Replies

Ranger was taken to Frederick County Animal Control to be treated by a veterinarian.

Hrm, that doesn't sound like an injury-free dog to me. It seems logical that an UN-injured dog would be taken to animal control, while a visibly injured dog would be taken to animal control's vet. Given the nature of the beating, I imagine the dog suffered minor/major contusions, which are basically untreatable (just need time to heal). Although I have no issue with disciplining your animal, I am not ok with beating it to bruising. Also, it seems reasonable that this guy, with his oh-so-healthy alchohol "issue", was probably really letting that dog have it.

Where did the animal-rights nutcase come into the picture? Or is that hypothetical?

For 'treated' read 'examined' and you'll probably be more on target.

Seriously, if this dog had had any documented injury, I guarantee the prosecutor would have used it in his proof and the news article would almost certainly have mentioned it. Including bruises or any other marks.

I'd be curious to know if this felony animal cruelty statute has a requirement for visible or permanent injury. If not, this law is just an invitation for ignorant "animal lovers" to harass people they don't like.

Re: animal rights nutcase, you asked if I could imagine why the boys would testify against the man, and I gave you an easy scenario.

Even if he "really let the dog have it" IMO unless this dog recieved life threatening or debilitating injury the abuse wasn't of FELONY caliber. The fact that they state the dog was treated by a vet and then no other mention other than "not seriously injured" tells me this guy has a FELONY conviction on his record that he doesn't deserve.

FYI if you get a felony conviction you lose all kinds of rights for life. Now this guy happened to give those up due to alcohol abuse but the cruelty conviction, if it stands, is now precedent for incarcerating and convicting someone for "animal cruelty" alone. IMO the standard for what is felony cruel should be set a hell of a lot higher than some bruises and scrapes.

These laws being placed in the felony category are intended to identify criminals who have potential to be dangerously violent to society. Yes beating this dog makes him an ass, but I see no evidence that he may eventually step up to endangering society.

Take his dog, fine him, give him a warning that he doesn't know how to treat animals. But felony conviction is waaaaaaaaaay over the top.