Sunday, January 6, 2013

Florida, Of Course

Get this:  In Florida (naturally), there was this couple who had apparently woken up to find their 16-month old child missing and so they called the police.  Turns out that they had just been passed out drunk and when a relative came over and found them completely boozed up and unresponsive, said relative took the child home where the adults there were presumably awake and sober.  Seems reasonable.  Only thing is that the relative didn't leave a note or anything.  (Always leave a note if you're going to remove an infant from its home without telling the owners of the infant first!)  Thus, when the partying parents came to, they were missing a baby.  But that's not what this story is about.  What this story is about is what happened after the cops showed up to figure out where the kid went. 

See, the cops didn't immediately find the baby.  What they did find, however, were animals.  Lots of animals.  Hundreds of animals.  Oh, did I say hundreds?  I mean hundreds and hundreds.  According to the Seattle Times, "Deputies said they found hundreds of snakes, lizards, rats, birds and rabbits being kept in deplorable conditions inside the house."  You know why the conditions were deplorable?  Because there were hundreds of snakes, lizards, rats, birds and rabbits.  That is correct!  I don't think that with over three hundred of those animals that you could have anything other than deplorable conditions!  They certainly wouldn't be plorable conditions. 

The article then just focuses on the idiotic and the mundane when it says "They said the animals were being bred and sold without the proper licensing."  Really?!  I never would have guessed that there wasn't some sort of proper licensing going on in a home with hundreds of creatures living in it!  It shocks the conscience!  Oh, wait.  No, it doesn't.  But that aside, would it have been any better if there had been proper licensing going on there?  Would it be any better for a house to have over three hundred animals in it if they were properly licensed?!  I can't imagine how it could be.  Look, owning three hundred of anything (other than maybe grains of rice) is stepping into crazy territory right there.  License or not, if you have more than a few animals in your house (and certainly into double, and obviously, triple digits) you have a problem. 

But this was my favorite part:  "...authorities...discovered 300 neglected animals in their home, including three dead rats and a dead hamster."  I don't really know what to do with that sentence and/or that information.  There were over three hundred animals and only four dead ones?  And the ones that were dead were typically animals that you would call an exterminator to come out and kill anyway.  I'm not so sure that I'm seeing the problem as being more with the four dead animals as opposed to the hundreds of live ones!  Why was that even included in the article?  I could see if there were maybe fifty dead cats or something like that all lying around.  But three rats and a hamster?  Doesn't seem hardly worth mentioning, really. 

The article wraps itself up with "It was not known if the couple have an attorney."  It might not be known to the person who wrote the article, but it's known to me!  Trust me, I have the feeling that these are the sort of people who are all too familiar with the courts and our legal system.  I have the feeling that they've needed the services of an attorney at least once before their unlicensed animal sanctuary was discovered.  These are people who passed out, stone cold drunk, and left their 16-month old attended to by rodents.  Trust me.  They have an attorney, all right. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: