Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

OSPCA suspends licence of Toronto animal cruelty officer

Cathy1
August 10th, 2007, 03:18 PM
I don't see what the problem is.:rolleyes:



An animal cruelty investigator for Toronto's Humane Society has had his licence suspended following an incident in which a man was left handcuffed to a car while his pet was taken away for medical treatment.

The captive man later claimed to police he was assaulted while chained to his car.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said Thursday it would suspend Tre Smith's investigator's licence, pending an investigation of his actions.

It was on a sweltering July 31 afternoon when Smith rushed to save a Rottweiler named Cyrus, who had been sealed in a parked car that was roasting at temperatures nearing 70 C. Smith smashed the car window to retrieve Cyrus, CBC was told, and with the help of bystanders began rehydrating and cooling down the animal.

When Cyrus's owner returned to his car, the owner was handcuffed to the vehicle and left alone while Cyrus was taken away for treatment. It was during that time, the owner alleged, that the angry mob already gathered at the scene began beating him.

Police arrived later to find the man bleeding and still chained to the vehicle.

Smith said at the time that he shackled the pet owner because he wanted to ensure he would not be able to dodge possible animal cruelty charges. At the same time, Smith added, he also urgently needed to tend to Cyrus.

It was not clear how long Smith's suspension would remain in effect, as it not yet known how long the OSCPA's review will last.

Cyrus is reportedly recovering well.

wdawson
August 10th, 2007, 03:25 PM
i heard that today on the radio......thats too bad,i feel sorry for him.

i wonder if the same rules would apply to a police officer,trying to arrest 2 suspects,gets one cuffed and then the other runs off and he gives chase leaving the cuffed suspect behind knowing back up was on the way.:rolleyes:

badger
August 10th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I suppose when he handcuffed him, he was a sitting duck for the mob. If the guy is carrying handcuffs, one must assume he is allowed to use them. The police should have gotten there sooner :)

wdawson
August 10th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I suppose when he handcuffed him, he was a sitting duck for the mob. If the guy is carrying handcuffs, one must assume he is allowed to use them. The police should have gotten there sooner :)

in toronto they have police powers....minus the gun......:thumbs up

papillonmama
August 11th, 2007, 09:58 AM
From what I heard on the news, the reason that he (the aci) is being investigated is because he had to leave the suspect cuffed to his car while the aci took Cyrus to the humane society. While the aci had taken the dog to the ths, the suspect was suposedly assaulted by spectators.

Police, and anyone who has some private power to arrest, ie ttc special constables, private security companies, cannot leave the suspect alone, Ever. Once a suspect is in custody, they must be given to the proper authority, such as the toronto police.

This isn't a case of a person not doing his job, this is a case of a persons rights not being taken care of. As an animal lover, I KNOW that the aci was trying to save the dog, but as a person who has some knowledge of the law, I also know that his rights were not taken into account, and he might even privately sue the ospca, the ospca then could feel reprecussions such as restrictions on how cases are investigated, and possible lack of power for investigators.

So, while I understand why the animal cruelty investigator needed to leave the scene, I just wanted to clarify why they felt that he was in the wrong.

I do support the investigator, but only to a point. I believe that saving Cyrus was important, but so are people's rights, there should always be balance.

