I watch shows of real life court cases. They cover a gamut of incidents involving we humans and make for an entertaining, sometimes tragic, but always interesting 50 minutes — less commercials. I’d like to introduce one case as an example. To cite:

Certain individuals seem to have a sense of entitlement regarding the welfare of our pets.

For example, there are those who come across a scene where they see in their view that someone’s pet looks or appears mistreated, malnourished and generally ill-handled. They then take it upon themselves to do something about it.

But this will conflict with little regard for the pet owners and their own feelings and love for their charges.

A recent case in May highlighted this where an elderly man (with an advocate at his side) was brought to court by the actions of a young lady, who in her view, the man was not fit to have a canine buddy.

The woman claimed his age, health and living circumstances proscribed any need for him to have a pet and it would be desirable if she or others were responsible. After hearing her out, one of the judges looked at her and said, “… are you one of those do-good fanatics?” They found in favor for the elderly gentleman and fined her $5,000 for causing him unnecessary pain and suffering.

What do you think of the verdict?

Ralph Burke is a Dunkirk resident.