NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard a story on the radio today - something that apparently happened in Atlanta, GA.

Now, in Atlanta, in July and August, you are looking at days in which the temperature reaches the high 90's (F) just about every day. You add in the humidity to the heat index, and you are looking at weather that feels more like 105. If you are not careful, even out in the open, you are definitely at risk for dehydration and heat stroke.

Ok, so now on to the story. A woman working at a Neiman Marcus in the mall noticed an SUV outside, with all the windows up, and a dog inside - in the middle of a summer day. At first, she went outside to get the license plate number of the vehicle to call it in to animal control. It was at this point that she noticed that the sunroof was open. The dog was looking pretty bad, so she went inside and got a bowl of water. To give it to the dog at all, she had to get to the sunroof. So, she took off her shoes, climbed up onto the top of the vehicle and held the bowl down for the dog to drink out of - something it gladly did.

As she was doing this, and the dog was drinking, the owner of the vehicle (and presumably the dog) came out of the store. She immediately freaked out, ran into the store and started yelling about how she spends thousands of dollars there and now she is going to sue for damage done to her car (I still have heard nothing confirming that any damage whatsoever was done), etc. etc. The sales associate was fired - for having tried to help the dog.

Now, I agree that the associate may have overreacted a bit. Of course, someone leaving a dog in the car to run into a convenience store is a little different than someone going into the mall. You can have a good idea of when the owner might be back if you are at a convenience store. At a mall, it could be hours. The owner of the vehicle herself has said that she planned on being in the store for some amount of time between 45 minutes and 3 hours - far too long to leave a living animal in a hot car.

What I'm hearing a lot of, however, is that this woman should have simply minded her own business - that she was committing a crime by endangering the rich bitch's property, when she was doing so to try and help an animal. Granted, if she did cause any damage to the car, she can be charged with a misdemeanor offense of damaging private property. The owner of the SUV, however, can be charged with felony animal cruelty. Is it ok to commit a misdemeanor to prevent a felony?

The whole conversation on the radio - mostly condemning this woman for not "minding her own business" - led to a further conversation about when it is, and is not ok to intervene. Two of those involved stated that they would not call the police if they saw the same situation with an infant in the car, because it would be none of their business. One of them even stated that they would not intervene because it would get DFACS on the parent and possibly ruin the parent's life (as if causing the death of their child would not).

And here is the really, really hypocritical part. One of the DJs has publicly stated that he voted for an amendment to the GA Constitution to prevent homosexuals from getting any of the rights associated with marriage (regardless of what it is called). Apparently, this idiot thinks it is ok to determine which Americans get afforded certain rights based solely on his own personal religion, but if a baby is in a dangerous situation, it is "none of his business." W. T. F.?

The poll has three different scenarios in which someone might tell you to "mind your own business". In which of them would you do so? How much would you intervene. Multiple answers allowed so we can see what it looks like on each count.

I'd tell the woman to take me to small claims court, AND would be suing the mall for firing me.

I'd also call the local SPCA to see what charges could be brought against the ninny.

I'd like to hear a judge say that giving an animal left in a sweltering car water was unreasonable.

The Fahrenheit clarification is appreciated, btw :)

Anyway, just leaving the sun-roof open doesn't seem like enough to me. Friggin' irresponsible...

I'd have just called the police. Let them break the lady's car windows to rescue the dog and then charge the woman with animal cruelty. She needs to be taught a lesson.

BTW, here's a slightly different, but related case from New Jersey.
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050823/NEWS/508230380/1001

I'd would have called animal control, the police and then the local radio station to name and shame this woman. If it were a person inside the car there would have been no hassel, if you can't look after animals properly you shouldn't be allowed to own one. This woman did the right thing.

To hell with lady and the job. I'd have done the same thing. I'd break a window to rescue an infant and I'd step in if someone was being attacked. In all 3 scenarios, I'd intervene ( I guess I'm nosey) and THEN I'd call the cops.

Of course I would intervene in a situation where the party in danger cannot help themselves. That's not about respecting one's privacy. It's about protecting those who can't possibly fend for themselves, like infants and animals.
In my book, that constitutes force.

The person who left the dog in the car should be given a long jail term and fined until she hits the poverty line, and the person who rescued the dog should be considered a heroine and have her picture on the front page of the local paper. Am I authoritarian and strict? Perhaps. Am I compassionate towards God's most innocent creations, who in no way, are capable of doing evil and thus do not deserve such torture? Absolutely!