crazydays
August 11th, 2007, 11:34 AM
Hi- this is an emotional topic for sure. I was a police officer for 10 years so I have thoughts relating to the power of arrest. My heart goes out to the ACO. He acted in a panic because of the bad state the dog was in and as well, wanting to catch this man for cruelty. I think that his priority was clearly to get the dog help. He had the vehicle description, licence plate etc. Unless this man was assaultive and preventing him from getting the dog out of the vehicle, he could have taken the info, contacted police, informed him that they would be contacting him so he better stay with his car and then given dog first priority. It showed very poor judgement to handcuff him and attach him to car. When you arrest someone you take away their rights-they must have immediate access to call a lawyer. There is procedure that must be followed. The people who assisted the ACO acted on their own however ,the suspect had no opportunity to protect himself. The Humane Society had no choice but to suspend him pending a full investigation. They will be looking at 1)grounds to arrest 2)manner of arrest 3) was there a Breach of his rights. The arrest will show how it lead 2 citizens to assault him in a crime of passion. As a police officer- you live with the fact everyday that your actions are evaluated and you can be suspended for your actions. The suspension serves to allow a complete investigation and to come to a determination of what was wrong. Its really the only process we have to ensure the rights of all people, and maybe to learn from this experience.
Personal thoughts- The ACO was very worried and upset about the dog. His priority had to be the dog for medical reasons. We need to hear about the arrest and why it was taking a second priority. Maybe he had to because the man was aggressive and assaultive. If this was the case he should have stood with the suspect until police arrived. No Officer would ever leave an arrested person-once you arrest, the suspect is under your care and control.
It was wrong to leave him attached to car for police.
The thing is that Animal Cruelty is so horrible-it elevates you blood pressure and any decent human being is offended by it. The condition of this dog was very disturbing and definitely must have caused a deep reaction from within.
ACOs have a very sad and disturbing job. It must get to them. I really hope this ACO gets a break-he was acting under great stress.

Stacer
August 11th, 2007, 07:38 PM
Of course he had to be suspended for what happened, this doesn't mean that his employer doesn't support him. Public pressure and the need to follow protocol in the aftermath of this incident would force the Humane Society to act accordingly to appease any public outcry of the treatment of the a**hole who left his dog in the car. I bet he'll be back on the job in no time. They can't afford to lose someone who has a true passion for helping animals.

crazydays
August 12th, 2007, 06:06 AM
Stacer- I agree with you 100%.

Love4himies
August 12th, 2007, 02:59 PM
I hope so too, Stacer. If this a..hole pursues any lawsuit against the THS, he will only make himself out to be an even larger selfish jerk than he already has.

mummummum
August 12th, 2007, 05:59 PM
Ohhhhhhhh...he was left behind on the scene handcuffed. Well, that puts a bit of a different spin on things doesn't it. The initial reports I heard was that he was suspended simply for using the handcuffs. And I swear I didn't hear anything from the the fellow from OSPCA saying (Friday night ?) the dog's owner was left behind cuffed...in fact I thought I heard him say that the ACO's aren't trained in the use of handcuffs.

Time to turn up the hearing aid eh ? :rolleyes:

KingIsTheKing
August 13th, 2007, 12:46 AM
The dude who was cruel to his animal most likely deserved it. I don't care if humans have rights too.. So do animals which are mostly defenseless. Mostly.. He had feet he could of tried to fight them off... and as he did that and probably still got the beat down he should remember how he should properly treat his friend.

heyjude11
August 14th, 2007, 01:39 AM
This has certainly opened up a hornet's nest. One only needs to go to the Toronto Humane Society website to see how far and wide this story has spread. Agent Smith did feel that the dog's owner was impeding his ability to treat Cyrus and that he was a threat to by-standers. There are some who are making it sound as if there was a 'mob' beating on the guy. If any of you saw the man on TV, he wasn't badly injured, nor did he require treatment at a hospital. Apparently, two people took a few pot shots at him. Okay, in the eyes of the law Agent Smith made a mistake in leaving the jerk handcuffed to his vehicle but everyone knows that the law is an ass. Seems I read that somewhere. The police were minutes away and Agent Smith had a dying dog on his hands. In fact, Cyrus had stopped breathing. Agent Smith had two choices: stay with the jerk until the police arrived, or save a dying animal. He did his job, perhaps even knowing there would be a price to pay, but he was willing to take the chance in order to save Cyrus.
As to Cyrus, I was able to spend time with him on Friday and thanks to Agent Smith he is doing extremely well. If you saw the original newstory or pictures of Cyrus when he was rescued, you wouldn't believe it's the same dog. He was standing up, knew his name and while I was petting this beautiful animal who was licking my hand and offering me his paw, I could only cry thinking of what might have been. For my money, Tre Smith is a hero and I will be devastated if he is not returned to his position asap.
Perhaps some good can come from this. Maybe now people will begin to see how weak and out-of-date our laws are when it comes to the protection of those who give us unconditional love and bring joy to our lives every day, asking nothing in return.

