Comments by KUtriSIS
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on July 25 at 3:36 p.m.
Alright, here I go! This law or ordinance, whatever you want to call it is NOT new. This is the same one that is going around the nation and has about one state joining every other month. As for the individual cities, they usually pick it up before the state in it's entirety does or they go into effect as soon as the whole state does. I worked in a restaurant in Oklahoma for four years. While there were many restaurants that had already banned smoking, there were ways to get around it. IF YOU HAVE A BAR LICENSE AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL AND LIQUOR SALES YOU CAN BE CONSIDERED A BAR FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. This is what kept our restaurant a smoking establishment until the whole STATE picked up the law two years later. This group trying to get it passed is only fast-forwarding the inevitable. As far as the smoking in bars go, this law does not pertain to an actual bar that is not established as a family oriented restaurant. It would take much more for that to take place. So bars are safe because the city/county would be who has to pass a separate law for bars and I think the majority of bar goers know that would NOT pass and it would be a complete waste of OUR money to try and pass it. The restaurants that are not able to prove they are mainly a bar establishment and in a differnt category would be affected by this. I must say this though, if you don't like the smoke don't go to a bar. Chances are the laid back people that go to bar are not the ones that will complain about smoke. I understand that some people don't appreciate having smoke filter over their table while they are trying to enjoy a dinner but that is COMPLETELY different than just going to a bar that probably only has peanuts and popcorn to eat where a good percentage of people are sitting around smoking and drinking.
Posted on July 24 at 3:06 p.m.
Those comments about "native" Emporians group everyone together as with the way intolerant and racist people do and they are nothing but crude, disrespectful, and callow. My family and I are from Emporia and I would never treat anyone with a "turned up nose" or in the way you define unless they treated me the same way. I'm going to respect anyone until they prove they don't deserve it and the same goes with my trust and friendship, no matter what. I found this very offensive.
On the article topic, the parents of the children should be responsible. I don't care if this tragedy happened during the day or at night. There is no difference. No 13- and 11-year-olds should be able to run around so much without supervision that they can get the keys to a vehicle, drive that vehicle away and do the destruction and torment they did. That is a COMPLETE lack of parental supervision: IRRESPONSIBILITY. What if there had been a wreck? What if the people in the other car were killed? A child sticking a Cheeto in his ear or fruit loops up his nose when a parent steps away for a second is an accident. This incident is no accident and children are the responsibility of the parents until they are ATLEAST 18-years-old, plain and simple.
On Parents are asked to pay support for juvenile suspects in zoo case
Posted on July 9 at 2:22 p.m.
" Sec. 6-22. Running At Large:
(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or harborer of a dog or cat to permit the same to run at large. For the purposes of this article, a dog or cat shall be deemed to be running at large:
(1) When the dog or cat is not confined by a building, fence, cage or within a closed vehicle; or
(2) When the dog or cat is not restrained by means of a lead, leash, rope, chain or cord held by the owner or harborer; or
(3) When the dog or cat is not securely fastened by a rope, chain or cord to the ground, a tree or structure with strength sufficient to keep the dog or cat within the limits of the owner's or harborer's premises.
(b) An absolute defense to a complaint alleging a dog or cat to be running at large shall be proof that said dog or cat was at the time of such alleged violation within the limits of the owner's or harborer's premises and in the actual control of its owner or harborer actively exercised in the immediate presence of such owner or harborer, and should such defense be proven, the impoundment fee established herein shall not be collected, or if already collected, such fee shall be refunded. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987) "
I'm sorry but I have read this section many times and I still do not see where anyone is getting that a dog or cat has to be restrained WHILE INSIDE a vehicle. I am arguing this because my dogs ride in my car with me and when I heard they had to be restrained even in there I had to take a closer look. The fact is that there is no where in the above that says the animals must be in a closed vehicle AND restrained. A truck bed obviously has the potential for the animal to jump or fall off the side, I'm sure that is why it is not considered a "closed vehicle".
Now i'm not saying that it's right or wrong that Rex got ticketed but they couldn't pick a better law to try to enforce??? Come on! I have a lot more problems with the loud music coming from the park at 11 at night than I have ever had with a dog in the back of a pick-up.
Posted on July 1 at 10:59 a.m.
I'm not going to disagree with anyone here except the information in this article. I understand the fact that there are not enough animal control officers to handle every little call. I also understand that when a threatening call about a dog attacking comes in, that is above the other "innocent" calls. And with reading the article it says that when calls cannot be taken by the city animal control because they are off duty it gets diverted to the county animal control if it is a threatening and dangerous situation. But wait, what about the two times I have made calls about a vicious dog (and I really do mean vicious not just a large dog)? I'll tell you. "Animal control is off duty you'll have to call back tomorrow morning". WHAT?!?!? Didn't this article just say that those situations that ARE dangerous get diverted to the county animal control? Yes, I thought so. Something looks fishy here...hmmm.