I don't want to sound callous. The dog was in a shitty situation. Would he/she have died? We don't know and never will, thanks perhaps to the store clerk. It depends, to me, on how extreme the situation actually was. It's hard to tell from the info here. I do feel that you can take this sort of mindset and apply it to all sorts of minor situations. If I see a mom forcefully, but not violently, smack her kids' ass in the grocery store, should it be within my power to decide if she's wrong, and have her detained and prosecuted?

I have no sympathy for the owner of the car and dog. I have only hatred for that person, and everyone that condemned the saleswoman for not minding her own business. Granted, she WAS technically breaking into the car through the sunroof, but if she'd called animal control, they probably would've either busted out windows, broken a door lock, or done the exact same thing. Without taking their shoes off.

Shame on them all, with the exception of the dog and the saleswoman.

I do feel that you can take this sort of mindset and apply it to all sorts of minor situations. If I see a mom forcefully, but not violently, smack her kids' ass in the grocery store, should it be within my power to decide if she's wrong, and have her detained and prosecuted?

I would say of course not. She is not putting that child's life in danger - she is simply disciplining the child. Her actions, while you may or may not agree with them, are not illegal.

However, I would hope that if you saw her repeatedly decking her kid in the face with her fist that you would do something to have her detained and prosecuted - as that is quite obviously child abuse.

I would say of course not. She is not putting that child's life in danger - she is simply disciplining the child. Her actions, while you may or may not agree with them, are not illegal.

However, I would hope that if you saw her repeatedly decking her kid in the face with her fist that you would do something to have her detained and prosecuted - as that is quite obviously child abuse.

To stay on track with my other post, if I saw her repeatedly decking her kid in the face with her fist, I'd first go over and kick her ass and THEN I'd call the police and have her prosecuted. First objective in my book, secure the innocent.

To stay on track with my other post, if I saw her repeatedly decking her kid in the face with her fist, I'd first go over and kick her ass and THEN I'd call the police and have her prosecuted. First objective in my book, secure the innocent.

*Nod* I didn't mean to suggest that I would allow her to continue doing it before calling the police. She would've stopped by the time they got there, one way or another.

So no one is going to argue the opinion that the woman should have done nothing? No strict Libertarians here?

So no one is going to argue the opinion that the woman should have done nothing? No strict Libertarians here?

It's a scary Libertarian that doesn't have a soft spot for cute, innocent dogs.

But what about the dog's owner's rights? Does she not have the right to her privacy without exceptions? If we make an exception for the woman that crawled through the sun roof, what else will we make exceptions for? How do we know when we're justified in violating the owner's rights? If we're justified in violating her rights at a certain point then are we completely unjustified at the point immediately before that? Those are all good questions that I think can be best answered by asking, 'Was this lady justified in crawling through the sun roof?'. It was technically against the law as it is written, but that doesn't factor in the spirit of the law. I don't think it's liberal of me to say that in this case the law can be thought of as a guideline (a strict one, mind you). It is there to protect you from unreasonable invasions of privacy. What constitutes as a reasonable invasion of privacy, though? That's up to a jury to decide. That's why they're there. Let's assume that a man is walking past a house and he hears a blood curdling scream come from inside. Finding the front door locked, he climbs in through a window to see a woman being stabbed to death (or something). The man takes the murderer by suprise and incapacitates him somehow. Immediately afterwards he calls the for the police and medical attention. This man just broke in to a house, but you'd have a hard time finding a jury that would hold it against him. I think that the same reasoning can be applied to the case at hand.

Edit: For the record, here's how I voted in the poll.

1st Senario: This lady did the right thing - I would intervene as well.
2nd Senario: I would call the police and wait for them to get the child out of the car. (Er, hmm. This isn't the same as entering the vehicle without damaging it. I don't want the baby to die, but I don't want to break the window if there's a misunderstanding. Humans should be able to survive longer in a hot environment then dogs, though, so maybe the police will get there in time. If they don't then I'll just have to be content with the knowledge that the parents will get theirs.)
3rd Senario: I would intervene if a person was being attacked by another person. (I'm not breaking anything except a fight. No one ever got mad at a person for knocking an attackers lights out. Unless it was a girl beating on her boyfriend, that is. Everyone knows that he deserved it, right?)

So no one is going to argue the opinion that the woman should have done nothing? No strict Libertarians here?

I probably wouldn't have done anything because I'm lazy, but if she wants to do it, more power to her.

