S.C. man gets 30 years in jail for dog fighting

A Charleston man accused of breeding and training dogs for underground fights will spend the next 30 years of his life in a cage.

David Tant, labeled by prosecutors as the No. 2 breeder of fighting pit bulls, submitted a guilty plea Monday two days into his jury trial. He had maintained his innocence since his arrest in April, but admitted Monday that he not only bred dozens of pit bulls for fighting, but that he also created a destructive device that injured a railroad surveyor who stumbled onto his property.

An investigation into the surveyor's injury led to the discovery of numerous pit bulls on the property, as well as tools used to train the animals for fighting.

Many of these items - such as treadmills, cattle prods and a "rape box" designed to restrain dogs that are too aggressive for natural breeding - were on display in the courtroom during Tant's change of heart.

"This looks like a chamber of horrors," said S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, whose office prosecuted the case. "If there were humans being put through this, it would be a capital case.

This is a torture chamber of animals. It is barbaric and cruel beyond description."

The jury saw less than two full days of witness testimony, but the evidence presented was powerful. One juror was moved to tears Saturday after watching a videotape recording of an illegal dogfight.

Prosecutor William Frick said even more damning evidence waited in the wings. Tant was in the habit of recording his telephone conversations, and the state planned to let the jury hear some of these talks.

The tape includes discussions with potential customers from the Czech Republic and the Philippines, as well as a complaint from a buyer who was assured a winning dog from Tant's stable.

The evidence overwhelmingly showed that the defendant was not the innocent animal breeder he claimed, Frick said.

"He had no other purpose for those dogs," he said. "They were specifically bred and trained for dog fighting."

Tant faced 41 charges of criminal animal fighting and one charge of assault and battery with intent to kill. Many of these charges were dismissed as part of his guilty plea, and the most potentially serious - one count of assault and battery with intent to kill - was reduced to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.

He received a total of 30 years in prison — 10 for creating the booby trap that injured the surveyor, 20 for four counts of criminal animal fighting.

He also faces an additional 10 years in prison for criminal animal fighting if he fails to make restitution for the care of the animals confiscated by investigators, medical expenses for the man injured on his property and the cost of moving the trial from Charleston to Greenwood County.

The S.C. Attorney General's Office was adamant that Tant receive the harshest possible sentence. Jennifer Evans, one of the prosecutors in the case, called dogfighting "a heinous sport and a heinous criminal activity."

Steve Baker, who was injured by the shotgun-shell powered booby trap on Tant's land, was one of those who wanted Tant to spend as much time in prison as the law would allow.

"I don't think anyone should have to go through what I've been through," Baker said. "I don't want to be around any of this stuff again."

Others saw the trial as an opportunity to make a statement about the consequences for criminal animal fighting in South Carolina.

"Dogfighting is not really on the decline. There's as much dogfighting as there ever has been," said Robert Carlson, the Charleston veterinarian who examined the animals confiscated from Tant. "We need to hang them - hang them high and hang them publicly - so we really make a statement about this."

Not everyone was lining up to demonize Tant. His family and attorney asked for leniency, portraying him as a family man and the primary care provider for ailing parents.

"A severe sentence for a man his age is a life sentence," said Tant's attorney Dale Cobb. "Having plead guilty, he should receive the mercy of the court."

"I don't know what's going to happen with my mother and father's care without him," sister Linda Tant said prior to sentencing. "We know he's made a mistake - he's a good man, he's not the bad man he appears through all of this."

While the final sentence was a small portion of the 205 years faced by Tant, McMaster said the punishment fit the crime.

"I think it's a serious sentence and sends a serious message," he said. "Mr. Tant didn't show those dogs any mercy."

Here in Ontario the Liberal government is attempting to enact Breed Specific legislation to ban 'pit bulls'. If passed it will be the largest jurisdictional ban in North America

The Attorney General, Michael Bryant, has ignored requests for consultation from Humane Societies, the SPCA, the Ontario Veternary Medical Association,CKC and other experts.
He ignores recommendations put forth some time ago by an inquest into the death of a little girl by a neighbors dog(not a pit bull).
The girl's mother herself is speaking out against the BSL.

The ignorance and arrogance of this AG is simply astounding. He just came into office recently and riding a surge of media hysteria and apparently egged on by one of his local constituents with a vendetta against 'pit bulls', he saw a chance to make a name for himself. (CNN is apparently interviewing him tomorrow morning)

He continually refers to 'pit bulls' as ticking timebombs. When the paperboy incident I described above took place he quickly spoke to the cameras using it to defend his legislation, saying this incident would not have happened under his proposed law.

He rationalizes his intrusion into the rights of law-abiding citizens with logic such as this, which you Americans should bristle against.....

"If this is an inherently dangerous dog, as I believe it to be, then you can't leave it to the dog owner to every single time put the muzzle on it," Mr. Bryant told reporters on Tuesday.
"Just like you can't leave it to the gun owner to always put the safety clip on a weapon before it goes out in public."

When show a sheet of photos of various dog breeds he was unable to identify the American Pitbull Terrier.
The reporter, bless her heart, challenged the effectiveness of a law banning a specific breed when he himself could not identify the breed.
He countered that he would leave that up to the experts.
She sprung the trap, "But it is those very experts who have said that you refuse to consult them"
He sputtered.

Here is the 'definition' of a pit bull in the proposed law....

“pit bull” includes,
(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a member of a class of dogs that have an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to dogs referred to in any of clauses(a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)

(a) is not even a breed.
(e) is so vague with no description given of either appearance or physical characteristics as to be useless, or more frightenly, misused.

The law is wrong in so many ways but to look at it, as an example, from the perspective of my dog's breed, the Amstaff, which is included in the proposed ban.
In all of Canada there were registered with the CKC,
in 2002, five litters totalling 35 pups,
in 2003, three litters totalling 24 pups
and so far this year two litters totalling 16 pups.
The likelihood of banning Amstaffs having any effect whatsoever on the number of dog bites is extremely remote.

Here's more selections from the proposed law...

1) A proceeding may be commenced in the OntarioCourt of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that,...
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,...
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals.

behaving in a manner that poses a menace ??? barking?? straining on the lease to go investigate the neighbors free roaming cat??

Innocent until proven guilty, nope...

"If it is alleged in any court proceeding under this Act that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog."

Warrants? We don't need no stinkin warrants....

if "...circumstances in which the peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that entry into any building, receptacle or place, including a dwelling house, is necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm or death to any person or domestic animal."

But gosh, if all pit bulls are 'ticking timebombs', then there is no time to waste getting a warrant, get in there and save the children.
You can bet, if it can be abused, it will be.

The law is said to contain a mechanism whereby new breeds can be added to the ban without going back to the legislature. In Italy a similiar mechanism resulted in 92 breeds being banned.

We can beat this ill-conceived legislation and help enact measures that will truly address the problem of dog bites, but it going to take a lot of work and lots of money (we put out $20,000 to retain a prominent Ontario lawyer and that's just for starters).
We fully intend if needs be to take this all the way to our Supreme Court.
We are up to 12,000 signatures on our petition with many more sign up sheets still out there to be counted. We're shooting for 100,000.
We have received support from throughout the U.S. and it is greatly appreciated.
In the words of Ben Franklin, "We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Here's some links with more info...

http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/
http://www.bannedaid.com/
http://www.killbill132.com/

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.