Puppy Mill Protester Tackled by Mall Cops

[gkathleenw]

Originally Posted by 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!!

Me too!

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

Well it was first pointed out in post #3 by Kyle that there are laws regarding protesting on private property and it's been reiterated on this thread over and over, including my post #11. Not sure what peta has to do with it except you seem to see them everywhere and in everything.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

Well it was first pointed out in post #3 by Kyle that there are laws regarding protesting on private property and it's been reiterated on this thread over and over, including my post #11. Not sure what peta has to do with it except you seem to see them everywhere and in everything.

Maybe I will cut and paste only part of the article just to suit you.

[Ashley V]

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 then it looks like the majority of YT should be arrested because a lot of us are against puppy mills and do whatever we can to prevent people from buying from them.

I don't know why you are obsessing about this. Are you trying to cause an argument? It seems like you almost are for puppy mills and are trying to convince people to leave them be so we don't destroy their "business". I know you are a dog breeder and from what I can tell a really good one, but these people are not good breeders at all. Look at the videos on this thread http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...-you-sick.html - Do you really think that we as people that love dogs should let this go on? We are these dogs voices and if we sit around and do nothing then there will be more and more of these mills around. I still commend these girls for making a stand.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Maybe I will cut and paste only part of the article just to suit you.

I can't see what that would accomplish since I conceded 3 pages back that it was illegal. I still support the protesters and you have every right not to. The point of your post was peta which has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. It really seems like you are trying to blur the issue and bring in controversy that isn't there and I don't understand that at all.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Ashley V

Well then it looks like the majority of YT should be arrested because a lot of us are against puppy mills and do whatever we can to prevent people from buying from them.

I don't know why you are obsessing about this. Are you trying to cause an argument? It seems like you almost are for puppy mills and are trying to convince people to leave them be so we don't destroy their "business". I know you are a dog breeder and from what I can tell a really good one, but these people are not good breeders at all. Look at the videos on this thread http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...-you-sick.html - Do you really think that we as people that love dogs should let this go on? We are these dogs voices and if we sit around and do nothing then there will be more and more of these mills around. I still commend these girls for making a stand.

I am not for mills at all. I am glad they are all getting busted one by one. I am against badly written legislation, harrassment, intimidation, etc, against ligitimate businesses, the dog, cat, horse fanciers that continually are the target of peta, hsus, and even the pompom girls. I think there has been good exposure on Oprah and things are getting done. I think that this is a good way of expressing ones point about the mills instead of going to dog shows and letting dogs out of their crates, poisoning dogs at dog shows, walking around in KKK garb or pompom harrassment in front of legal businesses.
I just posted the bill against these annoying people and that businesses/dog shows/rodeos/circuses, etc do not have to put up with them. I dont like my Constitutional rights trampled on and I am sure you dont either. Maybe someday it will be illegal of own a pet store. But the way I see legislation being written, it also may be illegal to own pets in the future also. I hope you can see my point of view.

[Nancy1999]

It's important to read these things carefully, and I think it says that whoever uses the mail or interstate (highways) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise may be in big trouble. This next part is important: "In connection with this 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. So they would have to damage something, or intimidate someone in fear of death or serious bodily harm." The pom pom girls didn't do this.

This means they could not vandalize the place they could not steal records, or animals, or make anyone feel threatened, and this would mean throwing things on them. Do you honestly think the customers felt "threatened?" Most judges require that the test be would a "reasonable and prudent" person feel threatened if this were to happen?

If the business had been on a city street, what there were doing would actually be fine; the only thing they did wrong was not leave when the mall owners requested them to leave. However, even on a city street, if they had been caught doing ANY the other things, it would have been breaking the law. You can't just take the word harassment, and define it how you like; the law is fairly cleared on what is allowed and what is forbidden.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

It's important to read these things carefully, and I think it says that whoever uses the mail or interstate (highways) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise may be in big trouble. This next part is important: "In connection with this 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. So they would have to damage something, or intimidate someone in fear of death or serious bodily harm." The pom pom girls didn't do this.

This means they could not vandalize the place they could not steal records, or animals, or make anyone feel threatened, and this would mean throwing things on them. Do you honestly think the customers felt "threatened?" Most judges require that the test be would a "reasonable and prudent" person feel threatened if this were to happen?

If the business had been on a city street, what there were doing would actually be fine; the only thing they did wrong was not leave when the mall owners requested them to leave. However, even on a city street, if they had been caught doing ANY the other things, it would have been breaking the law. You can't just take the word harassment, and define it how you like; the law is fairly cleared on what is allowed and what is forbidden.