So no one is going to argue the opinion that the woman should have done nothing? No strict Libertarians here?
That's condescending. Strict libertarians would argue against force, which this situation is clearly an example of. Dogs and infants don't have the freedom to choose whether to stay in the car or to leave it if it got too hot for them.

That's not libertarianism, that's being an asshole. :rolleyes:

I probably wouldn't have done anything because I'm lazy, but if she wants to do it, more power to her.

Wow. Who needs enemies, anyway?

I realize that I'm probably a dinosaur when it comes to this sort of thing, but I tend to err on the side of intervention. Rather than allow an animal to suffer, I will give them water. Rather than run the risk of a child dying, I would tear the friggin' car apart to get them out. Rather than stand idly by while someone got the crap beat out of them, or worse, I will step in.

And here is the really, really hypocritical part. One of the DJs has publicly stated that he voted for an amendment to the GA Constitution to prevent homosexuals from getting any of the rights associated with marriage (regardless of what it is called). Apparently, this idiot thinks it is ok to determine which Americans get afforded certain rights based solely on his own personal religion, but if a baby is in a dangerous situation, it is "none of his business." W. T. F.?

What fucking station do you listen to? This asshat needs to be shot...repeatedly. With a very large caliber gun. Some conservatives will do anything to be assholes and hypocrytes in this country.

If it was me, would I risk my job and possibly getting sued over the welfare of a dog? It really depends on the circumstances at the time.

Now, if it was a child, I would immediately call 911, and keep a close eye on the child and stay with the vehicle until the proper authorities arrived. If I saw any evidence of the child taking a turn for the worst, I would ask the dispatcher thier advice on what to do. If she tells me to do something, I'll break a window and get the kid out and to cool shade with water. If she advises against it, I would wait a few minutes to see if the police/fire department shows up, then I'd probably do something. Again though, it really depends on what the circumstances are at the time.

The law's is on the employee's side.

1) She prevented a felony.
2) She was unlawfully terminated (unless she is a casual employee).

A friend on livejournal wrote to Neiman Marcus about this and here is their response:


Dear Mr. X,

Ms. Katz asked me to respond to your email regarding our former employee, Valerie Cheatham. Fortunately, I can assure you that the media account of her firing is both inaccurate and incomplete. The safety and well being of our associates and customers is a priority for Neiman Marcus.

Our privacy policy prevents me from revealing the details of any employee personnel file, but it is not our company policy to terminate an employee for any single incident of poor judgment or improper behavior. In order to fulfill our promise of superior customer service, we educate and empower our associates throughout their careers with Neiman Marcus.

When Ms. Cheatham called to report the dogs in the car, she was informed that mall security had been notified. There was no need for property damage or for a hostile and threatening confrontation with the car owner. In fact, following the arrival of their owner, the dogs jumped out of the open sunroof and greeted her playfully. The entire incident was captured by security cameras and carefully reviewed before any action was taken in regard to Ms. Cheatham’s employment.

Our in-store security staff knows exactly what to do and who to contact in a situation such as this. You can be assured that if animals, children or adults were reported to be in danger in or near any of our stores, our staff would immediately follow the proper procedures designed to protect the safety of all involved.

We regret that Ms. Cheatham felt she had to take this incident to the media. Our company has procedures in place for any employee to appeal what they consider to be a wrongful dismissal. For almost a century, the impeccable reputation we have with our customers, our business partners and our communities is due to the spirit, dedication and hard work of our valued employees nationwide.

Sincerely,

Ginger Reeder

This is a good poll. Really makes you think about yourself.

Here's how it broke down for me:

1. "This lady did the right thing - I would intervene as well." I'm not a PETA freak, but I do like animals. I hate seeing dogs locked up in hot cars, coz I don't like being in a hot car myself. The main issue is the sunroof, though. It was open and the dog still looked bad. I'd definitely give it water then. But if the doog looked fine, just panting, I'd leave it, but inform the store managers, coz it could get worse.

2. "I would personally bust a window to get a child out of a hot car." Children left by their parents in a hot car shouldn't have to die because their parents are stupid. I'd get the kid out and report the car to the police, see where it goes from there. Breaking a window would cost me money and get me a vandalism charge (if the cops were jerks), but I'd feel justified knowing I'd saved the kid. Unless I was stupid and broke the window just as the parents came out of the building. ;-)

3. "I would call the police, but personally stay out of any altercation I witnessed." This is because I'm not a physically imposing person, nor do I have any fighting experience. If I tried to break up a fight, I'd get clobbered. Cops are more imposing than me, so I'd call them to break it up. Or let a beefier, taller guy break it up for me.

