fagin Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Dont start putting animals and humans on the same level for care and concern. Sure I like dogs and cats and they are part of our family but they are animals. Compared to people they are just animals. The law is correct. They are property. This isnt the touchy feely PC answer but it is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Ugh ya absolutely? The question is. If you could only save a drowning dog or a drowning human. Which would it be. Human life is way more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 There are no dog ambulances unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlaBAM Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If his SUV is as "expensive and nice" as he said it was, it should have had a backup camera as all luxury SUVs have had back up cameras for like the last 3 years at least. As I'm currently living in Kelowna, I'll be on the lookout for the guy, that's for sure. If somebody did that to my dog, their face would be too disfigured to have left the scene. Surprised the person didn't try and at least punch the guy in the face for his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I'm basing this off nothing, but I think the driver just used that SUV excuse just to get out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I wonder if it's been tried, I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible. An ambulance is not a free service, you get a very expensive bill a few weeks later. If it's a paid service, I don't see why we can't stick animals in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Here is the applicable Criminal Code provision: Failure to stop at scene of accident - Criminal Code of Canada section 252 252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with (a) another person, (b ) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or (c ) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person, and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance. Punishment (1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Offence involving bodily harm (1.2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) knowing that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Offence involving bodily harm or death (1.3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life if (a) the person knows that another person involved in the accident is dead; or (b ) the person knows that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident and is reckless as to whether the death of the other person results from that bodily harm, and the death of that other person so results. Evidence (2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability. And under the BC Motor Vehicle Act: Duty of driver at accident 68 (1) The driver or operator or any other person in charge of a vehicle that is, directly or indirectly, involved in an accident on a highway must do all of the following: (a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident; (b ) render all reasonable assistance; (c ) produce in writing to any other driver involved in the accident and to anyone sustaining loss or injury, and, on request, to a witness (i) his or her name and address, (ii) the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle, (iii) the licence number of the vehicle, and (iv) particulars of the motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card for that vehicle, or such of that information as is requested. It appears the driver breached these sections by failing to give his name and address. While there is a duty to render assistance to an injured person, there is no such legal duty in respect of an injured animal under the Criminal Code. It could be argued under the MVA that all reasonable assistance MIGHT extend to helping with an injured animal but I doubt that a court would find that transporting the injured dog would fall under that provision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Start with Hygiene and move on from there! There are many many many reasons you can't just stick animals into ambulances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugemanskost Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If you're using hygiene as an argument, then wouldn't there also be a hygiene issue with putting a bleeding animal into your own personal vehicle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 "As close to human as possible". Obviously I don't mean take your dog to doggie day-care everyday while you're at work. But they deserve a sense of respect that is on par to any stranger you pass on the street. So if you run over a dog with your car, you should do as much as possible in your power to help. So by your definition, how dogs are "property", what about when it comes to say, guide dogs? Are they property too? Should we treat them as objects? Last I checked, they have saved and are continuing to save thousands of lives every year. Property doesn't do that for you. There will always be split opinions when it comes to how animals should be treated. Unfortunately, yours is a very black and white/primitive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I know its in the heat of the moment, but if the owner had a cell on them they should have taken a pic of the license plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverCanucksRock Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Ugh ya absolutely? The question is. If you could only save a drowning dog or a drowning human. Which would it be. Human life is way more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Dog blood in my SUV = ill buy you a new, better dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.