Starving Horses

So...Let me see if I understand your positions.....
You are basing your educated opinion or guess based on a newspaper article. No trial or investigation completed yet.
You are relying on one article from a newspaper that has more often than i would like to see, portrayed a situation that was somewhat different than the ultimate outcome. (JMO)
A great example of slant are the two articles from the HTT and Flume in regards to the IMHS situation. Who do we believe?

I wonder how you would feel if you were accused of a crime that you felt you were not guilty of and a group of folks went on a public discussion forum and anonymously threatened your livelihood by announcing a boycott without you having the ability to have your day in court. Would that be ok with you?

These are private businesses and private citizens.

I am personally disappointed that any of us would go down this road.

This is why we are all allowed to have our own opinion.

If this involved a child and not just an animal you know that it would not be tolerated.

This is not the first time that horses have been investigated at Echo it is just the first time that they have been seized.

I am perfectly comfortable with my comments and do not feel bad in anyway about voicing my opinion.

One other thing OJ was found innocent and if he had a business up here I would not patronize it.

I am basing my decision on looking at the starving horses, seeing them live and talking with the professionals who treated them.

Private businesses which sell to the public, are private citizens that got busted.

I am publicly disappointed that animals in the control of people who mistreat them continues. No, that is not OK with me!

m'kay

Becky,
the owner/care giver of this horse owns a feed store, and I would assume has some animal husbandry knowledge. This is a situation that went terribly wrong. But it was not an accident, it was neglect. This does not need to go through a lengthy court hearing. The horse was starving and very sick. What part of this picture dont you understand?

Sentencing before trial doesn't fit with presumption of innocence.

Strangely those folks on Becky’s favorite website (PC) who were defending Swift have gone quiet since the reports of how much weight the seized horse have gained in only a weeks’ time.

As Hoot Owl pointed out can you really look at those pictures and think the they were being cared for.

If you have any question call Aspen Creek and they will tell you what type of treatment they gave the horse at their facility and what the final diagnosis was then you don’t have to say you read it in the paper you heard is straight from the horse’s mouth no pun intended.

jf1acai wrote: Sentencing before trial doesn't fit with presumption of innocence.

I am not sentencing anyone, and the evidence does not presume innocence.
Look again.


It is the American way,leave it up to the courts. That is fine. Some judge that doesnt know the difference between a cow and a horse is going to make a decision on starvation and abuse, will render a judgement that punishes the human? The human is fine.

Just save the horses. Another horse goes hungry tonight.

The horses ultimately have been "sentenced".

We are witnessing the after effects, which are disgraceful, despicable and inhumane.

Anyone that owns a feed store and has starving animals. Give me a break. This is not about the owners anymore.. The courts will take care of it, I just wanted to see the county get them out of there. When a horse gets better after being confiscated then you have your answer. As long as the animals are safe and they don't own again. I really don't care. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=18510 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=128&t=18510<!-- l -->