Dear Mr. X,

Ms. Katz asked me to respond to your email regarding our former employee, Valerie Cheatham. Fortunately, I can assure you that the media account of her firing is both inaccurate and incomplete. The safety and well being of our associates and customers is a priority for Neiman Marcus.

Our privacy policy prevents me from revealing the details of any employee personnel file, but it is not our company policy to terminate an employee for any single incident of poor judgment or improper behavior. In order to fulfill our promise of superior customer service, we educate and empower our associates throughout their careers with Neiman Marcus.

When Ms. Cheatham called to report the dogs in the car, she was informed that mall security had been notified. There was no need for property damage or for a hostile and threatening confrontation with the car owner. In fact, following the arrival of their owner, the dogs jumped out of the open sunroof and greeted her playfully. The entire incident was captured by security cameras and carefully reviewed before any action was taken in regard to Ms. Cheatham’s employment.

Our in-store security staff knows exactly what to do and who to contact in a situation such as this. You can be assured that if animals, children or adults were reported to be in danger in or near any of our stores, our staff would immediately follow the proper procedures designed to protect the safety of all involved.

We regret that Ms. Cheatham felt she had to take this incident to the media. Our company has procedures in place for any employee to appeal what they consider to be a wrongful dismissal. For almost a century, the impeccable reputation we have with our customers, our business partners and our communities is due to the spirit, dedication and hard work of our valued employees nationwide.

Sincerely,

Ginger Reeder
Wow. 5 paragraphs, and they don't actually say anything.

Wow. 5 paragraphs, and they don't actually say anything.


I think this is the one you should have read:


When Ms. Cheatham called to report the dogs in the car, she was informed that mall security had been notified. There was no need for property damage or for a hostile and threatening confrontation with the car owner. In fact, following the arrival of their owner, the dogs jumped out of the open sunroof and greeted her playfully. The entire incident was captured by security cameras and carefully reviewed before any action was taken in regard to Ms. Cheatham’s employment.

I think this is the one you should have read:
That sounds like boilerplate ass-covering to me, but then again, I'm sympathetic to the employee. The fact that the dogs jumped to see their owner isn't surprising in the least--that's the standard reaction.

Here's the thing about the firing, I guess---Neiman-Marcus did the calculus and figured any bad press they got, and I would imagine they didn't expect much, would be offset by pandering to this customer who allegedly spends a lot of cash in their place. It'll probably work out for them, because I believe Georgia is a "right-to-work" state, which means you can get fired for no cause and all you can do is collect unemployment benefits.

That sounds like boilerplate ass-covering to me, but then again, I'm sympathetic to the employee. The fact that the dogs jumped to see their owner isn't surprising in the least--that's the standard reaction.

Here's the thing about the firing, I guess---Neiman-Marcus did the calculus and figured any bad press they got, and I would imagine they didn't expect much, would be offset by pandering to this customer who allegedly spends a lot of cash in their place. It'll probably work out for them, because I believe Georgia is a "right-to-work" state, which means you can get fired for no cause and all you can do is collect unemployment benefits.

it sounds to me like the window was open and they had the freedom to jump out when they wanted to - no windows were smashed

The temperature inside a closed car can reach fatal temperatures in mere minutes.
Given that I like animals FAR MORE THAN PEOPLE......I would have no compunctions about doing what this lady did.
In fact I say "BRAVO!!" to this woman who gave that helpless animal some water.

Futhermore, I would have had to restrain myself for not knocking some sense into this person who left thier dog in that situation.

You do not reward unconditional love, with blatant stupidity.

*I write this as I share my McDonalds fries with my dog.

Before I can rule on this situation, I would have to know whether the woman's vehicle was actually damaged.

I hate to break it to you, but the vehicle is private property. If it was damaged, then the woman should be charged. However, the other woman should also be charged with animal cruelty. Of the two, animal cruelty is, by far, the worse offense.

Oh, and I also echo the statement about animals being better than people. I hate people. Animals are more rational.

I would have made a citizen's arrest and seized the car. Well, I would like to. But, I would certainly help the dog if the owner wasn't there within five minutes. Dogs die easier than humans from heat. The woman should be jailed for a few decades for reckless endangerment, attempted manslaughter, and cruelty to animals.

I would have made a citizen's arrest and seized the car. Well, I would like to. But, I would certainly help the dog if the owner wasn't there within five minutes. Dogs die easier than humans from heat. The woman should be jailed for a few decades for reckless endangerment, attempted manslaughter, and cruelty to animals.

