Apparently some people were actually surprised by yesterday’s outcome. Count me as not one of those people. Does that make me a pessimist? I don’t think so. I just know that for the most part, so many politicians (big and small) are out to serve the private industries, institutions and corporations that so freely give them money for their cooperation. Some of us call that “hush-money.” Show me a politician that doesn’t take the easy way out and I will be glad to sing their praises. Not saying that there aren’t any out there, but the list is small in comparison.

All that aside, I could fully tell within 5 minutes of viewing the online stream of the “hearing” (what a joke) that “Mayor” Antonovich was:
1) Checked out.
2) Rude.
3) Uncompassionate.
4) Inconsiderate.
5) Inappropriate.
And 1 better, he was a complete asshole… At one point (and this is true, see video below) telling one of the public speakers that her deciding not to have any more children was probably a good idea and then laughing about it! I mean, correct me if I’m wrong but those are the types of comments that people in his position get fired resign over.

Anyways–I’d originally intended to physically go there and make a public comment, like many other citizens did and did very well. My dog Neola got hurt the night before and by the time I contemplated an early morning vet visit, then ruled it out, it was already an hour into the meeting. I still drove up but then couldn’t find parking and ended up driving back home for an all around pointless day. Luckily I found out there was an online live stream of the meeting, so I tapped into that and waited for the appropriate item to come up.

When I say that I “waited” it literally means that I waited hours, plural. This thing was definitely a snail-train of carelessness from the point-of-view of our glorious “elected” officials. These individuals sat there twiddling their thumbs as they rattled off issue after issue and ignored public comment after public comment. It was kind of stunning and yet not at the same time… Every issue–no debate, approved, and then on to the next one. Their reaction to the constant flow of public emotion was a silent monotony of foolishness. Not bothering to entertain even a single point, just going through the motions like the bought-and-paid-for schmucks that they probably are. With the dog amendment item specifically there were numerous attorneys who gave public comments, as well as a doctor and a dog behaviorist, but yet ALL concerns fell upon deaf ears.

Now–due to the Board’s utter lack of care or concern for this (as of yesterday) potential change, the definition of “severe injury” has changed and been broadened, the definition of “potentially dangerous dog” has changed and been broadened, and most insanely, animal control officers (who are completely unqualified and bias beyond imagination) now have the right to play judge and jury with these animals lives. It is downright shameful. It is downright tyrannical. It is downright unconstitutional what has happened.

Since the Board of Supervisors and county officials (including entrenched drone Marcia Mayeda) were so set on focusing their energy on rearranging definitions, I was set on giving a public comment based around “other” definitions… Here is what I would have said if given a few minutes:

Allow me to present a few definitions for you guys to knock around in your mind… Starting with the all-encompassing word “potentially” that you place in front of the already vague phrase “dangerous dog,” then defining the words that may appear in the definition of the first word, in an effort to get to the “root” of what these types of words basically mean…

Potentially ~ possibly but not yet actually
Possibly ~ perhaps; maybe
Perhaps ~ maybe; possibly
Maybe ~ perhaps; possibly; a possibility or uncertainty
Uncertainty ~ the state of being uncertain; doubt; indeterminacy; indefiniteness
Doubt ~ to be uncertain about; considered questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe; distrust
Distrust ~ to have no trust in; to have no faith or confidence in

Hmm… That kind of speaks for itself, right?

Now let’s take an individual case of crime, centering around an individual of a certain race (which would be comparable to a “breed” of dog in the below scenario). If this individual, who for examples sake was caucasian, robbed a liquor store with a .45 caliber pistol and ended up shooting the attendant in the neck, fatally injuring him, does that then make HIM “dangerous”? My answer would be YES. Now let’s take the same exact scenario, except the individual doesn’t fire the pistol, but robs the store with the clear verbal intent to fire… Does that then make HIM “potentially dangerous”? My answer would be YES. Notice my emphasis on the phrase “HIM.” That’s me making a distinction based on the individual cases, and I’d think that that is all okay by any rational person. What is not okay is when you take and encompass ALL from any area or group or type, based on a common trait instead of a common action. So taking the above example into account, as well as the fact that I’m also clearly caucasian, does that then make me “potentially dangerous” as well? *Waiting for an answer from the Board* Because this is the standard that is essentially being rubber-stamped.

What kind of pandora’s box is being opened when using this kind of loose/non-specific/vague language? It quickly turns a person (in this case an animal control officer) into a dictator… No court, no jury, no debate–“It just is” because someone says it is.

Pit Bulls specifically have been and will continue to be more victimized by this type of broad-sweeping discrimination than any other type of dog. Animal control officers are the same people that generally, by policies that they themselves instituted, fail Pit Bulls on temperament tests, deeming them unfit for public adoption and literally sticking the needle into their arms in droves. Nice people indeed. And now these same people, who represent the entrenched and failed sheltering system, are now put into a position to legally decide what fits the bill of “potentially dangerous”? Well how about I save them all some time and proclaim that ALL OF US fall under the definition of “potentially,” just by definition alone, as we are all “possibly” capable of taking that gun into the liquor store… It’s an all-encompassing word based around a not yet actual act. Basically like the infamous concept of “precrime” from the Tom Cruise-movie Minority Report.

Fact: Animal control officers are patently unqualified to make these assertions. The phrasings of the definitions themselves, which the “assertions” would be based around are beyond flawed and non-specific. This is a magnificent cluster of criminality and yet it was rubber-stamped by these bozo’s quicker than a toad could pull a fly out of the air. The fact of the matter is that this “Board,” in tandem with our county shelter institution (LA County DACC), are absolutely peddling in a gigantic steaming pile of tyranny.

I’ll end this article with 2 definitions…
1 which this decision is FULL of:
Tyranny ~ unlimited or unrestrained exercise of power, absolute abuse of authority.
and 1 which this decision has NONE of:
Common sense ~ sound practical logic that is independent of specialized training.

Relevant links:
The online petition that was given less than a week to gather signatures prior to this “change” being secretly shoved down our throats at a rapid pace.
The letter created by a group of attorneys and presented to the Board in opposition to the proposed amendments to Title 10.
The press release entitled “Mayor Antonovich hands down death sentence,” based around the result of the “hearing.”