Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Dogs Against Romney police stop

Dogs Against Romney
I undid the following edit on the grounds that it seems too far removed from the topic of the article, which is about Seamus: In February 2012, a Dogs Against Romney protestor was Terry stopped by police on suspicion of animal abuse, but he only had a stuffed animal in the carrier on top of his motor vehicle. While I understand the interest of this story among animal lovers, I think the story has more to do with the campaign against Romney than it has to do with Seamus, or the original 1983 incident. If people disagree with my decision, feel free to restore the edit, or possibly rewrite the sentence so that it is more closely tied to the rest of the article. Debbie W. 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The tie-in is that a cop who thought he saw a dog in a crate on the roof judged the situation to be a violation of animal cruelty laws. That fact strengthens the argument that there's a substantive basis for concern.  As against that, the laws in 1983 might have been substantially different from what that cop was applying.  As against that, even if the conduct was legal in 1983, evidence that it was illegal in 2012 would be taken by some people as confirmation that it was a bad idea.  I don't know if we can report the 2012 police stop in a way that accommodates all these considerations. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that we already say that Romney's actions probably violated animal cruelty laws: The Massachusetts American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) stated that Romney's actions were probably illegal under Massachusetts law, but that the statute of limitations has passed. I'm not sure that an illegal act committed today in Colorado by someone unconnected to Mitt Romney should be referenced in an article which discusses an similiar illegal act committed by Romney in 1983 in Massachusetts.  If a person who is not a politician drove off a bridge with a young female in the car who drowned, would we add it to the Edward Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident article? If people want to add supplimental info about the illegality of the 1983 act, I'd be okay with that. Debbie W. 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We did say that, but it's not supported by the references. The reporter columnist (clearly incorrectly) summarized the SPCA's officer's statement that, "it's definitely something I'd want to check out," but the officer is quoted as declining to say it was "probably illegal".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)