You on drugs? You intend to charge manslaughter on people that kill animals? There are thousands of hunting clubs who would like your home address right now.

That aside, it is cruel to leave an animal in a hot car.

I would like to point out that the article mentioned to things:

1. "The windows were all rolled up." -- Implying of course that the dog had no air, and that heat was intensifying inside the car.

But later in the article it said that 2. "she noticed that the sunroof was open" The lady used this to provide water to the dog, however, what no one seems to have pegged on is that sunroof open, equals window open. This means that there was a place for heat to escape too, so that it was not much hotter inside the car then just on the street. Maybe the woman would have given water to a dog tied outside the store, I don't know.

However, I got the impression that the reason the woman became concerned is because she noticed that all the windows were rolled up (and rightly so if it were true) -- but would she have been concerned about the dog's welfare if one of the windows was partially rolled down? no - it probably wouldn't have caught her attention the same way, since the "no windows down" comment was so prominent.

Well, how is having the sunroof open different than having a window down?

On this basis, I do think she overstepped her bounds. On the other hand, so did that other woman who got her fired. She totally over reacted -- if no damage was done to her vehicle, then I'd think she'd be grateful that someone was concerned about her dog.

On the other hand, if it were an infant in the car, that would be different. Parents should not leave babies in cars unattended for many reasons, including heat/dehydration issues.

That's condescending. Strict libertarians would argue against force, which this situation is clearly an example of. Dogs and infants don't have the freedom to choose whether to stay in the car or to leave it if it got too hot for them.

That's not libertarianism, that's being an asshole. :rolleyes:

A strict Libertarian wouldn't care about a dog's choice, choice is something that people get - and a dog is merely property. Thus, since property is the main argument throughout Libertarianism, a strict Libertarian would worry more about a woman's car getting damaged than her leaving the dog inside.

Before I can rule on this situation, I would have to know whether the woman's vehicle was actually damaged.

I hate to break it to you, but the vehicle is private property. If it was damaged, then the woman should be charged. However, the other woman should also be charged with animal cruelty. Of the two, animal cruelty is, by far, the worse offense.

Nothing I have heard has suggested that there was actually any damage to the vehicle at all. Hell, the woman even took off her shoes to make sure she didn't cause damage.

But later in the article it said that 2. "she noticed that the sunroof was open" The lady used this to provide water to the dog, however, what no one seems to have pegged on is that sunroof open, equals window open. This means that there was a place for heat to escape too, so that it was not much hotter inside the car then just on the street. Maybe the woman would have given water to a dog tied outside the store, I don't know.

Without an actual way for air to flow through, the heat inside the vehicle is not going to be changed much from one that is closed (some perhaps, but not much), by the sunroof being open.


However, I got the impression that the reason the woman became concerned is because she noticed that all the windows were rolled up (and rightly so if it were true) -- but would she have been concerned about the dog's welfare if one of the windows was partially rolled down? no - it probably wouldn't have caught her attention the same way, since the "no windows down" comment was so prominent.

The way it sounds to me is that, at first, when it seemed that the owner had taken no precautions for her animal, the associate began to get worried. Already worried, she went to check on the dog, which looked to her like it needed water, so she did what she could to provide it.


On the other hand, if it were an infant in the car, that would be different. Parents should not leave babies in cars unattended for many reasons, including heat/dehydration issues.

You are aware that heat/dehydration issues are also the reason you should not leave a dog in a hot car, right?

The temperature inside a closed car can reach fatal temperatures in mere minutes.
Given that I like animals FAR MORE THAN PEOPLE......I would have no compunctions about doing what this lady did.
In fact I say "BRAVO!!" to this woman who gave that helpless animal some water.

Futhermore, I would have had to restrain myself for not knocking some sense into this person who left thier dog in that situation.

You do not reward unconditional love, with blatant stupidity.

*I write this as I share my McDonalds fries with my dog.

THat's GREAT!! LOL! Sharing your fries with the dog. I love that!

I left a thermometor in my car yesterday afternoon to see how hot it would be at 5pm when I got off work. It hit 104 here in Dallas yesterday. When I got to my car around 5:30, the thing was pegged out at 120 degrees. That means it was at LEAST 120 degrees and that was with the sun shade up. It was likely quite a bit hotter than that but I dont' know by how much. I can't imagine anyone being so stupid as to leave anything alive inside a closed car in that sort of heat. I wonder if any of the articles actually describe the "property damage" this woman caused by taking off her shoes and climbing on the hood.