growler~GateKeeper
August 14th, 2007, 01:45 AM
Thanks for the update, I'm so glad Cyrus is starting to come around more. Thanks for visiting the sweet boy I wish I could too. Please continue to update us. :thumbs up

I think Agent Smith did the right thing, if in his shoes I don't think I could've resisted taking a shot @ the guy myself before leaving to take Cyrus to the vet.

mummummum
August 14th, 2007, 11:58 AM
The site hasn't been updated yet but check back later today as Tre Smith was interviewed by Andy Barry on CBC's Metro Morning: http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/

Love4himies
August 14th, 2007, 12:19 PM
Thanks mummummum, I'll keep my eye on that link.

Stacer
August 14th, 2007, 04:14 PM
I listened to the entire interview on my way to work this morning. Tre Smith seems like a very intelligent and well spoken guy. He did say that he couldn't speak specifically about the investigation concerning the alleged beating at the hands of angry citizens, but he did say that the owner was impeding the treatment of the dog by himself and other good samaritans and Tre had to verbally warn him 12 or more times before he handcuffed him (initially not to the car), then the guy continued to interfere while handcuffed, so Tre Smith then cuffed him to the car to prevent anyone from being injured by this ass. He then went on to say that he would never allow harm to come to someone in his custody. He said that Cyrus was on death's door, foaming at the mouth, eyes fixed in a stare, flopped over the back seat. Poor thing. His closing remarks about wanting and needing to get back on the job made me even more on his side. He sounds like the genuine thing, a true animal lover.

Edit- I just went to the HS site, besides being an animal lover, he's handsome too!:D

Love4himies
August 15th, 2007, 10:05 AM
I personally don't think Tre should be responsible for what happened to Mr. Idiot, I think it should be the people who actually assaulted him. Tre probably didn't even think of anybody assaulting him while he was handcuffed, he had more important things to think about. Although I must admit Mr. Idiot probably deserved it, we should not treat humans any different than we treat animals.

It lowers us down to the level of those who abuse helpless animals.

Chris21711
August 15th, 2007, 11:03 AM
There is one thing to be taken into consideration. Animal Cruelty Investigators in Ontario are not provided with handcuffs. The THS either issued Tre Smith with them or they are his own, rules were broken. All Investigators in Ontario have a mandate to follow and it was not followed. I am not condoning the SPCA, far from it, I think they have bit off more than they can chew, if Toronto Police did'nt press any charges against Tre Smith, they should just let sleeping dogs lie. Which reminds me that's what my four are doing right now, should go and wake them.

Love4himies
August 15th, 2007, 12:02 PM
I listened to the interview with Tre and he sounds like a wonderful, caring person, who cares so much for animals. He stated in the interview that he has the same powers as a police officer when it comes to enforcing the OSPCA (not sure if it is OSPCA or animal cruelty portion of the Ont Criminal Code) laws so I assume he is allowed to carry handcuffs for arresting purposes.

Stacer
August 15th, 2007, 04:36 PM
That's right, Love4himies, he did say that he has the same powers as a police officer under the criminal code when it comes to laws surrounding animal abuse, he does have the power to arrest people, thus he must have been issued handcuffs by his employer.

dtbmnec
August 15th, 2007, 04:51 PM
I don't agree with the fact that he's suspended.

Though I wonder if there is an outside force or some sort of policy that requires him to be suspended until a full investigation is made? Much like the police force? Or maybe the dog owner's lawyer is pushing for some action against the guy and so to get him "out of the line of fire" they've suspended him and can't tell him the "real reason" why because of they need to seem "impartial"?

From what I've heard, I would have made the exact same decision as this officer.

Megan

mummummum
August 15th, 2007, 04:58 PM
So this seems to be turning into a "Who can get the best and most media coverage" showdown between OSPCA and Tre Smith and an obvious issue between THS and OSPCA with Mr. Smith as the pawn.

