|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 12, 2013 23:47:37 GMT -5
The vet has actually told the officer that the dogs pose no threat. They've tried to get them moved to a foster home as well.
The cop is now saying the dogs can live but they have to find a new home for them. Tomorrow hopefully when he hears there is an attorney being hired he will back down further.
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 12, 2013 23:49:05 GMT -5
I was actually trying to post the ordinance but my keyboard died. Need to find batteries. Its crap. I'll post it once I find some batteries.
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 13, 2013 0:32:10 GMT -5
This is part of the ordinance that might have been violated, but since the officer will not say what the violation is, we don't know. Other than yes, the dog was at large and killed some chickens.
Section 2-303 concerns removing tags
Section 2-304 concerns licensing etc.
Section 2-305 Barking and Offensive Dogs Prohibited
It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep or harbor any dog which by loud continued
or frequent barking, howling or yelping shall annoy or disturb any neighborhood or person, or which
habitually barks or chases pedestrians, bicycles, motor vehicles, or riders of horses while they are on any public
sidewalks, streets or alleys in the City; provided, the provisions of this section shall not be constructed
to appy to any city dog shelter.
Section 2-306 Running At Large
Running at large shall mean any dog found off the premises of the owner and not under
the control of the owner or a responsible person, either by leash, cord, chain, wire, rope, cage or other suitable
means of physical restraint. it shall be unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any dog to run at large within said city and every dog found running at large in violation hereof is declared to be a public nuisance and may be picked up by the
animal control officer or city police officer.
Any person who permits his/her dog to run at large within the confines of the city is hereby deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined no more that $500.00 and shall pay the costs of prosecution.
This penalty shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by this article, either against the owner or the particular
dog.
Section 2-307 Dangerous Dogs; Definitions
"Animal Control Authority" shall mean the City Council of Atkinson.
(can't read the first line here)...
...part include assignments that (?) the seizure and impoundment of any animal.
"Dangerous Dog" shall mean any dog that
1. Has killed or inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property.
2. Has killed a domestic animal while the dog was off the owners property.
A dog shall not be defined as a dangerous dog if any threat or any damage was sustained by a person who, at the time was committing a willful trespass or any other (?) upon the property owner of the dog, nor shall a dog be considered a dangerous dog if the dog was provoked or abused by the party complaining.
"Domestic animal" shall mean a cat, a dog or livestock.
"Owner" shall mean any person, farm, corporation, organization, political subdivision or department possessing, harboring, keeping or having control or custody of a dog.
"Severe injury" shall mean any physical injury that results in lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery, or one or more broken bones, or that creates a potential danger to the life or health of the victim.
(Ref. Neb. Rev. Stat 54-617)
Section 2-308 Dangerous Dog; Class of Dogs Prohibited
Doberman, Rottweiler, pit bulls and wolf-hybrid dogs are hereby determined to be dangerous dogs and a public nuisance. It is unlawful to keep, shelter or harbor such breeds of dogs for any purpose within the city limits.
Section 2-309 Dangerous Dogs Failure To Comply
Any dangerous dog may be immediately confiscated by an animal control officer if the owner is in violation of this article and said officer may enter upon private property in order to confiscate the animal. In lieu of confiscation the animal control officer may immediately destroy the dangerous dog if it poses a threat of harm to said officer or any other person or property. The owner shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the animal control authority for the care and boarding of a dangerous dog confiscated by an animal control officer or for the destruction of any dangerous dog if the owner violated this article.
(Ref. Neb., Rev. Stat 54-620)
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 13, 2013 11:30:02 GMT -5
She has found an attorney in Omaha that wants to help. He's handled cases like hers so thats good.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 13, 2013 12:20:29 GMT -5
Wow that ordinance is really crappy. I'm glad she found a lawyer to help her.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 13, 2013 12:34:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Nov 13, 2013 16:33:47 GMT -5
Wow that ordinance is really crappy. I'm glad she found a lawyer to help her. really really crappy. and incredibly unconstitutional, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 13, 2013 18:39:20 GMT -5
It gets better.
the attorney wanted 1200 up front. So he wasn't hired.