I would have made a citizen's arrest and seized the car. Well, I would like to. But, I would certainly help the dog if the owner wasn't there within five minutes. Dogs die easier than humans from heat. The woman should be jailed for a few decades for reckless endangerment, attempted manslaughter, and cruelty to animals.

attempted dogslaughter you mean. :p

You are aware that heat/dehydration issues are also the reason you should not leave a dog in a hot car, right?

Yes, but a) heat rises, and the sunroof was open. And b) the dog is capable of scrambling up to be near the open sunroof (obviously, since it was able to drink the proferred water).

An infant can do neither.

Yes, but a) heat rises, and the sunroof was open. And b) the dog is capable of scrambling up to be near the open sunroof (obviously, since it was able to drink the proferred water).

An infant can do neither.


In fact (according to the response from Neiman Marcus posted on page two) the sunroof was left open, and apparently the security cameras show that when the lady came back to her car the dogs were able to jump out and they greeted their owner playfully. If they could get out of the car whenever they wanted, I don't see the problem. They apparently weren't trapped in the car and there was air flow. btw I love animals.

In fact (according to the response from Neiman Marcus posted on page two) the sunroof was left open, and apparently the security cameras show that when the lady came back to her car the dogs were able to jump out and they greeted their owner playfully. If they could get out of the car whenever they wanted, I don't see the problem. They apparently weren't trapped in the car and there was air flow. btw I love animals.

Exactly. I'm not an animal hater either; I'm just saying I wouldn't have intervened in this case. If it were 90 degrees F and no windows open, that would be different - I would have called the SPCA or similar org.

On the other hand, I still think the dog owner over-reacted. If there was no damage to the car, she shouldn't have gotten the good Samaritan fired. The lady with the water dish only had the dog's best interest at heart. In fact, even if there was damage, she shouldn't have gotten her fired. There are other ways of dealing with that.

Exactly. I'm not an animal hater either; I'm just saying I wouldn't have intervened in this case. If it were 90 degrees F and no windows open, that would be different - I would have called the SPCA or similar org.

On the other hand, I still think the dog owner over-reacted. If there was no damage to the car, she shouldn't have gotten the good Samaritan fired. The lady with the water dish only had the dog's best interest at heart. In fact, even if there was damage, she shouldn't have gotten her fired. There are other ways of dealing with that.


agreed - that shopper lady was a bitch!

In fact (according to the response from Neiman Marcus posted on page two) the sunroof was left open, and apparently the security cameras show that when the lady came back to her car the dogs were able to jump out and they greeted their owner playfully. If they could get out of the car whenever they wanted, I don't see the problem. They apparently weren't trapped in the car and there was air flow. btw I love animals.

Of course, the fact that she left them in a situation where they could jump out opens up all new problems. The dogs could have jumped out at any time and wandered off, becoming strays. They could have wandered around the parking lot and gotten hit by a car, or caused an accident. Meanwhile, even a large dog jumping off the top of an SUV is likely to hurt itself, and the fact that they so happily jumped out when she came into sight, if this is what is really shown, means that she had never discouraged such behavior.

In the end, it is painfully obvious that this woman shouldn't have animals in her care at all.

Of course, the fact that she left them in a situation where they could jump out opens up all new problems. The dogs could have jumped out at any time and wandered off, becoming strays. They could have wandered around the parking lot and gotten hit by a car, or caused an accident. Meanwhile, even a large dog jumping off the top of an SUV is likely to hurt itself, and the fact that they so happily jumped out when she came into sight, if this is what is really shown, means that she had never discouraged such behavior.

In the end, it is painfully obvious that this woman shouldn't have animals in her care at all.

Maybe but who knows how well trained the dogs are - if she is rich she probably had them trained well. Maybe not. I don't know but considering that the dogs were not in danger from being trapped in the car, and not knowing the other factors, we are really in no position to judge. I had a dog that could jump a 7 foot wall and not hurt itself.

In fact (according to the response from Neiman Marcus posted on page two) the sunroof was left open, and apparently the security cameras show that when the lady came back to her car the dogs were able to jump out and they greeted their owner playfully. If they could get out of the car whenever they wanted, I don't see the problem. They apparently weren't trapped in the car and there was air flow. btw I love animals.

I don't think it said they were able to jump out of the sunroof. Its likely the letter meant when she opened the door, it was jumped and greeted the owner. I doubt the dog could jump out of an SUV sunroof.

