[Shryke]

The lack of evidence of real injury

Question for both of you, as it appears the level of the dog's injury is the pivotal point of the felony conviction (cruelty, not DUI): Have you taken into account the time between the beating (Nov. 3) and the trial? That's four months and then some. Is it possible that the article's description (no serious harm was done to the animal) misrepresents the state of the dog on Nov. 4? I've looked just fine after a car wreck knocked a tooth out and pushed my bottom teeth through my lip 4 months later. Additionally, it's hard to imagine a moderate case of animal discipline bringing two boys into court to testify.

[American_Centurion]

Is it really that hard to imagine?

Mom is an animal rights nutcase, high probability sons would be too. Not hard for me to imagine.

If there were any real injuries, they would have been listed by the humane society vet who took the dog into his/her care after the arrest. Why is there not one mention anywhere of what those injuries were? My answer, there weren't any. Guaranteed if there were shocking or even injuries proving cruelty or abuse they would have been listed. This reporter was pretty thorough in her writing, and has several quotes from the prosecutor, yet nothing mentioning any injuries treated.

The only logical conclusion to draw is that there were none, that means a complete miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated by this court.

[HairOfTheDog]

True enough, he may have hurt the dog and we don't know. But the fact that he thumped the dog pretty hard doesn't necessarily mean the dog was injured either.

I am an animal lover. You aren't gonna find a bigger animal lover than me. But I also know that I have had dogs that were not easy to control, and lack of control is more dangerous to the dog than firm punishment. Giving them a pretty good thumping is not the best way, as we have said, but this man's intentions were not necessarily evil. It just looks ugly to a witness.