tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post6264581382196845472..comments2024-03-28T05:05:04.187-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Farm Bureau's David Waide speaksKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-15869820925645006152010-03-16T12:04:23.922-05:002010-03-16T12:04:23.922-05:003/15 4:32..... Amen3/15 4:32..... AmenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-32334906529552268412010-03-15T19:01:55.364-05:002010-03-15T19:01:55.364-05:00It was "promoted" as exactly as the bill...<i>It was "promoted" as exactly as the bill was intended to be: A bill that would make it a felony to intentionally abuse a dog or cat, your family pet. <b>And nothing else</b>.</i><br /><br />Well, besides that part that also made it a misdemeanor to kill a pest animal.JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-89968972983971823162010-03-15T16:32:10.534-05:002010-03-15T16:32:10.534-05:00Trying to have an actual debate with people like M...Trying to have an actual debate with people like Mr. Berry is really kind of useless. You might have a reasoned, educated opinion, but he's a jouster in search of windmills. No reason to engage him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-37505923543479957792010-03-15T15:56:53.817-05:002010-03-15T15:56:53.817-05:00Cherry Picked???? Are you crazy??? You actually t...Cherry Picked???? Are you crazy??? You actually think these people who spent countless hours, $$$ of their own money, and time away from their families to cherry-pick a bill???? It was "promoted" as exactly as the bill was intended to be: A bill that would make it a felony to intentionally abuse a dog or cat, your family pet. And nothing else. You insult the people and the hard work they put into this bill telling them they compromised (as most things are in life....) to falsify the intent. You probably played Scrooge in the Christmas play when you were in high school and didn't have to work too hard at being believable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-89298486827177033072010-03-15T10:44:52.799-05:002010-03-15T10:44:52.799-05:00I didn't allege there was a problem with it in...I didn't allege there was a problem with it in committee. I don't allege that any lawmaker has a problem with it. I allege that I, individually, have a problem with Section 1. Whether anyone conspired to kill the bill outright, has nothing to do with anything I've stated, except that supporters of the bill apparently compromised and allowed such broad language to enter the bill while cherry picking the parts they like and promoting it as something different.JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-88138021164707653462010-03-15T10:21:44.688-05:002010-03-15T10:21:44.688-05:00So Mr. Berry, why couldn't it had been fixed i...So Mr. Berry, why couldn't it had been fixed in committee if there was a problem with it as you allege instead of making killing the bill outright the goal from the outset?Kingfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-35458895618623848582010-03-15T10:19:29.532-05:002010-03-15T10:19:29.532-05:00What makes it clear that I'm not in the legal ...What makes it clear that I'm not in the legal field? The fact that I said I wasn't in the legal field? <br /><br />Or do you propose that only someone in the legal field is able to comprehend laws as written with complete disregard for the void for vagueness doctrine employed by our legal system. <br /><br />Additionally, please explain where I painted anyone as part of an extremist group or proposed an irrational fear. Maybe you could indulge me that while not being an open hypocrite. <br /><br />Maybe I am naive in thinking that a law shouldn't be so broad that it criminalizes behavior not intended to be criminalized by the law.JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-39904933038027568482010-03-15T10:05:06.827-05:002010-03-15T10:05:06.827-05:00Mr. Berry, I thought we burned all the witches in ...Mr. Berry, I thought we burned all the witches in this country in Salem a few hundre years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-33866968038002347702010-03-15T00:24:52.699-05:002010-03-15T00:24:52.699-05:00Mr. Berry, it is clear you are not in the legal fi...Mr. Berry, it is clear you are not in the legal field .<br />The bill addresses every irrational fear you've invented.<br />Worse, you, like Mr. Waide, try to paint everyone who had pointed out the FACTS as being part of some extremist group.<br />My family continues to have a working farm in a state that has an identical bill. NOTHING changed in their day to day operation. <br />Those opposing this bill are the far out, extremist nuts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-18512273972988502682010-03-13T12:53:11.110-06:002010-03-13T12:53:11.110-06:00It matters not what insight of transpired "ev...It matters not what insight of transpired "events" one has. The bill, as it was written, would have been bad law. Why should it matter how the bad bill came to be unless one is simply on a witch hunt?<br /><br />I am not in the legal field, read the bill and found it to be very unreasonable and pointed out to the person that continually said I was not reading the bill that they were not comprehending the portion they attempted to use to refute one of my comments.