unfair analogy and inappropriate quote to apply to the Grimes/”Doogie”/Arnold/PA Humane Society case. It is not really known that “The incident was witnessed by anywhere from a dozen to 38 people.” There is some dispute, I think, just whether and how many people actually saw or were even aware of this assault and homicide taking place, or that Genovese’s screams were even a genuine cry for help. What has the Grimes/”Doogie”/etc. controversy to do with the notion of bystander apathy? There wasn’t a bunch of people that watched Jake/”Doogie” being obviously or probably abused/neglected, but who did nothing directly for Jake/”Doogie.” It was not an instance of the authorities being aware of the dog’s plight and then ignoring Grimes or Kim Eicher’s calls to the police and Humane Officer’s office (according to the Message from the Director of Operations on the Central PA Humane Society website). Again, the analogy and quote imply that this was an obvious case of neglect/abuse (it wasn’t). It unfairly suggests that those of us who disagree with what Ms. Grimes did would have ignored the plight of Jake/”Doogie”. It infers that existing laws, however inadequate, don’t protect animals from becoming neglected/abused and even enable dog owners to be neglectful/abusive. It assumes that people who work within the law either don’t do anything or are ineffective in helping animals. It assumes that what is legal is more often not what is morally right. It assumes that laws to protect animals haven’t really changed over the years. The Kitty Genovese case and what has come to be known as the Genovese effect and the Edmund Burke quote are, in my opinion, wholly irrelevant in this instance.

“When I went to the Dogs Deserve Better and saw the photos of Doogie on his chain, then the photos of Ms. Grimes rescuing (yeah, that's what it was) the dog, and later the YouTube video of Doogie eight days later”

I don’t know what to make of this ‘miracle 8-day cure,” after having been allegedly horribly neglected/abused and being so very old. The Altonna Mirrow also claimed that the veterinarian at the Veterinary Hospital of Altoona said to the effect that “Doogie” had been neglected or abused.

There are usually two sides to a story. I guess one will have to wait for the outcome of any court transcripts on veterinary accounts on whether the dog’s condition was one of neglect or abuse by his owners and whether there is enough evidence to warrant charging the ownders; whether Ms. Grimes’ actions were rash or took the proper legal avenues available under the circumstances and justified in breaking the law in this instance; and whether the humane agency was derelict in its duties to respond sooner and investigate. It will be interesting how this case will play out in the courtroom.