This is the first news I have read about the Pratt's animals, which sounds like a shameless situation.
However, what proof is there that the information given is accurate from the sources that have provided it? These days people tend to believe almost anything posted on the Internet and seldom stop to ask basic questions.
Laws in America tend to be very strict about animal cruelty - no matter who owns an animal - and seldom stop in holding the most celebrated individuals responsible for bad and/or illegal behavior. From what I have observed, famous people are often made "an example" of neglect or harm to animals. Let's not forget the animal' rights people who are always flaming emotionally to take down others whom they "presume" to be harming them, even without genuine proof.
The three things I know about the Chris and Anna Pratt is that they grew up a few dozen miles from where I live in the Puget Sound; that they are faithful supporters of Seattle sports teams, and that they seem like wholesome, loving people to each other, their son, their friend, and their commitments. In the third example, their public behavior always appears to match their words, which are normally very positive.
So, the other side of this is that someone has said that their dog was found lost, in terrible condition, that their ownership was proven because of a chip, and that they have been unresponsive. And we know this is all true because "they (?) said". And because each one of these details is supposedly true, the Pratts are guilty and need to be exposed, punished, and - obviously - reviled and hated.
In our area and, from what I remember of living in LA County, people take animal cruelty extremely seriously: it makes the news at many levels, people cannot ignore commands to respond because they would be charged, questioned, and sometimes arrested and then, possibly convicted with fines and/or jail time. The ASPCA or like organizations would take all of the time necessary "to education others" and "to ensure that bad behavior is stopped" Anyone as famous as the Pratts would make the front page of many papers. It would follow them and their friends - Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and perhaps Ellen - would be asking on TV. It would not go away.
None of this is to deny it may have happened to someone's dog or theirs. When accusations like the PO's are made anonymously on the Internet and no sources are provided about who "they" are saying these things, I always wonder if the OP is repeating something that s/he read someplace that seemed awful and that s/he wanted to share. If this was cited online: provide the url and direct people there.
So, is this another example of the ancient game of "Gossip" because "they" can say anything? Without proof, logic suggests asking several questions, checking facts, looking at the behavior of the people involved, and not leaping to conclusions. Fact checking is something we are going to live with for a long time now due to the recent election.
Would we want to be judged as quickly on what "they said"? Having been on the receiving end of harsh judgement with no facts taken, I can tell you that I would never wish my worst enemy to experience the situation. It is a mire that is almost impossible to exit with your self esteem and reputation intact.
Just saying . . . . there are obvious sides to every story and often people take the first side shown to them without looking at others.
A Checkered Life speaks of myriad diverse adventures being the rewards of endless curiosity.
reply
share