When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed
by Shannon Miranda, 9/4/2006 The Eureka Reporter
I’ve been in the public hot seat myself from time to time, so I can understand that Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is feeling a little defensive.
But that in no way explains the ridiculous article about vigilantism he wrote in Saturday’s Times-Standard that was titled “Vigilantism a force of anarchy.”
In it he argues that no one but lawyers could possibly understand the complicated pursuit of justice, and that those outside his profession who work hard to see that right occasionally prevails over wrong should mind their own business and stop subverting the goals of our legal system.
I couldn’t disagree more. And, Paul, let’s be honest. There is no rise in vigilantism. There’s a rise in people demanding that you do the job you’re paid to do, and picking up the pieces when you don’t.
There’s a rise in people like me and Barbara Shults and the Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States and The Eureka Reporter and a lot of other people and organizations daring to ask questions about a colossal failure on the part of the Humboldt County legal system that resulted in the cruel deaths of more animals than anyone can count. And that little article was your way of telling us to shut up and stop questioning your judgment.
Let’s stop talking in circles and call it what it is. You’re mad because we’re asking questions about how well you do your job. If your failure to file charges against Kiki Bugenig in 2004 for her obvious neglect and abuse of her animals is any indication, I’d have to say you’re not doing it very well. You left those animals there to suffer and die, because you didn’t think reports, photographs, witness statements and an actual videotape of the animals’ pathetic conditions constituted enough evidence to get a conviction.
You saw in Mad River how well that situation turned out. But instead of learning from mistakes and trying to make improvements, you’ve resorted to calling us names. “Vigilantes” is the term you used, which might not have been a very good choice, because you clearly don’t know what it means.
According to your article, “Vigilantism is when all or most of the functions of the administration are performed by one person or persons.” I don’t have a law degree or anything like that, but I do have a dictionary, and what it says is that vigilantism is actually “the summary action resorted to by vigilantes when the law fails.”
Pay close attention to that last part. The law failed these animals. You failed these animals. And you have not stepped up to the plate and tried to make things right. Now you’re trying to accuse me and others of plunging the county into anarchy simply because we’ve had to clean up the mess you left behind.
The dictionary also defines a vigilante as “a watchman or guard.” That applies here too, because we have had to watch and guard the precious lives of animals ourselves because you won’t do it. We’ve had to be vigilant precisely because you are not.
And one other thing. Nobody cares if you think you can get a conviction in the case against Kiki. It would be nice if you did, but that’s not the point. You yourself wrote in the article that “What is often misunderstood is that our legal processes have greater importance than getting the right results.”
Now that’s something I agree with. Part of that “greater importance” is standing up and saying that right is right and wrong is wrong. Even if you can’t get a conviction in a particular case, sometimes you have to stand up for what’s right.
Animal welfare is my job. Prosecuting people who break the law is your job. Instead of telling me to mind my own business, maybe you should start minding yours.
(Shannon Miranda is the owner/operator of Miranda’s Animal Rescue in Fortuna.)
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
RELATED STORIES:
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
And more Related Stories:
Two mass dog graves discovered near Mad River 8/16/2006
Trinity County Animal Control warned of dogs' plight since 2005 8/18/2006
"Dogs seemed fine," Animal Control Officer Edwards says 8/18/2006
Defense attorney says John and Stacy Malcolm not to blame for abuse of dogs 8/18/2006
Dogs' condition consistent with starvation, report states 8/20/2006
Death toll rises in Mad River dog deaths 8/22/2006
IN THE 'INTERESTS OF JUSTICE'? 8/23/2006
Evidence mounts in animal abuse case 8/24/2006
Report details 'horrific' conditions 8/26/2006
Community responds to dogs' abuse by donating to rescue 8/27/2006
51 CHARGES FILED IN DOG CASE 8/30/2006
National Animal group challenges Gallegos over abuse case 8/30/2006
National, international animal groups weigh in on abuse scandal 8/30/2006
ER Editorial - Specious arguments
8/30/2006
78 additional felonies charged in Mad River dog abuse case 9/1/2006
Malcolms 'walked through' arraignment 9/2/2006
When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed 9/4/2006
Third suspect in dog case arraigned 9/7/2006
Mad River dog abuse case suspect speaks out 9/9/2006
Hearing set for Mad River dog suspects 9/14/2006
Dog suspects head for trial 10/13/2006
Code addressing animal abuse requires low burden of proof 10/16/2006
Animal abuse linked to serial killings, needs to be addressed 10/16/2006
Gallegos says he will not file felony in Bugenig horse case 10/21/2006
If Lucky had been seized, perhaps he would have survived 10/23/2006
Original owner of Mad River dogs released from prison 11/1/2006
Malcolm attorney requests charges be dropped 12/13/2006
Defendant in Mad River dogs case accepts plea deal 8/20/2007
No comments:
Post a Comment