I don't think it said they were able to jump out of the sunroof. Its likely the letter meant when she opened the door, it was jumped and greeted the owner. I doubt the dog could jump out of an SUV sunroof.


This is what the letter said:

In fact, following the arrival of their owner, the dogs jumped out of the open sunroof and greeted her playfully

Perhaps they never jumped off the car hood. I'd like to see the what the security cameras saw though.

She should have called animal control and allowed them to decide whether the law had been broken and/or action should be taken. The employee is not qualified nor in a position of authority to decide whether the law had been broken, whether the dog was in danger, and she certaintly had no right to invade someone's private property!

Maybe but who knows how well trained the dogs are - if she is rich she probably had them trained well.

If they were well-trained, she would have been able to tell them to stay and they would have done so until she released them, not just until they saw her.

Maybe not. I don't know but considering that the dogs were not in danger from being trapped in the car,

...which, as I pointed out, puts them in new sorts of danger. Let's say the lady had stayed in the store for 3 hours. Let's say the animals had felt sick and decided to jump out. Now you have a couple of unleashed dogs wandering around a parking lot - again, likely to get hit or cause a wreck. Even if they stay near the car, someone is likely to take them.

Like I said, no matter how you look at this, she put her animals in a dangerous situation.

I had a dog that could jump a 7 foot wall and not hurt itself.

I could do all sorts of things and not hurt myself, most of the time. That doesn't make those things less dangerous. My uncle fell out of a third story window onto a sidewalk when he was 3 and was unhurt - does that mean my grandmother should have allowed him to jump out of windows whenever he felt like it? Of course not, because there is no guarrantee that the next time, he would be as lucky.

She should have called animal control and allowed them to decide whether the law had been broken and/or action should be taken. The employee is not qualified nor in a position of authority to decide whether the law had been broken, whether the dog was in danger, and she certaintly had no right to invade someone's private property!

Actually, she was in a much better position than you or I to determine whether or not the dog was in danger - she could see it. Her extimation may have been wrong, but she was certainly in a better position than anyone talking about it after fact to determine that.

Meanwhile, under what circumstances would you allow that she could "invade someone's private property"? What if it had been an infant in the car? What about the example used earlier where a man hears a scream coming from a house but cannot get in through the locked door and climbs in through a window instead. Is that allowable?

<snip>
Given that I like animals FAR MORE THAN PEOPLE......
<snippy>

*I write this as I share my McDonalds fries with my dog.

If you really love your dog, then don't feed it that trash :)

You shouldn't be eating it either for that matter.

If you really love your dog, then don't feed it that trash :)

Much like most food indulgences, it is ok in small amounts one in a while. The only things I know of that you should absolutely never give a dog are chocolate and onions.

Now, if you are feeding your dog whole meals of french fries, there's a problem. =)

If they were well-trained, she would have been able to tell them to stay and they would have done so until she released them, not just until they saw her.



...which, as I pointed out, puts them in new sorts of danger. Let's say the lady had stayed in the store for 3 hours. Let's say the animals had felt sick and decided to jump out. Now you have a couple of unleashed dogs wandering around a parking lot - again, likely to get hit or cause a wreck. Even if they stay near the car, someone is likely to take them.

Like I said, no matter how you look at this, she put her animals in a dangerous situation.



I could do all sorts of things and not hurt myself, most of the time. That doesn't make those things less dangerous. My uncle fell out of a third story window onto a sidewalk when he was 3 and was unhurt - does that mean my grandmother should have allowed him to jump out of windows whenever he felt like it? Of course not, because there is no guarrantee that the next time, he would be as lucky.



Actually, she was in a much better position than you or I to determine whether or not the dog was in danger - she could see it. Her extimation may have been wrong, but she was certainly in a better position than anyone talking about it after fact to determine that.

We don't know if they came to her automatically or if she called them.

We also don't know the size of the dogs. Dogs are also pretty smart and can judge if a jump will be safe for them or not. A car/SUV hood is way different than 3 stories fall... I think you are going a bit overboard there. lol. If a dog regullarly jumps a 7 foot wall, the chance of accident is slight and animals get hurt under strict supervision as well anyway, so why not allow an animal or kid to do what it can regularly do if it looks safe for it? Peoples kids are always in danger and could always run into the street at any time even with you there watching them.

How do you know the dog wasn't trained to stay put when told? How do you know the dog wasn't called to come to her when they jumped out?