Maybe loss of profits fits the scenario.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Maybe loss of profits fits the scenario.

I don't think it does. I really did look for it.

Think of it, if causing a loss of profits were criminal, the government could never close down a puppy mill, or even a drug house.

[Ashley V]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I am not for mills at all. I am glad they are all getting busted one by one. I am against badly written legislation, harrassment, intimidation, etc, against ligitimate businesses, the dog, cat, horse fanciers that continually are the target of peta, hsus, and even the pompom girls. I think there has been good exposure on Oprah and things are getting done. I think that this is a good way of expressing ones point about the mills instead of going to dog shows and letting dogs out of their crates, poisoning dogs at dog shows, walking around in KKK garb or pompom harrassment in front of legal businesses.
I just posted the bill against these annoying people and that businesses/dog shows/rodeos/circuses, etc do not have to put up with them. I dont like my Constitutional rights trampled on and I am sure you dont either. Maybe someday it will be illegal of own a pet store. But the way I see legislation being written, it also may be illegal to own pets in the future also. I hope you can see my point of view.

I could see your point if those dogs were from a legitimate dog breeder, but puppy mills are certainly not "dog fanciers". They are dog abusers. There is a complete difference and I don't see how YOUR rights are being trampled on. No one is hurting you. These girls weren't causing those animals any harm, they weren't letting them out of cages, or anything but those puppy millers ARE harming those animals... those girls were informing the public of where those dogs come from to do their part in shutting those mills down.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Ashley V

I could see your point if those dogs were from a legitimate dog breeder, but puppy mills are certainly not "dog fanciers". They are dog abusers. There is a complete difference and I don't see how YOUR rights are being trampled on. No one is hurting you. These girls weren't causing those animals any harm, they weren't letting them out of cages, or anything but those puppy millers ARE harming those animals... those girls were informing the public of where those dogs come from to do their part in shutting those mills down.

Well I believe Yorkiekist has extremely high idols for breeders and she truly is bothered by poor breeders, and puppy mills; I read her posts all the time, and I know this. One thing that the average pet owner doesn't understand is how breeders are being attacked on many fronts, and many of them are scared by this new legislation, and the words "animal rights" strike fear in them instead of comforting them. It's not that easy to read a bill and understand what it's really trying to say. Probably the smallest group is that of good breeders, who truly aren't profit motivated, and are really interested in bettering the breed, however, they have no big lobby watching their back. All pet lovers should be watching their backs.

[Ashley V]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Well I believe Yorkiekist has extremely high idols for breeders and she truly is bothered by poor breeders, and puppy mills; I read her posts all the time, and I know this. One thing that the average pet owner doesn't understand is how breeders are being attacked on many fronts, and many of them are scared by this new legislation, and the words "animal rights" strike fear in them instead of comforting them. It's not that easy to read a bill and understand what it's really trying to say. Probably the smallest group is that of good breeders, who truly aren't profit motivated, and are really interested in bettering the breed, however, they have no big lobby watching their back. All pet lovers should be watching their backs.

I understand being concerned about your rights as a reputable good breeder and I know she is a great breeder and I hope she can continue to breed for years to come, but what does that have to do with shutting down a puppy mill, which is what this thread is about? A puppy mill and a reputable breeder are two completely different things. Those girls weren't protesting against good breeders... just puppy mills and backyard breeders.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Ashley V

I understand being concerned about your rights as a reputable good breeder and I know she is a great breeder and I hope she can continue to breed for years to come, but what does that have to do with shutting down a puppy mill, which is what this thread is about? A puppy mill and a reputable breeder are two completely different things. Those girls weren't protesting against good breeders... just puppy mills and backyard breeders.

Well the thread, I guess is different things to different people, to you it's about shutting down puppy mills, to me it was about teenage girls protesting against a pet store, and informing the public that pets store puppies come from mills. To others, it was about the differences between the ways the boy and girls were treated. Yorkiekist seems to believe that a legal business should not be harassed or disrupted in any way, and the girls should have protested in another legal way. Even though nearly all of us here at Yorkietalk are against puppy mills, we all seem to feel differently about what steps should be taken to shut them down.

We had a thread earlier where we asked people to stop shopping for any merchandise at pet stores that sold puppies, very few people seemed willing to do this, although they all thought it was horrible that the store sold puppies. As many said, it's so inconvenient.