Hugh Coughill (OSPCA) was interviewed by Matt Galloway on CBC today. He states they asked Tre Smith to provide a written report on the incident on August 1 due to alleged improprieties occurring during the incident. When asked by Matt, he confirmed that the use of handcuffs is part of the alleged improprieties. He also confirmed THEY don't issue handcuffs and don't provide training in their use, that the employer can and may have issued them but doesn't know whether the THS issued them ( hmmmm clue #1).

Further, Mr.Coughill stated Tre Smith indicated on August 1st he could not provide a report as he was too busy but would ASAP. A week later when no report was received, Tre Smith was suspended and that they have now had to hire a third-party investigator because "no-one is co-operating" according to Mr. Coughill. (hmmmm clue # 2 in the "no-one" and #3 in the nonco-operatiion).

So, here's my read... this is actually a showdown between THS and OSPCA over the issuance and use of handcuffs/ enforcement tools by agents of the OSPCA. If Tre Smith had used handcuffs which were NOT issued by the employer (THS) then they, the THS, would have suspended him as an employee for deviating from standard operating procedures. OSPCA has no jurisidiction over employment matters but because it has a beef with THS for issuing handcuffs it issued a suspension to make a point.

The Teamsters (THS's Union) is likely (and rightfully so), instructing Tre Smith not to co-operate with OSPCA since they have a/ no say over how/when/where/why he uses handcuffs issued by the employer (assuming of course they were in fact issued by THS and they aren't "co-operating") and b/never been informed Tre Smith in writing of the reason of his suspension (per yesterday's CBC interview).

Apparently there was an impromptu love-in with a bunch of supporters and the media at THS today. :rolleyes:

This time it's my turn to say "Pass the popcorn..."

dtbmnec
August 15th, 2007, 05:17 PM
So this seems to be turning into a "Who can get the best and most media coverage" showdown between OSPCA and Tre Smith and an obvious issue between THS and OSPCA with Mr. Smith as the pawn.

Hugh Coughill (OSPCA) was interviewed by Matt Galloway on CBC today. He states they asked Tre Smith to provide a written report on the incident on August 1 due to alleged improprieties occurring during the incident. When asked by Matt, he confirmed that the use of handcuffs is part of the alleged improprieties. He also confirmed THEY don't issue handcuffs and don't provide training in their use, that the employer can and may have issued them but doesn't know whether the THS issued them ( hmmmm clue #1).

Further, Mr.Coughill stated Tre Smith indicated on August 1st he could not provide a report as he was too busy but would ASAP. A week later when no report was received, Tre Smith was suspended and that they have now had to hire a third-party investigator because "no-one is co-operating" according to Mr. Coughill. (hmmmm clue # 2 in the "no-one" and #3 in the nonco-operatiion).

So, here's my read... this is actually a showdown between THS and OSPCA over the issuance and use of handcuffs/ enforcement tools by agents of the OSPCA. If Tre Smith had used handcuffs which were NOT issued by the employer (THS) then they, the THS, would have suspended him as an employee for deviating from standard operating procedures. OSPCA has no jurisidiction over employment matters but because it has a beef with THS for issuing handcuffs it issued a suspension to make a point.

The Teamsters (THS's Union) is likely (and rightfully so), instructing Tre Smith not to co-operate with OSPCA since they have a/ no say over how/when/where/why he uses handcuffs issued by the employer (assuming of course they were in fact issued by THS and they aren't "co-operating") and b/never been informed Tre Smith in writing of the reason of his suspension (per yesterday's CBC interview).

Apparently there was an impromptu love-in with a bunch of supporters and the media at THS today. :rolleyes:

This time it's my turn to say "Pass the popcorn..."

According to what I'm reading, he was suspended because he didn't write up his report about the incident. They had given him two weeks to do it and he hadn't say boo about anything.

