Good question. Again I must ask, how did the Animal Control Officer know to respond to the residence? Someone had to call him. If it was not the owner, more than likely it was the landlord. Why won't anyone inquire into this, get the facts and straighten it out rather than just blame the officer or trash him through innuendo?
I mean really - let's stop and think about this for a minute. Do you suppose that out of the blue one day the ACO knocked on the landlord's door and said, "You must let me intro one of your rentals because my crystal ball tells me there is an injured animal inside that I must remove and put down" ?
Things don't happen that way. There has to have been a basis for all this to have happened. Let's look there before we start pointing fingers of blame.
Good question. Perhaps the landlord represented the place as his being his residence and his animal, or said he was acting at the owner's request, or that the owner had died, or abandoned the animal - it could have been a hundred things. Again, someone needs to ask the landlord and officer rather than just jump to conclusions.
Again, we must look at what the landlord told the ACO and what the ACO perceived as to the animal's condition. No one seems to know that and is just inserting their own guess. We must also look at the county ordinances and rules governing such situations, which no one has posted, even after repeated requests to do so. Instead, people just list their perceptions of what the rules and laws might be, many of which on their face would violate public policy.
From prior posts, first the vet was going to put the dog down, then later, a vet could have saved him with an operation the owner had no money for, so the dog continued to suffer. I'm sorry, but I'm finding little value in this unless some of the key players bothered to advise the ACO of this prior to his taking action. Did they?
So which is it? If based on statements of the landlord, the ACO was acting in good faith and by mistake of fact which disproves any unlawful intent, then the ACO did nothing wrong.
My big question is what was the true condition of the dog at the time? While the vet speaks to diagnosis based on an old video, was he present to examine the dog in person when the ACO was there? We are taking the owner's word that the dog was fine, but the article alludes to photos in the sheriff's possession that depicts a terribly suffering dog, a vet was ready to put the animal down and the word of an ACO that in his years of experience, the animal was suffering enough that dispatch was warranted. Just a preponderance of what little we have so far does not weigh this in favor of the owner.
We all love animals, but take about 20 steps back and look at what OP has posted here. It is all assumptions and innuendo with absolutely no offer of proof. If the ACO screwed up then yes, appropriate action needs to be take against him, but not by a crazed internet lynch mob fueled by their own imagination and guesswork rather than cold hard facts.