Intentions not relevant in law

Editor:

Re: ‘We had a moral right to take that dog,’ Dec. 6.

Editor:

Re: ‘We had a moral right to take that dog,’ Dec. 6.

Accused dog-napper Janet Olson said she hopes the legal case against her creates huge public outcry and causes change.

No doubt it will, but not in the way nor in the direction she hopes it will.

“…with its throat slit ear-to-ear…” What utter BS! None of the dogs taken had anything near so severe as slit throats. These pets were simply left unattended in their yards. This is not a practice I condone, but I can’t connect illegal actions with “humanitarian reasons.”

Where is their humane, kind compassion for people, for those whose pets were stolen then sold?

Did goodwill intentions go awry? When it comes to breaking the law, good intentions should be irrelevant. One cannot simply perceive an injustice in this country and then appoint oneself as judge and jury.

Can you imagine if we all claimed the “moral right” to take something?

The accused are grandma’s age – old enough to know better – female, gainfully employed and Caucasians. If they were young, male, jobless and dark-skinned, this case would be regarded very differently.

The SPCA has the mandate to investigate animal abuse and should continue to have our support. Warm blankets and food donations will go a long way this winter season. Please give generously to organizations that follow lawful procedures and deserve our respect.

Patricia Tyler, Surrey