Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucille
That's a tabloid lie; it's not really true but is flavored with truth enough to get a rise, which is what you have been trying to do. From the very beginning you have told us the sky is falling, I encourage you to walk outside and see that is not the case.
A behavior must rise to probable cause, a higher standard than mere suspicion, before action is taken. So your tabloid lie is, well, a lie. And a deliberate one, meant to scare and stampede.
AGAIN, you are running with sensational charges without including what has been repeated to you over and over and over, that these are proposals only, and only meant to prevent an absolute ban.
AGAIN, this argument is not the grail for you, a readback of several pages of posts on this site shows that you sensationalize almost everything. Coming here with cheap drama seems to be your daily entertainment.
|
and what do you think probable cause for suspicion of keeping a reptile illegally will be for them.
this is right from the model legislation
§ VI Investigation of suspected violations; seizure and examination of
reptiles; disposition of reptiles.
In any case in which any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer
has probable cause under the law to believe that any of the provisions of this
Article have been violated, it shall be the duty of such officer and he is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to immediately investigate such
violation or impending violation and to forthwith seize the reptile or reptiles involved, and all such officers are hereby authorized and directed to deliver
such reptiles to the State Department of Natural Resources or to its
designated representative for examination for the purpose of ascertaining
whether said reptiles are a venomous reptile, large constricting snake or
crocodilian subject to this Article. If the North Carolina State Museum of
Natural Sciences or its designated representative finds that said reptile is a
venomous reptile, large constricting snake or crocodilian subject to this
Article, the Department of Natural Resources or its designated representative
shall be empowered to determine final disposition of said reptiles in a
manner consistent with the safety of the public; but if the Museum or its
designated representative find that the reptile is not a venomous reptile,
large constricting snake or crocodilian subject to this Article and either no
criminal warrants or indictments are initiated in connection with the reptile
within 10 days of initial seizure, or a court of law determines that such
reptile is not being owned, possessed, used, transported or trafficked in
violation of this Article, then it shall be the duty of such officers to return
said reptiles to the person from whom they were seized within five days.
this is the part that bothers me
In any case in which any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer
has probable cause under the law to believe that any of the provisions of this
Article have been violated, it shall be the duty of such officer and he is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to immediately investigate such
violation or impending violation and to forthwith seize the reptile or reptiles.
violation or impending violation. if im reading this right they can take your animals for a violation or impending violation. and you can read that they are to take the animals to someone else who is qualified to identify the animals. so the people in charge and enforcing the rules openly admit to not be able to identify the animals they are regulating.
so probable cause. someone calls them and says you keeping snakes illegally. they have to investigate. they get to you house look in a window and see a snake in a cage and right there is you probable cause for a violation or impending violation and now they take your snake that they admittedly cant identify to someone that can identify it to find out if you broke any laws. thats a great system