<br /><br />If that constitutes "hammering" to you, then so-be-it.JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-49557516633605353592010-03-13T11:35:08.311-06:002010-03-13T11:35:08.311-06:00Mr. Berry, it should be obvious to you and anyone ...Mr. Berry, it should be obvious to you and anyone else reading this blog that the individual you are hammering about not comprehending the law or the bill has much more insight into the actual events that transpired than you do. Not only that but they seem to have a better understanding of the law than you do. I am in the legal field, read the bill, and found it to be very reasonable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-81587410022533762732010-03-13T10:51:13.103-06:002010-03-13T10:51:13.103-06:008:54 - Thanks for your thoughful, well-reasoned an...8:54 - Thanks for your thoughful, well-reasoned and thorough analysis of JDBerry's brief, flippant, childish response. You have certainly persuaded me, and I suspect all JJ readers, with your command of the facts and incisive analysis and interpretation of the situation.<br /><br />(I'd put here but why waste time? My dog seems able to carry on a higher level of conversation than you)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-4072976315361737522010-03-13T08:54:17.615-06:002010-03-13T08:54:17.615-06:00I looked at the language, you didn't comprehen...<i>I looked at the language, you didn't comprehend it.</i><br /><br />You're an asshole JDBerry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-65066612568026148532010-03-13T08:33:49.438-06:002010-03-13T08:33:49.438-06:00Again, look at the language in the bill -- one of ...<i>Again, look at the language in the bill -- one of the exceptions is:<br /><br />Injuring or killing of an unconfined animal on the person's property if the unconfined animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person.</i><br /><br />I looked at the language, you didn't comprehend it.<br /><br /><i>constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person.</i> <br /><br />Secondly, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Because a previously written law was wrong, doesn't give credence to creating another law that's wrong.<br /><br />It doesn't matter who suggested the language if it's wrong. I'm not on a Farm Bureau witch hunt and am simply offering that the proposed bill was junk because someone added Section 1. Perhaps, if as is suggested, Farm Bureau wanted it added because they knew it wouldn't pass muster with it added.<br /><br />If you want a bill to emulate the livestock law, why not amend §97-41-16 to read:<br /><br /><i>Malicious or mischievous injury to dog; penalty; restitution.<br /><br />(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any dog, or cause any person to do the same, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not less than twelve (12) months nor more than five years, and fined an amount not less than One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).<br /><br />(2) In addition to such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of such dog. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and/or the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other cost incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.</i>JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-56439680593388812472010-03-13T07:25:43.521-06:002010-03-13T07:25:43.521-06:00The reason section 1 contains simple cruelty langu...The reason section 1 contains simple cruelty language and "vertebrate creatures" is because of the Farm Bureau. When MS-FACT met with them, and all of the other groups (Poultry Associations, Cattleman, Vet from Board of Animal Health, various animal welfare groups, and Canine Coalition, etc.) THEY had included a section in their proposed legislation that reinstated a currently unconstitutional law (97-41-1). That is a basic simple cruelty misdemeanor law. <br /><br />The reason for "all living creatures" to be replaced with the words all vertebrate creatures, except humans and fish is because that is how the FARM BUREAU defined them in their language. Again, a compromise by MS-FACT.<br /><br />Everyone at the meeting seemed to want 97-41-1 to be reinstated so we added it to the MS-FACT bill hoping that our compromise would meet with their approval. <br /><br />To get confirmation of this, look at the bill that the Farm Bureau submitted (SB2971). It is all in there...<br /><br />You see, MS-FACT offered to compromise on EVERYTHING that the Farm Bureau wanted in a bill, with the exception of the first offense felony. The Farm Bureau wanted a third offense felony. Although, David Waide stated that he didn't oppose and cat and dog bill, then that he didn't oppose a second offense felony, and then submitted a third offense felony bill...so who knows what they heck they really stand for...even they can't make up their minds.<br /><br />The only players who didn't want to compromise were on team Farm Bureau....and maybe Canine Coalition since they did not say anything during the entire meeting. They had the opportunity to participate and put their two cents in but chose to remain silent and complain later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-33363286074534561112010-03-12T20:31:12.485-06:002010-03-12T20:31:12.485-06:00Again, look at the language in the bill -- one of ...Again, look at the language in the bill -- one of the exceptions is:<br /><br />Injuring or killing of an unconfined animal on the person's property if the unconfined animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person.