Having said that...is it normal for you to get suspended for not writing up ONE report? Or is there something else going on? Maybe he was told to NOT write a report by his boss. Or perhaps his boss said "oh well I'll take care of it"? We don't know that nor will it be likely made public.

I still think that he should have been INFORMED as to WHY he was being suspended, not kept in the dark, regardless of whether he "deserved" to be suspended or not.

As to the <insert appropriate expletives> who is the owner and claiming people beat him up. Yeah ok, it sucks being beaten up, but you LEFT your DOG in the CAR for HOURS on a HOT day!? You really expect to come down and have people say "oh well its ok you're an <appropriate expletive> but we won't touch you"!? Please....If you're mean spirited enough to press charges of abuse, then charge the person who kicked your butt, not the guy who had you handcuffed because you couldn't care less about your dog.

On the up-side it does look like Cyrus is back on his way to being healthy. He's not perfect brain wise but he's better: walking, running, playing, eating, and all that other fun stuff. :) I for one, would like to see the dog placed in a good home and would be appalled if the dog was returned to his owner.

Megan

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
August 15th, 2007, 06:06 PM
That worthless piece of human flesh is just a big whiner. At least he was just left ON the vehicle and not forced to be locked inside it, like his poor dog. He (the abuser) deserved what he got.

badger
August 15th, 2007, 06:31 PM
As I understand it, the guy was preventing the animal welfare officer from doing his job - to get the poor dog out of the car and to a vet - and that's why he was handcuffed. Otherwise, the officer would have gotten a few bruises himself.
I'm guessing they are anxious about legal action, which is why they are kiting all this crap about a late report. I really hope the officer gets to tell his side of the story in court, that will take care of the owner's whining. And if it was a child?

Winston
August 15th, 2007, 06:38 PM
Well put! Mom of 2 Dogs! The thing is that the THS officer has the handcuffs because they do have the authority to arrest...They are a peace officer...if they have reasonable and probable grounds they can use their powers of arrest...where the problem lies is that he )THS) left the abuser!! to save the life of the dog! (kudos to him!!) even a police officer cannot leave you once you are in his control...

Perhaps the better decision would have been to lock him in the car handcuffed to the steering wheel so that nobody could hurt the poor abuser! He may have been safer inside the van rather than outside..(considering he would have only been in the van for a couple of minutes til the police arrived!!) you know not like the couple of hours poor Cyrus was in their gasping for his last breath!

This is such an empotional issue..I wish I was a Judge somtimes!

Cindy

mummummum
August 15th, 2007, 07:59 PM
But Cindy that's my point. The OSPCA can say NOTHING to Tre Smith about how or why or when he used his handcuffs because they don't authorize them. That's between Tre Smith and THS. The beef is obviously between THS and OSPCA and that's why no report has been written.

Winston
August 15th, 2007, 08:30 PM
But Cindy that's my point. The OSPCA can say NOTHING to Tre Smith about how or why or when he used his handcuffs because they don't authorize them. That's between Tre Smith and THS. The beef is obviously between THS and OSPCA and that's why no report has been written.

Mum3..I think that any humane society is regulated under the OSPCA?? I could be wrong here but...they all carry those handcuffs if they are a Animal Cruelty Officer / Investigator? Maybe one of our ACO officers will clarify that??

Regardless it is a sad discussion and obviously an emotional one! What I really hope comes out of this is the law is changed!!! We are not tough enough yet!! far from it....

Cindy

heyjude11
August 15th, 2007, 09:08 PM
So some 2 weeks later the OSPCA finally tell Tre Smith why he has been suspended. Because he didn't file his report. Why did they wait 2 weeks? Two weeks and this is what they come up with?? Something stinks here.

mummummum
August 15th, 2007, 09:53 PM
OSPCA license agents and train them but if the THS want to issue handcuffs to agents , who are their employess (not OSPCA's) that's THS's business. As far as I know the only thing THS needs to do is get training from the Police / Police College on the use of cuffs.

Love4himies
August 16th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Chick a boom boom, Tre and Cyrus are on the front cover of the Toronto Star this morning. I have a bulletin board behind me at work so I think I will cut out this picture and have something pleasant to look at when I am bored :cloud9: .