I found out that the property they own is outside city limits. It is surrounded by cows. And part of the property was used as a feed lot. The chickens that were killed were also outside city limits.
The officer told them today that he wouldn't kill the dogs but they couldn't have them back.
When city limits were mentioned the officer claimed that since they lived within 1 mile of city limits he has jurisdiction.
She same into town to get property maps from the court house. Shell be back tomorrow to get them and hire one of the attorneys that I recommended in town.
This would not be happening if they had money in the bank and a different last name. Typical small town bs.
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 14, 2013 8:15:07 GMT -5
 So when it comes to enforcing dog ordinances, cops have jurisdiction outside of their town and act as judge? I don't get how this one cop is getting to decide everything that happens. Just from one incident of chickens being killed and the owners of the chickens being ok with financial restitution. This cop sounds like a complete power tripping a-hole. Did a summons ever get issued?
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 14, 2013 8:16:44 GMT -5
Also, I don't know if I have the qualifications that would be needed to make an impact, but if you want a
"note" from a certified dog trainer regarding predatory behavior directed at small animals in dogs, I would be happy to write something up.
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 14, 2013 10:20:41 GMT -5
No summons, no tickets, nothing. She wouldn't even know the ordinance had she not gone and picked up a copy.
And, if it is true there is a 1 mile jurisdiction, then why can't our city cops cross the street, literally, and impound the dogs that get dumped in my neighborhood? They can pick up a dog at the car wash, but cross the street and they can't. If I needed a 911 call, they would have to send a county sheriff or state patrol out here.
So that 1 mile jurisdiction is sh!t.
I could understand (not really) if her dogs had ever been at large, killed livestock before, or were in some other way a problem. But they have never had a problem with their animals. No legal problems, no criminal activity, etc. This is just a case of a very small town power trip, a guy who usually gets away with it. I will say when her parents were young, they were trouble makers, so who knows. Maybe her dad did the cops wife back in high school or something. ;p If he won't listen to the vet, I doubt he would care what a trainer has to say. It's all about ego or pride or whatever.
When I called the board member at the shelter, she groaned. Warned me who not to speak to, who to talk to etc. And the shelter "can't" get involved. Seriously what good is a group of animal advocates if they won't advocate?
It's effing stupid, and one point in many why I won't miss small town life!
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 14, 2013 11:24:45 GMT -5
Well the attorney said the cop does have jurisdiction. They are .6 of a mile out of town.
So Mary if you would still Luke to write that letter...about prey drive/ instinct...his the digs won't suddenly go on a human killing spree that would be awesome.
I'm traveling right now so I don't have easy access to addresses etc
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 14, 2013 11:41:51 GMT -5
Autocorrect sucks btw
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Nov 14, 2013 11:58:26 GMT -5
Ok I'll put something together, Mel.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Nov 14, 2013 14:10:11 GMT -5
this situation is just completely.. WTF......
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 14, 2013 17:10:55 GMT -5
She dropped off all the docs she had. So now its in the attornies hands.
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by melonie on Nov 15, 2013 11:53:20 GMT -5
Conclusion.
The attorney called this morning and said that if they get the digs fixed and micro chipped they can have the dogs back. The cop said a bunch of bs about how now the dogs are dangerous dogs and state law says they have to be out of the county. But he doesn't want to fight it.
I swear if I had money I'd bury that asshat.
Sent from my XT881 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Nov 15, 2013 13:06:29 GMT -5
Glad that they are getting the dogs back! The cop just banked on the fact that the people would be apathetic and not fight it.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Nov 15, 2013 15:32:12 GMT -5
well that's probably as good a solution as she could get. You're a good friend
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on Nov 22, 2013 14:58:09 GMT -5
Mel any update?
|
|
I look forward to learning much here