Me too, more than once. Buster was a good dog whom I loved very much, and I still miss him today - a German Shorthaired Pointer. It got so bad that we had to put him down. "He was a good dog." I know of no higher compliment for a dog. But as much as I loved him, it would have never occurred to me to drive recklessly on the way to the animal hospital. I had my wife and son in the car, for crying out loud. Aren't they worth more to me than the dog? How much concern did Gonzalez show in this case for his girlfriend's safety. She was in the car with him. Did he love the dog more than he loves her?quidni wrote:I've been in the situation where I had to get a seizuring pet to an emergency clinic, more than once.
I understand his angst, and yes, the officer in question was insensitive, but he did the right thing by not letting Gonzelez get back in his car and drive like a madman, putting the lives of other human beings at risk over the life of a dog - no matter how well loved the animal was. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, an officer with a greater degree of sensitivity might have offered to drive the dog there himself, code 3. At least he's better trained to drive that way than Gonzalez. However, for all I know, departmental rules might have forbidden him from making such a decision. If that is the case, then he did the only thing he could do, which was to stop a quantifiable threat to the public safety, no matter how emotionally charged was that decision.
[RANT]
Lastly, I honestly don't get it when people who are able to have or adopt children substitute animals for children and then say they are the same thing. A pet is NOT the same as a child. Period. It is my observation that people who think they are the same have never had a child. I've had both - pets, AND a child. They simply are not the same thing, no matter how you try to justify that position. If you want children, but cannot have children for medical reasons, then adopt a child. My wife was adopted. There is nothing wrong with adoption. Her parents could not have children, so they adopted her as a baby, and raised her and loved her as if she were born to them. Choosing a pet because you want companionship, or because you love dogs, or whatever other "pet" reasons are all perfectly legitimate reasons. But choosing a pet because you want a child but can't have one is simply delusional. If you want a child that badly, ADOPT one. If you aren't willing to take that step and adopt a child, then have the intellectual honesty to admit that perhaps you don't really want a child, because at least an adopted child has more genetic similarity to its adoptive parents than a pet does to its owners. Pets and children are not the same thing, and claiming that they are is just plain silly. And by the way, the law says you OWN a pet. You don't own your children. The relationship between a parent and child is much more complex than mere ownership, and the laws account for that complexity.
I can tell you that if my child savagely attacked my pet, I would discipline my child and seek counseling for him. If my pet savagely attacked my child, I would put the pet down. Period. If my child savagely attacked another person's child, I would discipline my child and seek counseling for him. If my pet savagely attacked another person's child, I would put the pet down. Period. Pets and children are NOT the same thing, and people who think that they are the same thing have gotten their sense of priorities well out of order.
[/RANT]