Sorry Charlie
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:48 pm
Sweet little dog has to hit the road.
The Observation Deck
Neighbors Celebrating Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity While Speaking Over The Digital Fence
https://deck.lakewoodobserver.com/
Sorry Charlie
Page 1 of 1
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:18 pm
Ridiculous law in place because of hysteria and media bias. Is our community safer now that they have banned pit bulls. I think not.
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:01 am
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/do ... o-1471.pdf
More Lakewood dollars soon to be spent in court.
More Lakewood dollars soon to be spent in court.
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:14 am
Read that decision carefully.
Lakewood does not have a leg to stand on. They overruled the "home rule" defense of the city.
As seems to be the norm under Mike Summers, the city will now enter costly litigation to defend the indefensible.
Give it up already! Spare us taxpayers!
Oh, and the attorney that won that appeal is representing Charlie's owner. Way to go!
Lakewood does not have a leg to stand on. They overruled the "home rule" defense of the city.
As seems to be the norm under Mike Summers, the city will now enter costly litigation to defend the indefensible.
Give it up already! Spare us taxpayers!
Oh, and the attorney that won that appeal is representing Charlie's owner. Way to go!
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:40 pm
Here's an item that makes the case against breed specific laws very nicely.
"Don’t adopt a German Shepherd. Here are 15 reasons why"
http://shareably.co/15-reasons-to-not-h ... -shepherd/
I'm still not convinced that pit bulls are right for me, but I am sure that Lakewood's law is - and there is no other word - stupid.
It will ultimately make Lakewood a laughingstock.
"Don’t adopt a German Shepherd. Here are 15 reasons why"
http://shareably.co/15-reasons-to-not-h ... -shepherd/
I'm still not convinced that pit bulls are right for me, but I am sure that Lakewood's law is - and there is no other word - stupid.
It will ultimately make Lakewood a laughingstock.
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:51 pm
Dan
According to social media, Lakewood already IS a laughingstock, and a reviled one at that.
According to social media, Lakewood already IS a laughingstock, and a reviled one at that.
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:23 pm
Why again can the city hire employees and have people on council that have been found guilty in court of endangering humans, kids, families, but puppies with no history are made to feel unwanted?
Seems pretty strange, even here in Bizarro City.*
* Bizzaro is a tip of the hat to Superman comics, that had a bizzaro world, where everything was the opposite.
.
Seems pretty strange, even here in Bizarro City.*
* Bizzaro is a tip of the hat to Superman comics, that had a bizzaro world, where everything was the opposite.
.
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:42 pm
What Freedom? Where is anyone free ? Not in Lakewood.,.. Who voted these idiots, these incumbent's into office, They endorsed the demolition of the historic Hillard Theater, it should have been saved at any cost. I'm very happy for the Charlie and his owners, they can move into a better neighborhood, where Hitler supporters don't live, rule or exist,
what? I can burn the American Flag, but I can't fly the sexey cnfederate flag, ? what?
where is the freedom? What freedom ?
what? I can burn the American Flag, but I can't fly the sexey cnfederate flag, ? what?
where is the freedom? What freedom ?
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:53 pm
After 200 plus years, were still arguing over rights? Human rights, gay rights, all rights, what rights ? Why did it take 150 years for African Americana, to be free, and equal? Why did it take 225 years for gay people to have the same rights as every other sexuall person? ? we have a long road to travel before there is real freedom.I wont live long enough to see it. "Freedom".
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:57 pm
He does and it's not even about him.dl meckes wrote:Sweet little dog has to hit the road.
It's about the next one up.
It's about the specter of those people walking those dogs in Lakewood.
It kills the brand.
Mike Summers' brand. White on white affluence.That's the selling point.
Again, the scorecard when it comes to inclusiveness regarding positions of power in Lakewood:
White Mayor.
White Law Director.
White Planning Director.
White Financial Director.
City Council: White, White, White, White, White, White, White
White Police Chief.
White Fire Chief.
I'll throw this in for giggles.
How many minorities are there on the 17 member Foundation Task Force?
How many residents who are poor, are sitting on the 17 member Foundation Task Force?
This is an administration determined to keep "those people" outside the gates while waging war on the poor who reside within.
Sorry Charlie, you weren't the problem.
It's the door you opened that determined your fate.