Posted on June 24 at 11:04 a.m.
madpoet >>>>> I am completely 100% an animal lover, believe me i'll still cry over watching Bambi. But like I said earlier, if it is absolutely necessary I will take care of the problem myself. I probably would not have shot the animal dead if it was not attacking but maybe fired a warning shot, maybe not who knows until your in that situation personally. No matter how much a person loves animals there is a reasonable line that must be drawn to protect the public. A vicious dog does not get better, get on parole and never kill again. That blood is always there. So the shelter can come rip me a new one all they want to but when a vicious dog is picked up off the street and sent to the shelter, What happens to that animal? I would like to think that here is just like any other place because of the places I have lived I have never heard of a vicious animal just being released back into the streets to do it again. I would like to see what these people that ripped your friend a new one would want done if an animal was acting this way to them. Sure maybe they would try to talk to it but if it doesn't calm down and it starts tearing into the bone on their arm something tells me they aren't going to say "no don't shoot the dog, just let it kill me".
Posted on June 24 at 10:26 a.m.
This is sick and I would really like to think this wasn't some stupid publicity stunt. A publicity stunt can be done without killing animals, even as stupid as it is otherwise. My God that is just stomach churning to even think that the city would be capable of something so cruel just to get a little extra money. On that matter, I don't care who you are, you will be caught and prosecuted! Mark my word, there are enough people out there that you will run your mouth off to and you'll be lucky if it doesn't get your hind-end beat BEFORE you get locked up.
Posted on June 24 at 9:37 a.m.
I tell you what I love animals, don't get me wrong on that, but if I was actually threatened by a loose dog because it was vicious I am going to take any means possible to protect myself and anyone else that may be around, human and animal. I know from experience that there are not many animal control officers and I understand the circumstances but when, say, oh how about the other week when I called about a vicious dog who was attacking my fence, getting under it and going after my dogs the response I got was "animal control is not on duty right now". Alright, that's fine. THERE IS A VICIOUS DOG ATTACKING SEND THE FREGGIN' POLICE OUT BECAUSE I KNOW THEY ARE NOT ALL OFF DUTY. That is what is bull and when I told the lady this was the 3rd time this same thing had happened and if she didn't get some one out there to get this dog I would take care of it myself. To this I got her response of "no ma'am, don't do that. You should file a formal complaint TOMORROW". Tomorrow? After the fact that some one elses child or pet has been killed because of it? Oh and not to mention the fact that when I did file a formal complaint THE OFFICER NEVER TOOK CARE OF IT!
Don't tell me there is no one on duty to take care of a vicious dog. I know better. If it's not animal control send a police officer. QUIT BEING LAZY WITH YOUR JOB AND PROTECT THE COMMUNITY LIKE YOUR SUPPOSE TO.
Posted on June 13 at 3:31 p.m.
Momof3 >>>>>>> I must say I don't know the exact feeling but this is the typical problem I am having with the loose dog and it's owners down the road. Nothing is getting done about it. I fear now more than ever that it may be because they are not worried about my dog so when I call they don't care. That's the impression I get anyway.
TO EVERYONE >>>>>>> What can we do to solve this type of problem? Is it possible to work together on this to do the right thing or is this going to be another fight between people?
Posted on June 13 at 2:54 p.m.
CassieJo >>>>>> I must comment on your early post about concealed carry permits. I quote you as "sounds to me like these people who have carry permits should also have rules to flollow ..... I doubt that one of the rules is to threaten anything that moves or flexes its muscles". As for the second part of this quote you are right. There are rules and for anyone that is going about things this way they are not following them. As for the first part though, I understand what you are trying to say but you may want to rephrase and rethink it a little bit because you have kind of made it sound like you are bunching EVERYONE that has a concealed carry permit in the same group. I do know people that have them and they are very responsible. They follow the rules and do not flash around the fact that they have it. I am just trying to keep another argument from getting started and I am not attacking you but I think I am being a calmer person in saying this first before some one else with less patience decides to cut in. Just know what it sounds like you are saying and that what it sounds like is not true. So hopefully this helps clear it up for the other readers also. Thanks
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on August 21 at 3:35 p.m.
On the note that so many above have shared, it should be a choice that is up to the PRIVATE business owner to make the decision that is best for them. After all, it is THEIR place of business and how they make money to support their family. I am a non-smoker, or wait, maybe a smoker when I drink. Does that make me a smoker? You know what, I don't care because IT IS MY CHOICE! If a restaurant makes the choice to go non-smoking because they believe it will help their business that is great. All of you complainers can go to the non-smoking place. But when a restaurant has established that it is a smoking facility there is a good reason for that. Anyone who does not agree should probably talk to someone from a place like Bruff's and then get you some water to wash it down with...yes I mean your foot in your big mouth. IT'S A GREAT BUSINESS FOR THEM THE WAY THEY HAVE IT OR IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BY THEIR CHOICE. Don't all of you complainers that say non-smoking would increase the revenue think that if that was the truth it would be done already?
On Opponents say Clean Air Emporia over-reaches with smoking ban plan