[yorkiekist]

I dont have the hang of multiple quotes yet but I would like to say thank you to Nancy, AshleyV and Nikki+2. You have said very nice things about me and you do not know how much that means to me.
The puppy mill issue is sooooooo HUGE!! Almost to the point of over-whelming. I will be the first to admit that I do get a little carried away sometimes. Please read all of the legislation that is trying to be passed. In these bills, responsible breeders are exactly the same as puppy mills. There is no differential treatment. These bills are being spurred on by peta and H$U$ who have millions of dollars and strong lobbyists in every state. These "demonstrations" do point out puppy mills, which is good up to a point. But it also gives uneducated people a bad image of ALL breeders, not just the mills. As Nancy said, no one is watching the back of the good breeders. We will also be subject to every fine, fee, intrusion of private life, home invasions, strict micro-mangement, and siezure of our dogs that we have spent our blood, sweat and tears for. Alot of the good breeders have spent YEARS perfecting the breed of their choice. Good breeders have spent their hard earned money on health research, breed education,dog ownership education, shows, field trials, handicap dogs, search and rescue dogs and all of it for the love of the breed. Good breeders are the mentors for newbies wanting to "get into" their breed of choice. Education and time spent with the 'newbies" is priceless. With the passage of each bill, the more all of these good things will dissappear to the point of the good breeder not being able to breed anymore. It will just be to expensive with all the added fines and fees and restictions put on us by these badly worded bills. I even put my showing on hold this year because of the economy. I cant afford it right now. But these is next year!! I hope you all can see where I am coming from on this issue. Personally I think that peta and H$U$ and the hecklers should go after the mills first. Without the mills, the pet stores will have no one to buy from. Back Yard Breeders will not accept the small amounts that the pet stores offer for their puppies. This will make it hard for a pet store to stay in business with no access to puppies.
Thats just how I see things. Lynn

Sorry if I offended any of you and seem obsessive. It just seems like its so easy to see the 'peta hsus' ideals and not the good breeder points of view.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I dont have the hang of multiple quotes yet but I would like to say thank you to Nancy, AshleyV and Nikki+2. You have said very nice things about me and you do not know how much that means to me.
The puppy mill issue is sooooooo HUGE!! Almost to the point of over-whelming. I will be the first to admit that I do get a little carried away sometimes. Please read all of the legislation that is trying to be passed. In these bills, responsible breeders are exactly the same as puppy mills. There is no differential treatment. These bills are being spurred on by peta and H$ who have millions of dollars and strong lobbyists in every state. These "demonstrations" do point out puppy mills, which is good up to a point. But it also gives uneducated people a bad image of ALL breeders, not just the mills. As Nancy said, no one is watching the back of the good breeders. We will also be subject to every fine, fee, intrusion of private life, home invasions, strict micro-mangement, and siezure of our dogs that we have spent our blood, sweat and tears for. Alot of the good breeders have spent YEARS perfecting the breed of their choice. Good breeders have spent their hard earned money on health research, breed education,dog ownership education, shows, field trials, handicap dogs, search and rescue dogs and all of it for the love of the breed. Good breeders are the mentors for newbies wanting to "get into" their breed of choice. Education and time spent with the 'newbies" is priceless. With the passage of each bill, the more all of these good things will dissappear to the point of the good breeder not being able to breed anymore. It will just be to expensive with all the added fines and fees and restictions put on us by these badly worded bills. I even put my showing on hold this year because of the economy. I cant afford it right now. But these is next year!! I hope you all can see where I am coming from on this issue. Personally I think that peta and H$ and the hecklers should go after the mills first. Without the mills, the pet stores will have no one to buy from. Back Yard Breeders will not accept the small amounts that the pet stores offer for their puppies. This will make it hard for a pet store to stay in business with no access to puppies.
Thats just how I see things. Lynn

Sorry if I offended any of you and seem obsessive. It just seems like its so easy to see the 'peta hsus' ideals and not the good breeder points of view.

I just ask you to consider the idea that some of the information you get regarding certain laws and legislation comes from huge lobbies that are backed by commercial breeders, and "sporting dog" associations backed by dog fighting enthusiasts. I think they are trying to scare the heck out of the small breeder, and know if they get the backing of all the small breeders they can fight many laws that would really only affect them. I wish the AKC could be trusted to look out for the small breeder, but I'm not sure this is the case, since they still have so many commercial breeders registered with them.