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:31 pm
Sharon Harvey, CEO of the Cleveland Animal Protective League, has provided a statement on their Twitter and Facebook page denouncing the city of Lakewood and its decision to force Charlie's owner to remove him from the city.
In the statement she states that the APL and Jennifer Scott fully followed procedures to insure Charlie was approved to be honed in Lakewood. She further states that visibly classifying a dog as a put bull is inaccurate in most every case.
She implores Lakewood to move away from Breed Specific Legislation.
How's that for a smackdown?
When will Lakewood do the right thing?
Here is the text of the Facebook post if you don't use Facebook.
In the statement she states that the APL and Jennifer Scott fully followed procedures to insure Charlie was approved to be honed in Lakewood. She further states that visibly classifying a dog as a put bull is inaccurate in most every case.
She implores Lakewood to move away from Breed Specific Legislation.
How's that for a smackdown?
When will Lakewood do the right thing?
Here is the text of the Facebook post if you don't use Facebook.
We're with Charlie!
Earlier this week, the city of Lakewood, which specifically bans "pit bulls dogs and canary dogs," gave Charlie's owner 30 days to get him out of the city.
Charlie was adopted from the Cleveland APL as a puppy. His owner and our adoption team followed Lakewood's approval process to a 'T' and permission was granted for Charlie to move in. But, when the sweet, goofy boy escaped through an open gate and ended up at the Lakewood Animal Shelter, everything changed, and not because he had done anything wrong other than go for an unauthorized romp. More details are in the story below.
The Cleveland APL is vehemently against breed bans and breed discrimination. Not only are these bans a flawed and ineffective strategy for protecting the public from truly dangerous dogs, but they are virtually impossible to enforce with any modicum of objectivity and fairness to the animals and families involved.
Trying to identify the breed of a dog by visual identification is an exercise in futility. Studies have shown that experienced animal professionals, such as veterinarians, dog wardens, animal welfare workers, and dog trainers are about 25% accurate when we try to visually identify the breed of a dog. We'd do better to flip a coin! Yet, animals and families are being destroyed by breed-specific legislation simply because of how a dog looks, not how it behaves.
We implore Lakewood to overturn this flawed ordinance in favor of enacting an effective and enforceable dangerous dog law that will better protect public safety and hold irresponsible owners accountable. While we're at it, Parma, Garfield Heights, Warrensville Heights, and Akron, too!
And, as I said earlier ... #ImWithCharlie ... we're with Charlie ... 100% ...
Sharon Harvey
CEO, Cleveland Animal Protective League
Re: Sorry Charlie
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:16 pm
Apparently, the mayor could not even be bothered to conduct the "dangerous dog" hearing himself, according to the court complained filed last week. Rather, it appears Mr. Summers had one of his office secretaries conduct the hearing and make the determination as his designee.
Does this secretary have a degree from an accredited university in zoology, veterinary medicine, biology, genetics, or a similar field? What are the chances that an office secretary for Mr. Summers has these credentials?
Better yet, the mayor is actually designated as the main person to conduct these hearings and make these decisions. Mr. Summers, do you have a degree from an accredited university in zoology, veterinary medicine, biology, genetics, or a similar field that qualifies you to make decisions regarding the genetic makeup and other features of a dog? If so, please produce evidence of these credentials.
By the way, I am still waiting for you to produce a copy of your civil engineering degree from an accredited university, as you appear to control everything related to traffic in this city, under the guise of being the "public safety director", according to the City Charter.
A final question I have is: was the mayor truly not available for this hearing or did he not want to be available?
Does this secretary have a degree from an accredited university in zoology, veterinary medicine, biology, genetics, or a similar field? What are the chances that an office secretary for Mr. Summers has these credentials?
Better yet, the mayor is actually designated as the main person to conduct these hearings and make these decisions. Mr. Summers, do you have a degree from an accredited university in zoology, veterinary medicine, biology, genetics, or a similar field that qualifies you to make decisions regarding the genetic makeup and other features of a dog? If so, please produce evidence of these credentials.
By the way, I am still waiting for you to produce a copy of your civil engineering degree from an accredited university, as you appear to control everything related to traffic in this city, under the guise of being the "public safety director", according to the City Charter.
A final question I have is: was the mayor truly not available for this hearing or did he not want to be available?