Puppy Mill Protester Tackled by Mall Cops

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Well, I guess I would just have to call the real police, not the mall cops, and have the pompom girls and boys banned from the mall if this was affecting my business. You dont seem to get my point and are more than willing to trample the rights of others to get an agenda across.

As for the remark about slavery, that doesnt even come close to comparing to pet store issues. A nation will not be almost divided and go into a civil war over pet stores.

One of the things that make this country great is that we can have peaceful protests. It's ok with me if all those pet store that sell puppies go out of business; I hope the puppy mills themselves go out of business, even though they are legal. Humans consciousness over the years has been raised, we no longer treat woman and children as objects, and possessions. Often it's the young, who seem to have a higher sense of what's right and wrong, they aren't so accepting of the status quo. However, I am deeply offended by those groups who think, it's ok to touch another person physically or throw things, on them for any reason, and no matter how important the cause, and I consider them no better than terrorists. In this case, the only persons who were in danger of being hurt were the protesters, this is the difference, they allowed themselves to be vulnerable, and subject to being arrested. They believed the cause was important enough to do this, but they didn't hurt others. Now granted if this were happening daily, I would feel worse for the surrounding stores, but it isn't. I guess in essence you are saying that you don't believe in protests of any kind, no matter how peaceful. I too believe in handing on pamphlets, but that really isn't a protest.

[tjdmom]

I think too many of us are too complacent. I hear everyone on here talking about how they hate puppy mills and yet, got their pet from a pet store or puppy mill. (I'm not judging here at all, so please don't take that the wrong way) Until we start educating each other and people stop buying puppies from puppy mills... then it's not going to stop. If people would stop buying from these venues then there wouldn't be a problem. The pet stores are attempting to make money. All that has to happen is people need to stop buying puppies from places like that. We don't need to protest. We don't need to demonstrate in front of those places. We just need to STOP buying puppies from puppy mills. Why does that seem so difficult to do?

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by tjdmom

I think too many of us are too complacent. I hear everyone on here talking about how they hate puppy mills and yet, got their pet from a pet store or puppy mill. (I'm not judging here at all, so please don't take that the wrong way) Until we start educating each other and people stop buying puppies from puppy mills... then it's not going to stop. If people would stop buying from these venues then there wouldn't be a problem. The pet stores are attempting to make money. All that has to happen is people need to stop buying puppies from places like that. We don't need to protest. We don't need to demonstrate in front of those places. We just need to STOP buying puppies from puppy mills. Why does that seem so difficult to do?

I read all the time on Yorkietalk that people had no idea that you shouldn't get your dog from a Pet Store; this is something they have learned from Yorkietalk. How did you learn about this? The protesters were trying to make people aware of the fact that Pet Stores carry dogs that have been raised in puppy mills. People don't actually buy the dogs directly from the puppy mills, the puppy mills sell the dogs to pet stores, and now that web sites are so popular, the puppy millers are selling them from very nice web sites. I wish I could throw a protest to get people to stop buying from websites. How do you look in a pom pom outfit?

[MeganS]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Well, I guess I would just have to call the real police, not the mall cops, and have the pompom girls and boys banned from the mall if this was affecting my business. You dont seem to get my point and are more than willing to trample the rights of others to get an agenda across.

As for the remark about slavery, that doesnt even come close to comparing to pet store issues. A nation will not be almost divided and go into a civil war over pet stores.

You compared the protestors to the people who protest at military funerals, I compare the puppy millers to slave drivers.

To each their own.

But that wasn't even my point in my original statement of it. What I meant was that you said that pet stores are legal - I said that just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal, and I don't think you'll find many people who think it was right.

[yorkiekist]

I think I am going to go to my FIRST protest tomarrow!! It WILL NOT disturb any businesses or tromp on anyones Constitutional rights either. It will not hold up traffic and will be very peaceful. Its an issue that I believe in whole-heartedly.

[tjdmom]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I think I am going to go to my FIRST protest tomarrow!! It WILL NOT disturb any businesses or tromp on anyones Constitutional rights either. It will not hold up traffic and will be very peaceful. Its an issue that I believe in whole-heartedly.

Tell me more..... What are you protesting?

[BamaFan121s]

Although I completely agree with the agenda of the those who were protesting in the video, I can also completely understand the action of the security. I think there are probably too many unknowns in the scenario to be able to declare with any amount of certainty what exactly happened. You can only hear what was being picked up on the camera (which was 2 stories up). For all we know, the security guards could have been asking the guy to leave before resorting to the actions they did. They could have been doing the same with the pom-pom girls. Heck, for all we know the guy could have told the guard he had a bomb and was going to blow everyone up. Who knows!

As far as the guy not removing the cheerleaders...how well would that have gone over? A grown man using physical force against a female...think about that. Furthermore, he was a tad bit outnumbered by them---4 to 1. I would suspect he was waiting for other guards to arrive. (You see him using his radio and other guards arriving shortly.) What would have been the approved way for him to handle the situation with the females?

Bottom line, the mall is private property and although their reasons may be noble, their antics were likely distrubing businesses and mall patrons. IMO, the security guards were within their right to remove him / them from the premisis by whatever means the situation deemed neccessary.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Ashley V

An hour is not going to cause a store to close down. Those stores are chain stores usually...