ANYBODYS pet and ANYBODYS kid could get hurt or taken even when precautions are made. I just think people are jumping to conclusions too quickly and making uneducated judgments about something they really don't have enough information about. If someone was already on their way to check out the situation and the dogs were in a car (not running around the street) which had adequate air flow, then I think the employee went a bit overboard.

Much like most food indulgences, it is ok in small amounts one in a while. The only things I know of that you should absolutely never give a dog are chocolate and onions.


I knew about the chocolate - but didn't know about the onions. What's with the onions?

We also don't know the size of the dogs. Dogs are also pretty smart and can judge if a jump will be safe for them or not.

Dogs will also do something that isn't safe if they are excited enough. They also aren't able to guage the type of damage it might do in the long run vs. any immediate damage.

A car hood is way different than 3 stories fall... I think you are going a bit overboard there.

I'm well aware of that. I was simply using an extreme example. I wouldn't want small children jumping of the roof of an SUV either though. They might not get hurt, or I might be dealing with broken bones/scrapes/sprains/etc.

lol. If a dog regullarly jumps a 7 foot wall, the chance of accident is slight and animals get hurt under strict supervision as well anyway.

The chance of an accident is slight. The chance that it is doing joint damage is pretty large.

Peoples kids are always in danger and could always runinto the street at any time even with you there watching them.

But it is less likely to occur if you are there watching them. That is why we don't leave toddlers unattended and anyone who does is put in jail for neglect.

How do you know the dog wasn't trained to stey put when told? How do you know the dog wasn't called to come to her when they jumped out?

They might have been. But anyone who intentionally calls her dogs to her out of the sunroof of her SUV is no different than someone who expects her children to climb out of the top of the SUV, jump down, and come running.

ANYBODYS pet and ANYBODYS kid could get hurt or taken.

Yes, but it is less likely if you are a responsible parent. It could happen despite precautions but is more likely to happen if you are irresponsible. Surely you wouldn't suggest leaving toddlers or pets to roam the streets unattended just because they might get hurt even if you didn't do so?

I knew about the chocolate - but didn't know about the onions. What's with the onions?

There is a chemical in onions that can cause the blood cells of dogs (and cats as well, if I remember correctly) to lyse. This leads to anemia, sometimes diarrhea (and subsequent dehydration), and possibly internal bleeding, if they have enough and the reaction is strong enough.

I didn't know about it either, until a trip to the emergency vet after my dog got severe diarrhea and we found blood in his feces.

http://www.jlhweb.net/Boxermap/onions.html

http://www.vetinfo4dogs.com/dtoxin.html#Onion%20and%20Garlic%20toxicity%20%20in%20dogs%20and%20cats

Well I think you are taking an extreme position but thats fine. I don't see anything wrong here. Her dogs were not in danger of dying in the car and there is nothing wrong with calling your dogs to come to you (as dogs are smart enough also to watch where they are going). I've never seen an animal that got run over in a parking lot anyway.

Well I think you are taking an extreme position but thats fine.

I hardly think it is extreme to expect that a person with a pet take all possible precautions to preserve the health of that pet. My objections are no different than objecting to someone who does not get their dog properly vaccinated, or someone who does not take their dog for ample exercise, or someone who does not feed their dog a proper diet.

Her dogs were not in danger of dying in the car

If they were as well-trained as you suggest, there is plenty of reason to believe they were in danger. They may not have been in imediate danger, but if she had stayed inside as long as she said she had planned....who knows?

and there is nothing wrong with calling your dogs to come to you (as dogs are smart enough also to watch where they are going).

There is something wrong with it if them coming to you from where they are could be dangerous. Suppose your dog is across a busy highway with a great deal of traffic and you are calling them. It would be very dangerous for your dog to cross the street. Thus, you calling them would not be a good idea.

Suppose your dog was standing at a second-floor window, with the window being their only way of getting to you. Would there be nothing wrong with calling them?

Some dogs would not do something dangerous to obey their masters. Some definitely would. And, like I said, a dog doesn't have a concept of, "Doing this type of thing is going to cause joint damage that I don't feel now, but could give me crippling arthritis in a few years."

I've never seen an animal that got run over in a parking lot anyway.

I have.

What fucking station do you listen to? This asshat needs to be shot...repeatedly. With a very large caliber gun. Some conservatives will do anything to be assholes and hypocrytes in this country.

Do you live in Atlanta? The station is 99X (everything alternative). They have one fundie on the morning show (along with a Jew, a liberal Methodist - at least that's what he says LOL - and someone who never tells their relgion).