The Media
With the right set of facts, a Dangerous Dog case can generate a lot of media interest. There are a lot of dog lovers out there. In Marion County, the McBee case was the impetus for the County Commissioners to revisit the Dangerous Dog issue. Unfortunately, it resulted in only one major change, the de novo hearing in County Court. This change is a big one, though, and therefore justified the effort.
With the internet, social networking sites, and organized events, it is possible to not only generate media interest, but to keep it going. The current Broward County protest is a good example of how to generate grassroots interest in a dangerous dog case. While it remains to be seen whether there will be any change to the Broward Ordinance, there has already been one casualty; Tom Keller, the county's top animal control investigator has retired.
The owners of Brandie and Gigi each created facebook pages to save their dogs. They also created an online petition which generated thousands of signatures. They organized and publicized a protest in the Lobby of the Broward County Courthouse.
All these actions generated some very positive newspaper reports and television pieces. In turn, this coverage brought the issue to the attention of a great number of people who never knew anything about the Dangerous Dog Ordinance or how it could affect their companion animal. For the most part, these Ordinances live a silent existence, known only to those who get their dogs impounded. A very small number of people. Getting the word out on how draconian the ordinance is, represents a very big first step in getting political change. The fact that the Broward Animal Advisory Committee agreed to hear public comment must be considered a direct effect of the negative publicity generated by these two cases.
Caveat
While social networking is a great tool, it can also generate evidence that can be used in court. There have been several Facebook defamation suits filed. Think before you post. If you are the owner of a dog in a pending dangerous dog hearing, shooting case, or other tort matter, statements you make on social networking sites can be used at trial either as impeachment or an admission. And if you make statements that fall into the category of defamation, you can be sued for damages.
My advice is that if you are going to use social networking, don't adminstrate the page or site yourself. If you are represented by counsel, get his or her opinion on what you intend to do and whether it is appropriate for the case. I would recommend that the party involved not post at all. If you do post, it would be only to relay factual material. In any event, it should not be done without forethought and attorney advice.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Fred M. Kray, June 16, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gloria, June 16, 2010
Maybe this was his way to create a 'ban' for all considered 'dangerous dogs'; that by the way happen to be only large dogs.
Ken Keechl's dangerous dog amendment and ordinance is possibly the alternative to enacting a 'ban.'
State Statute does not allow Broward County to ban any breed or animal type.
The following was stated by then Commissioner Ken Keechl at a County Commissioner Meeting on August 28th, 2007
"I just want to briefly, very briefly address the dangerous dog issue. The ordinance hasn't come back to us because it's still being worked on, and -- but I do believe that the fee for a dangerous dog should be increased because while we all have the right to own an animal, I don't believe we have a right to own a dangerous animal. We do not have breed specific prohibitions in our code. We don't have the right to do it anyway, and I wouldn't even be advocating that, but for an animal to be declared dangerous, you have to go through a judicial procedure."
Then Vice Mayor Wexler stated "if we are looking to make something prohibitive and -- I'm going to say it, I am, I am looking to make the owning of a dangerous dog prohibitive so that you really think twice about this as an owner, then $50 is not enough of an annual license"
The sad part with this faulty extreme ordinance is that there have been many defenseless animal casualties at the Broward County Animal Care Division, where animals have been impounded and have been killed without due process to the owners. The owners statements and facts have never been allowed in the court cases held at the Animal Court Hearings and the county's chief animal investigator has conveniently neglected to hear both sides of the stories.
The chief animal investigator to be Tim Keller has been praised by the Hearing Officer stating that 'he has been a great help during the hearings."
To make this more questionable: the Hearing Officer, is the person who decides that a dog will die; she does not allow any documentation, not even police reports presented by the owners for the defense of the dog. She works for the County, is paid by the County and for every appeal the fee is of over five hundred dollars that the owners of the dog have to pay. In addition even if the animal is destroyed the owners have to pay a daily fee between sixteen to twenty dollars for 'room and board' for the dog.
Finally Animal Control is a function of the government paid by tax payers, by us. Therefore Mayors, Commissioners and Governors should be responsive to the requests of the citizens, the tax payers.
-
- +0
-
-
