Headline: Attorney appointed for dog that attacked child. Yep – you read that correctly.
A Superior Court judge has appointed an attorney for an Effingham County pit bull that attacked a 5-year-old boy.
Judge William E, Woodrum Jr. “in the interest of justice” appointed Springfield attorney Claude M. Kicklighter to represent the dog, named Kno.
For Super Troopers fans, it’s almost like the judge is just having fun meow since the attorney is doing it pro bono. Law geeks, why else wouldn’t they just mandate the dog be put down?
{ 14 comments }
Give me a break – they walk amongst us:
“There has to be a lesson for dog owners and for people not to allow their children to go to other people’s houses with dogs,” said Romie Currier, director of animal control for Effingham County”
“Call the Pit Bull Rescue Lady”
” I will try to get in touch with her so she can come get Kno before euthanasion takes place. Until and when they let us euthanize humans, then it will be okay to just stop the life of what once was a friendly loving animal. I’ll be the kid hit the dog, and more than once. The owner needs to be penalized and the kid’s parents really need to stop the future criminal growth in the child. There’s still time.”
Dogs are people too! And since they are people they need lawyers.
Yeah! Except the part where the lawyer really represents the owners. #readthestory
Except the part where the judge really appointed the attorney to represent the owners AND the dog. Why don’t you #readthestory, Rick?
We can finally confirm that our legal system has gone to the dogs.
My law school classmate. Go, Mickey!
Well..of course! There are those who think a zygote .01mm long is a full human with cognitive abilities, therefore a ‘right to life’. Dogs are much more developed physically and intellectually than zygotes.
If one is to draw the definition of ‘life with rights’ at the zygote stage, please note at one time all mammals were identical zygotes.
Moral: be careful what you demand, in defining ‘life with rights’.
I for one wish Bridget would stop posting these thinly-veiled anti-abortion stories.
Oh, thought it was pro-choice with a dog needing protection from an evil 5 yr. old, a question of going to a home with a dog and a rescue lady suggesting euthanizing people first.
Five-year-olds are evil.
This is where I must stand up in favor of euthanizing teenagers, not five years. Five-year-olds, while able to manifest evil, can still be overpowered and restrained. Teenagers, not so much.
Good point, but I has being pre-emptive.
Let’s think about this logically. The dog is property of the owner, the 5th Amendment guarantees due process for the taking of property. Some states, for example I believe South Carolina have a scheme of appointing attorneys for indigent defendants in takings cases, so I believe the judges decision is entirely understandable.
Due process has degenerated into the time consuming extreme improbable. Logically, in most situations. if a dog attacks a child we should destroy the dog. Then we sort out damages with the owner.
Comments on this entry are closed.