Stacer
August 16th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Today Matt Galloway interviewed Lee Oliver, spokesperson for the Humane Society. Mr. Oliver said that the THS does in fact issue its Agents handcuffs and that they receive training in how to use them. He also admitted that the lines of communication between the THS and the OSPCA are nil. Two agencies speaking two different languages.

habibi
August 18th, 2007, 01:02 AM
The THS is an affiliate of the OSPCA and if it weren't it would have no powers to enforce the cruelty laws. The OSPCA oversees ALL investigative practices by ALL agents in the province.
Handcuffs are NOT issued to agents.

This guy is a wannabe cop.

mummummum
August 18th, 2007, 03:01 PM
Actually habibi, Stacer is correct : according to Lee Oliver the pokesperson for the Toronto Humane Society, the THS DOES issue handcuffs to their agents per his interview with Matt Galloway on CBC Radio1 Friday afternoon. The OSPCA does not but that's means nothing. As I said in this thread or the other one, this is a beef bettwen the OSPCA and THS, Tre Smith a just a pawn.

NoahGrey
August 18th, 2007, 05:44 PM
Hab, is also correct. Agents are not issued handcuffs. Also Toronto HS is I believe the only Agents that are issued Vests. Even though Tre is employed by THS, his boss is his regional inspector. As an agent, you are in CLOSE contact with your inspector on a regular basis. Contacting them on cruelty cases. Meaning, Lets say my boss at work says one thing, but my regional inspector says another..I have to listen to my regional inspector.

Yes, THS are issued cuffs, what Tre did, he was in the wrong. Once you handcuff someone, they are your reponisblity, under your care. You can't walk away from someone in cuffs.

Yes, I understand why Tre left the scene.

If you are a Agent, Head Office/regional inspector is your boss. They oversee everything that you do, and your monthly reports that have to be handed in to head office every month.

This situation falls on them...Head Office...and they have to act accordingly. I understand where they are coming from.

ACO22

NoahGrey
August 18th, 2007, 06:01 PM
[QUOTE=mummummum;466269]Actually The OSPCA does not but that's means nothing. [QUOTE]


Even though the OSPCA does not issue handcuffs, Tre is still acting as a Agent for the OSPCA. He has procudures that he has to follow under the OSPCA Act.

He is acting as a Agent, This has everything to do with the OSPCA.

ACO22

habibi
August 19th, 2007, 08:09 PM
If THS is "issuing" handcuffs, then they must answer to the OSPCA regarding whether that action is appropriate and how the training is handled. And, I would presume that permission would be necessary. This is a bit of a can of worms, I would think. Same goes for the night stick.

Sorry, but Mr. Smith seems to be a wannabe in my eyes.... oh so handsome in his uniform (or so some say, but I disagree) and quite the hero figure to his groupies. He's lapping this up.

mummummum
August 20th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Even though the OSPCA does not issue handcuffs, Tre is still acting as a Agent for the OSPCA. He has procudures that he has to follow under the OSPCA Act.

He is acting as a Agent, This has everything to do with the OSPCA.ACO22

You are correct in stating that as a licenced agent of the OSPCA Tre Smith must follow the standard operating procedures of the OSPCA. However, as the OSPCA does not issue handcuffs and does not speak to or include handcuffs as equipment in their SOP's and their governing legislation, the OSPCA cannot in fact speak to what Tre Smith did or did not do in the incident in question regarding the use handcuffs. THS is within it's right to issue handcuffs and have, according to Lee Oliver provided proper training. The THS have their own SOP's regarding the use of handcuffs and it is to them whom Tre Smith must account for his use of handcuffs, NOT the OSPCA.

This is a puerile tantrum spearheaded by the OSPCA on the THS.

mummummum
August 20th, 2007, 01:10 AM
If THS is "issuing" handcuffs, then they must answer to the OSPCA regarding whether that action is appropriate and how the training is handled. And, I would presume that permission would be necessary. This is a bit of a can of worms, I would think. Same goes for the night stick.

