by ThomasKDye on Mon May 14, 2001 9:05 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Emsworth:
<B>And I'd like to think that Manny is not merely a "file does not exist," but rather, I picture him in the heaven for deceased comic strip characters, talking with Mary Gold or playing Quake with Farley.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Or listening to "Pet Sounds" with Andy Lippincott (I think that's his name?) <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"><P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>In view of the latter, even if it was legal, would the animal's employer possibly be able to sue for, if not murder, at least for depriving the business of its employees? Considering certain work related lawsuits that pop up today, it would strike me as slightly possible.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There is no doubt that should Alistair find out about the circumstances, that he would be at the vanguard in trying to bring Roger to justice for his crime against Manny, with everyone else backing him up every step of the way. (Although all the dogs would have fewer illusions about what kind of weight
killing a mink would have with a judge. The D.A. would more likely use it as evidence that Roger is a killer, in a possible case of attempted murder againts Virgil.)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>And yet, is the killing of any animal ignored in this society? ...even if animals are considered to be second-class citizens (or even lower, apparently), in real life, most pet owners would certainly want to see justice done towards anyone who intentionally harmed their pet, and indeed there have been court cases based on such incidents.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, there was the recent road rage case where a man picked up a dog from a woman's car and threw him into traffic. The man got a pretty severe sentence.<P>Certainly it would be a huge deal, if, say, Swallowemup had shot Wolfram, Renata, Hal and Rochelle when he'd had a chance. Swallowemup didn't think so at the time, due to his Napoleon complex, but certainly killing four animals in cold blood bears its share of consequences even in the cynically twisted version of humanity that is the KPET world. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Would not that option still exist? In which case, would one be correct in asusming that the killing of an animal might be prosecutes, though probably not as murder, if the deceased were a pet such as a dog or cat but not, say, a rat or a chicken or a cow?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I asked the legal expert in my family (my mother) and it essentially becomes a civil case, the key charges being "destruction of property" and "cruelty to animals", the latter of which could also be charged to Roger. (As a wild animal, Manny is nobody's property.) Those could bring some hefty fines but no prison sentence (at least I don't think... correct me if I'm wrong). But criminal charges like murder and manslaughter don't apply to the animals. Alistair would have to search hard for precedents to bring someone who shot one of their own to justice.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Yet Sam, a dog, could be charged with murder when all he did was shout "Kill the umpire." There would appear to be a most unfair double standard in this society.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sam's prosecution was largely because of a very politically-oriented D.A. Because Sam was a well-known sportscaster, he couldn't just be taken out and shot, like an errant Doberman might be by Animal Control. So the D.A. decided that putting him through the full judicial process would give him some credibility as a fair D.A. who was not soft on crime. <P>It <I>is</I> a double standard, and just as sometimes the animals are brought to jail and other times they are brought to the pound, sometimes their fates depend upon the whims of the humans in charge. Just as sometimes <I>our</I> fates are dependent upon the caprices of some flaky people at the top. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"> <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Of course, I'm probably reading far to much into this, and I doubt whether these legal questions will be examined too deeply within the strip.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I like to be consistent, so it's good to examine the issues as they're presented. The key thing to remember is that, even though they talk, think, walk bipedally, and wear clothes, the animals are still animals rights-wise just as they are in this world. There may be a few fights for independence, but that will come later if it comes at all. As for exploring the nature of sentient animals vs. humans in the great sociological struggle, Albert Temple is doing it <I>beautifully</I> with his strip <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Gene Catlow</A>, so I would recommend that very highly. He puts the existence of talking animals in a historical context deftly, and, I believe, accurately. <P>Thank you, Lord E, for your insightful and thought-provoking post! <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/smile.gif"><P>------------------
<A HREF="http://www.newshounds.com" TARGET=_blank>Thomas</A><p>[This message has been edited by ThomasKDye (edited 05-14-2001).]