<br /><br />Now, unless you often encounter rats, raccoons, possums, lizards, and snakes that are on leashes, then they are "unconfined" and since most reasonable people would tend to freak a little bit if charged by one of those animals, then the "reasonable threat" exists.<br /><br />Never mind that a lot of those animals would also fall under the hunting exceptions.<br /><br />Look at §97-41-1 -- the current law says "any living creature." If we are going to play the game of "how this law can be misterpreted by crazy people," then let's be sure to include what is already on the books.<br /><br />Oooooo, BACTERIA are living creatures! So we have LAWS in Mississippi that make it ILLEGAL to use Lysol on kitchen countertops!!! I guess I can never clean the kitchen again! And does keeping hand santizer in my purse mean I am carrying a concealed weapon?<br /><br />Now, isn't that foolish? Yes. It's the same kind of reasoning you are using.Jackson Frugal Galhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11719282395418557201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-64124234955200704902010-03-12T18:35:39.190-06:002010-03-12T18:35:39.190-06:00existing the current bill was tried but most other...existing the current bill was tried but most others wanted a new bill. Amending an existing bill is always easier. And no, the FB was not behind that. It was some bad info that got carried through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-52918052403675748652010-03-12T17:44:35.630-06:002010-03-12T17:44:35.630-06:00We cancelled our FB insurance last month when we g...We cancelled our FB insurance last month when we got wind of all of this. Waide and his cohorts are liars in addition to being twisted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-50135297444999677082010-03-12T17:36:27.155-06:002010-03-12T17:36:27.155-06:00So, it's not just about cats and dogs. It'...So, it's not just about cats and dogs. It's also about those who kill snakes, rats, raccoons, lizards, opossums, etc?<br /><br />This is being sold as a bill simply to make it a felony to abuse cats and dogs. Why not simply change the existing law to make it a felony instead of creating new crimes?JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-61232690355173894102010-03-12T14:48:41.443-06:002010-03-12T14:48:41.443-06:00I'm not sure I understand your question. Cats...I'm not sure I understand your question. Cats and dogs are vertebrates, vertebrates are specified in Section 1.Jackson Frugal Galhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11719282395418557201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-53257274170924108182010-03-12T14:47:50.751-06:002010-03-12T14:47:50.751-06:00You Go Jackson Frugal Girl!!!!! You saved me a lo...You Go Jackson Frugal Girl!!!!! You saved me a lot of copying and pasting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-81752146019967005302010-03-12T14:25:05.697-06:002010-03-12T14:25:05.697-06:0011:00, 11:48, and 1:11 -- here's the part you ...<i>11:00, 11:48, and 1:11 -- here's the part you conveniently haven't read:</i><br /><br />What does Section 1 have to do with dogs and cats?JDBerrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-51222166377781541692010-03-12T14:23:09.180-06:002010-03-12T14:23:09.180-06:00merci bcmerci bcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-86587285574266062852010-03-12T14:05:22.027-06:002010-03-12T14:05:22.027-06:00§97-41-18 through §97-41-23 get into hogs fighting...§97-41-18 through §97-41-23 get into hogs fighting dogs, dogfighting, and service animals. Fines are higher there, and there are some minimums. But I am tired of posting all of this in tiny sections, as I am sure everyone else is tired of me doing it -- go here to look up the rest.<br /><br />http://www.michie.com/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=mscodeJackson Frugal Galhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11719282395418557201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-55542170767591988912010-03-12T14:01:57.229-06:002010-03-12T14:01:57.229-06:00Current Law, Part IX -- more penalties, but no min...Current Law, Part IX -- more penalties, but no minimums AND still a misdemeanor<br /><br />§ 97-41-16. Malicious or mischievous injury to dog or cat; penalty; restitution.<br /> (1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any dog or cat, or cause any person to do the same, shall be fined not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or be imprisoned not exceeding six (6) months. <br /> (2) In addition to such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of such dog or cat. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other cost incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section. <br /><br />§ 97-41-17. Poisons; administering to animals.<br /> Every person who shall wilfully and unlawfully administer any poison to any horse, mare, colt, mule, jack, jennet, cattle, deer, dog, hog, sheep, chicken, duck, goose, turkey, pea-fowl, guinea-fowl, or partridge, or shall maliciously expose any poison substance with intent that the same should be taken or swallowed by any horse, mare, colt, mule, jack, jennet, cattle, dog, hog, sheep, chicken, duck, goose, turkey, pea-fowl, guinea-fowl, or partridge, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.Jackson Frugal Galhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11719282395418557201noreply@blogger.com