Sorry, but Mr. Smith seems to be a wannabe in my eyes.... oh so handsome in his uniform (or so some say, but I disagree) and quite the hero figure to his groupies. He's lapping this up.

Trash him all you like. No one should have to make such a difficult decision in such a complex situation where the atmosphere is rife with tension and the timing is life-or-death critical. Tre Smith made the right one in my mind and as a result of his decision, yes an accused criminal suffered some discomfort for a short time but, in the balance of things, Cyrus is alive.

Love4himies
August 21st, 2007, 07:45 AM
Tre is a hero in my eyes, wonder what a police officer would do if it was a human's life was hanging by a thread, he/she was the only one on scene and he/she had the perpetrator handcuffed and the ambulance was a half hour away. Would the officer let a human die, because he/she had to stay at the scene to supervise the perp? In my eyes a life is a life and Tre did not believe that Mr. Idiot was in any danger.

I think Tre was in a lose/lose situation. If he let the dog die, he would be persecuted by the public for that.

Tough decision for anybody at the time, easy for anybody looking at it after the fact.

papillonmama
August 21st, 2007, 09:51 AM
I agree that Cyrus' life is important, but it could just have easily been the suspects life that was in danger. What if the passerby had stabbed the guy instead of hitting him? Liability stinks, but these laws are created to protect everyone, you'll never know how thankful you should be for them unless you've had something happen to you by a person of authority.

I think because we love animals so much, that sometimes we lose sight of the human beings that the law is created to protect. A child molester might recieve a mere two years in jail, they are then released back into society where it's likely that they will reoffend, why aren't we lobbying to have those laws changed? I honestly don't think that we can protect our pets until our children are safe, after we've accomplished that feat, those in power will be able to focus on protecting animals. So while I think animals are important, I also think that human beings are important.

The former police officer who added his two cents earlier said that an acceptable choice would have been to let suspect go, he had the licence, they knew who he was. He could have been picked up after the fact.

I'm not some low life who feels bad for the suspect, but when you work with people who are constantly in trouble because the wielding of power is being mismanaged, you begin to realize why these laws are made, and why they should be respected, by all parties, even if they are someone who MIGHT have broken the law, or someone who is supposed to uphold the law.

In Canada, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, which is fantastic, because you don't ever want to be presumed guilty until you can pay someone to prove your innocence.

mummummum
September 7th, 2007, 06:38 PM
Things that make you go "Hmmm"... Habibi, how interesting that you apparently have joined this forum at the onset of this issue and have only commented on this issue. Is there anything you would like to tell us about who employs you and whether you are here at their behest to do some spin doctoring and damage control?:laughing:

Anyway :rolleyes: ~ I checked the THS site today for an update. Dated August 29thm, the bulletin states that 17 days after filing all the documents demanded by the OSPCA they have learned that OSPCA Chief Investigator Hugh Coghill is on vacation. This further stalls the investigation and Tre Smith's licence remains suspended.

NoahGrey
September 8th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Anyway :rolleyes: ~ I checked the THS site today for an update. Dated August 29thm, the bulletin states that 17 days after filing all the documents demanded by the OSPCA they have learned that OSPCA Chief Investigator Hugh Coghill is on vacation. This further stalls the investigation and Tre Smith's licence remains suspended.

Hugh Coghill was back from vacation on Sept 4. I know this because I called him about 2 weeks ago, concerning another matter.

Also, I think Tre didn't write a report and have it submitted to head office by a certain date. He sent one after the fact. I think this raises head office supicions about how it was handled. I could be wrong though.

Would also like to comment on, How THS worded this statement. They are trying to make it like...yes..we did everything right and look we can't go further because someone is on vacation. Maybe if THS would have written his report by the date stated by OSPCA, Mr. Coghill would not have been on vacation and Tre could possibly be off of suspension? This matter could go through the Animal Care review board. Which could be long.

I am not siding with THS or OSPCA. They both have their pro and cons.

ACO22