For those who have been following my work, you already know that PETA and two of its employees are being sued for stealing and killing Maya, a family’s dog. You also know that PETA rounds up and kills thousands of animals like Maya every year. Finally, you know that they have filed various motions to have the case dismissed by arguing that the dog was worthless, she had no value beyond the cost of replacement for another dog, they had permission by the property owner to remove community cats so they cannot be guilty of trespass for entering and killing a dog, and the family is not entitled to punitive damages because PETA’s theft and immediate killing of a happy, healthy, beloved dog is not “outrageous” conduct.
Moreover, in an argument reeking with racial overtones, you know that they asked the court to find out if the Spanish speaking person whose dog they stole and killed is legally in the U.S. As I noted when news of the theft and murder of Maya was first reported over a year ago, “Some have suggested that PETA targeted the trailer park [for rounding up and killing people’s animals] because of the language barrier, the questionable immigration status, and the fear of government officials that pervades the tenants. In other words, PETA officials thought they could get away with it.”
Finally, you know that Maya wasn’t the only animal they rounded up and killed that day. Also killed were two kittens, a puppy and two other dogs.
Adding insult to injury and a long list of offensive, anti-animal propositions that undermine every value a professed animal protection organization should be promoting, PETA is now claiming that it’s the family’s own fault that they stole and killed the “subject dog” from their front porch because Maya did not have identification and was not restrained. In a recent case filing, PETA and the two individual defendants argue that the family was “negligent in that they did not keep the subject dog restrained and did not keep proper identification or marking of ownership which resulted in the dog being removed at the time” by the defendants.
Aside from being cruel, the claims are also dishonest. As the surveillance video of the theft proves, Maya was not running at large, she was sitting on her own porch and refused to leave it. It isn’t relevant that Maya was not on a leash as she was on her own property. In order to try and coax Maya off of the property to give PETA the ability to claim she was a dog running at large, the defendants threw biscuits to her. Maya, however, ran, ate the biscuits and then ran back to the porch before she could be stolen. That is when the defendants trespassed on the property illegally to steal the dog.
Moreover, identification would not have changed the outcome. PETA knew the dog belonged to the family because at least one of them had been there before, sitting on the porch talking to the family and giving biscuits to Maya. They knew the dog’s name was Maya. They knew she belonged to the family. Are we really to believe that a name tag that said “Hello, my name is Maya” would have spared her life?
And, most importantly of all, they conveniently ignore the fact that they killed Maya the very day they took her in violation of the five day holding period mandated by Virginia state law. They ignore that when the family called PETA that afternoon, they were told PETA did not take the dog (until surveillance video proved otherwise). Even if Maya was off her property, the family called to reclaim her within the five day period. Indeed, they called the very day she was taken. And they ignore the fact that PETA, which claims to be an “animal rights” organization, violates the right to life of thousands of young, healthy, adoptable animals by poisoning them with an overdose of barbiturates.
Try as they might to deflect blame for their own criminality, the conclusion is inescapable: PETA is guilty, as charged. To know that, all you have to do is look in their walk-in freezer, piled floor to ceiling with furry bodies.
Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.