Not that it matters, but generally even chain stores are franchises owned and funded by individuals. I'd be willing to be that if it was money coming out of YOUR pocket, affecting YOUR livelyhood you may feel differently. I can't imagine that if you went in to work one day and your boss said, "You know, I think that I'm not going to pay you for your next hour or so of your work..." that it would go over to well with you. I mean, what's an hour of income, right?

Just something to think about.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by tjdmom

Tell me more..... What are you protesting?

Had to do with the political scenario. O'bama came to Mesa today so thats all I will say.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Although I completely agree with the agenda of the those who were protesting in the video, I can also completely understand the action of the security. I think there are probably too many unknowns in the scenario to be able to declare with any amount of certainty what exactly happened. You can only hear what was being picked up on the camera (which was 2 stories up). For all we know, the security guards could have been asking the guy to leave before resorting to the actions they did. They could have been doing the same with the pom-pom girls. Heck, for all we know the guy could have told the guard he had a bomb and was going to blow everyone up. Who knows!

As far as the guy not removing the cheerleaders...how well would that have gone over? A grown man using physical force against a female...think about that. Furthermore, he was a tad bit outnumbered by them---4 to 1. I would suspect he was waiting for other guards to arrive. (You see him using his radio and other guards arriving shortly.) What would have been the approved way for him to handle the situation with the females?

Bottom line, the mall is private property and although their reasons may be noble, their antics were likely distrubing businesses and mall patrons. IMO, the security guards were within their right to remove him / them from the premisis by whatever means the situation deemed neccessary.

Very well stated!

[yorkiekist]

Subject: Domestic Terrorism: PETA is listed as a domestic terrorist during the annual Anti-Terrorism briefing I am required to attend for the National Guard.I did extensive research when I put together the posters. I wanted to ensure I included accurate information. AR Extremist CAN be arrested for disrupting a dog show. This was established by Congress Bill S. 3880 ,which is also known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act signed by President Bush on Nov 27, 2006. It was developed to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror. You can read the full version of the Bill with amendments at GovTrack: S. 3880 [109th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill It states Offenses, Penalties, Restitutions, and Definitions. I have copy and pasted the clauses (not paraphrased) as they apply for our purposes below: Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises (a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce-- (1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and (2) in connection with such purpose-- (A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to,relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism,property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or (C) conspires or attempts to do so; shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b). (b) Penalties- The punishment for a violation of section (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) shall be-- (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both,if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and-- (A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or (B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000; (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and-- (A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or c) Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution-- (1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; (2) for the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and (3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense. (d) Definitions- As used in this section-- (1) the term `animal enterprise' means-- (B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or (3) the term `economic damage'-- (A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but (B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawfulboycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise; Approved to cross post if desired

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Subject: Domestic Terrorism: PETA is listed as a domestic terrorist during the annual Anti-Terrorism briefing I am required to attend for the National Guard.I did extensive research when I put together the posters. I wanted to ensure I included accurate information. AR Extremist CAN be arrested for disrupting a dog show. This was established by Congress Bill S. 3880 ,which is also known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act signed by President Bush on Nov 27, 2006. It was developed to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror. You can read the full version of the Bill with amendments at GovTrack: S. 3880 [109th]: Text of Legislation, Enrolled Bill It states Offenses, Penalties, Restitutions, and Definitions. I have copy and pasted the clauses (not paraphrased) as they apply for our purposes below: Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises (a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce-- (1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and (2) in connection with such purpose-- (A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to,relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise; (B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism,property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or (C) conspires or attempts to do so; shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b). (b) Penalties- The punishment for a violation of section (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) shall be-- (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both,if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and-- (A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or (B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000; (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and-- (A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or c) Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution-- (1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; (2) for the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and (3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense. (d) Definitions- As used in this section-- (1) the term `animal enterprise' means-- (B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or (3) the term `economic damage'-- (A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but (B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawfulboycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise; Approved to cross post if desired

Well that was a pretty huge cut and paste and with no spaces not an easy read but I have no idea what it has to do with this thread? Just needed to squeeze peta into a thread somehow?

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

Well that was a pretty huge cut and paste and with no spaces not an easy read but I have no idea what it has to do with this thread? Just needed to squeeze peta into a thread somehow?

I had no problem when I read it. It has everything to do with this thread. It basically says that it is against the law for harrasment/intimidation antics, be it pompom girls or peta. I think its good to know for business owners as well as dog exhibitors, etc.

[browniesmom622]

If i was a store owner next to the Petstore Not only would i support those girl's I would Probably join them.
That guy did not wrong It shouldn't have been forcefully taken down like that They would have asked him to leave.
If people didn't protest Not only would the word of puppymill's not getting out But they also wouldn't have closed down so many store's. I hope they keep protesting!!

[browniesmom622]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

Well that was a pretty huge cut and paste and with no spaces not an easy read but I have no idea what it has to do with this thread? Just needed to squeeze peta into a thread somehow?

I agree, just one big Jumble mess to me.