Posted on 03/18/2004 6:17:05 AM PST by American_Centurion
FREDERICK -- A Dorchester County man who was sent to prison Wednesday for whipping his dog was the first person to be convicted in Frederick County for felony animal cruelty. Terry Love, 32, of East New Market, also was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and a second count of animal cruelty.
District Court Judge Frederick Bower said he was impressed with the testimony of the witnesses, including two boys.
When Love stopped into a gas station in Myersville last Nov. 3, his springer spaniel jumped out of his truck and ran away, court testimony revealed.
A witness who saw Love staggering and unsteady had already called police because they didn't think he should continue driving.
When the dog, named Ranger, ran into a nearby field, Love drove after him, court testimony revealed.
Love eventually caught Ranger, and started beating him with a leash. One witness demonstrated how Love wailed on the dog by raising his arm well above his head.
Love was arrested at the scene by Maryland State Police Cpl. Jay Robinson, and Ranger was taken to Frederick County Animal Control to be treated by a veterinarian.
Love testified the dog wouldn't come back to him because the traffic scared him. He said he lives in the country, and Ranger is not used to noises.
He said he got Ranger from a springer spaniel rescue group, and had her for about two months before the incident.
Love said he did not petition the court to get Ranger back.
Assistant Public Defender Kevin Young said his client loved the dog.
He also argued that since his client was described as stumbling drunk, he could not have intended to mutilate or severely beat the dog.
But Assistant State's Attorney Kirsten Daggett said witnesses testified they saw him punching the dog as well as flogging and dragging it.
She said five empty beer bottles and a nearly-empty fifth of vodka were found in the truck, and witnesses who called police felt he was "wasted."
Judge Bower said he listened carefully to all the testimony, saying he believed the witnesses to be credible and true. He also said he was impressed that they took the time to get involved in the matter.
Ms. Daggett said it was Love's fourth alcohol-related offense.
Judge Bower sentenced Love to two years in prison for the felony cruelty offense, 90 days for the other and two years for the driving under the influence. The terms will be served concurrently.
Love also was fined $500 plus court costs on the alcohol charge, and given credit for four days he spent in jail.
Judge Bower said he would not stay the sentence for appeal, ordering that the term to begin immediately.
Love was led from the courtroom by Bailiff Alice Moore.
After the hearing, Ms. Daggett said Ranger, who was not seriously hurt, was adopted by a family.
The felony animal cruelty offense carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison.
Ms. Daggett lauded the witnesses, especially the boys, who testified. "They all did a terrific job."
I agree. It really saved me and this dog. I was finally able to reach him. To tell you how strong willed mine was, before the collar he ran to and mounted a golden retriever (not in season) and was going at it heavy (in his mind)... He cringed when I approached, knowing full well that I was gonna hit him, and ~kept doin' it anyway~. It was worth it to him. After the collar, I never lost him in the first place. When he would see ~her~, I could get him back. I had found something that he couldn't just ignore.
They don't even realize that it's you, they just learn that disobedience makes the shock happen.
HA! - Not only that, but they think I am their safety from it! It's wonderful, if a little tricksey that way.
Have you ever shocked yourself with it? It's not bad, kinda like static electricity shock, but it keeps repeating.
Yup.... and yup. They must be used correctly or they can be emotionally torturous. And I wouldn't use it on a really emotionally sensitive dog... wouldn't need to. When used correctly, the dog works willingly and isn't afraid, he is just working for you and not himself. ;~D
Or another animal. It is interesting how so many people are changing with respect to animals. Something interesting is occurring.
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.
And now she comes when she's called, she has even come off chasing a squirrel to my whistle. But she still hesitates and runs on a stride or two, apparently just to show her independence.
But she just turned 3, and I'm starting to see a real improvement in her general obedience!
But my dog has figured out that the collar produces the shock - she straightens up and flies right with the collar on even when the batteries are run down. She also recognizes the collar box when I take it off the shelf. She doesn't exhibit any symptoms of fear (this dog is afraid of absolutely nothing except large cement trucks with the mixer turning) but you can see the "oh-oh, I better behave myself."
Sometimes I turn it off and let her wander around the house and sleep with the collar on, just to try to throw her off balance.
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?
The right sentence, though I'd make him the attack dummy for the local K-9 police dogs.
Exactly! The only way to ever get precision off leash with an opinionated dog!
There are two things, IMHO, that all dogs need to be 100% on to be safe loose. The first is 'COME', but the often better solution depending on the circumstance is 'DOWN'. To be able to know they will just drop and ~stay~ where they are till you get to them is the only safe way out of a situation where they are on the other side of a road.
I only used it for a real short period with my female, to teach 'come' and 'down' and that was it. Once she knew the expectation, she didn't question again. I can get her back from anything now.
I did a lot more work with my male lab, but I was hunting and showing him, and he was not only more strong willed, be had more complex work to do.
I agree we have some foolish laws on the books. What I want to ask is: do you feel that any cruelty to animal law is unjust/foolish? If not, where do you draw the line?
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.