Posted on 09/24/2005 5:44:30 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
Shuma the German Shepard helper dog. A disabled man from Mississippi who fled after hurricane Katrina and ended up in Independence Missouri needed to put a roof over his families head. His temporary accommodations would not allow pet's.
John Wyrick gave his pet Shuma to Lynn Nevill's at the Independence Animal Shelter where he signed away his pet because he could keep his beloved pet and service dog with him, the apartment would not allow it. Desperate to put a roof over his families' head he signed his registration paper's over to Ms. Nevill. It maybe legally sound but it is morally WRONG.
He has now found a home where he can have his beloved companion and service dog. He went back to the shelter, asking for his pet back and she refused.
This story has outraged the greater Kansas City area. What type of person would do this to someone who has just lost their home and everything in it. Knowing, that his current home was temporary until he could find one that would take pets.
Yes, I know contract law. I also know that he signed away his pet to the shelter. Could he not have asked their help? I do not know that answer. They get strays all the time. Why would they force this family to sign their pet away. This part of the story is a bit fuzzy.
Getting back to this tragic story, the out pouring of help from our town, is heart warming and a reminder of all the wonderful folks out there, they are determined to reunite dog with owner.
Jeff Lund who manages Weinburg Dodge offered after seeing the news segment last night $1000.00 to Nevill if she would return the pet to the rightful owner. The owner of the dealership heard about this and doubled Mr. Lund's offer. Carol Elber's also contributed saying she had little money but this companion belongs with the his family/master. Other's in the community have offered to give Ms. Nevell a puppy, all gestures turned down. Cannot even bribe a woman to do the right thing. What a role model she is.
To add to this devastating situation, the woman, Ms. Nevill, claimed during a radio interview that Mr. Wyrick was not a Hurricane Katrina victim and that there were no records to prove it through FEMA. Well, KCTV decided that when they got involved with this story it would be through the long haul. They also did a check on the man's veracity and indeed he is a victim of the Hurricane. So, in his time of need, she takes his beloved pet and when finds a place to live that accepts pet's she chooses not to give back his service/companion dog. Then she goes out on the air waves to slander his good name.
As of last night's news cast a lawyer has offered his assistance free of charge. Oh and if you are wondering WHY she will not return Shuma, the family pet of the Wyrick family, she claims her family, in the last 3 weeks have become to attached to the dog.
You can also go to the KCTV website, where you can send an email on this story, and they will share them on the air,or call their voice mail where they will also share those messages. The community will have nothing of this and I get it as well.
There is a special place in hell for the likes of this woman. Beloved did little research on the net and he found her address and phone number. I will post the information once I ask Dave where the links are, she must be told her behavior was very un American.
Dog Dilemma Reaction
Kansas City has spoken. You want an Independence, Mo., woman to give Shuma the shepherd back to her owner. Thursday night, you met a disabled man from Mississippi who fled Hurricane Katrina and ended up in Independence, but he had to give up his dog, which is not only his pet but his helper. Chief Investigative Reporter Steve Chamraz has the latest.
Community Reacts to Dog Dilemma
Since the story about one Hurricane Katrina survivor's dog dilemma aired Thursday on "KCTV5 News at 10," there's been an outpouring of reaction to the community. Hear some of the e-mails and offers to help that KCTV5 News received in this video report.
KCTV5 News Investigation: Dog Dilemma
Hundreds of people have come to Kansas City after fleeing Hurricane Katrina and most have been welcomed with open arms. But one man who lost his home and belongings to the storm came here and lost something that can't be replaced and he blames an Independence woman.
Page where you can find the three media links regarding the Shuma the family german shepard.
She is going to find it very hard to live in her town and run her business when the community doesn't want here there. And stories like this have a way of following people if they decide to move.
nevermind my former post .. i see she is in missouri, not mississippi ... duh!
I am guessing she won't change her mind but the people who got the dog will. A simple way to handle the kids is to ask the television station to do a piece on this man and his dog. Have the kids watch it and they will want do the right thing.
It seems to me that some City of Independence employees should be called on Monday. If this woman is an employee, it seems that policies about allowing employees or volunteers to adopt--and under what circumstances-- might need to be reviewed. Here is the link to their phone numbers:
http://www.ci.independence.mo.us/CityphoneNo.stm
Further, the fact that this woman (who is, perhaps, an employee) committed slander of Mr. Wyrick on the radio should be considered by the Head of Animal Control. Given that she obtained information about Mr. Wyrick in the course of her employment (if she is an employee), that may be grounds for disciplinary action under employee policies.
If she is a volunteer, her actions (including the slander--which clearly "dirties her hands" in the legal sense) should cause the City to bar her from the premises of the shelter.
I'd try to figure out how to use her act of slander as leverage against her.
Bump.
This can't be shoved under the carpet. Mr Wyrick needs to get Shuma back home with him!!
My email to the shelter/Lynn:
"What an incredible opportunity you have. In the short time you have had Shuma, you and your family can understand only a fraction of the amount of love and attachment that John has for this dog.
What an example of selfless love John showed as he handed over his friend and companion to someone he trusted could take better care of her than he could during his time of crisis. Not thinking of himself, but of the love for his dog, he handed her to you.
What an amazing opportuninty you have now to teach your family and learn yourself the joy of sacrificial love. When you hand Shuma back over to the man you raised her and who depends upon her for love and support, you will know the true meaning of sacrificial love. They need to be reunited.
Please don't become overzealous in your attempt to rescue animals and deny a rightful owner of their dog.
Do the right thing.. you will be blessed!"
Good e-mail!
You were very kind in your comments to this woman...
Appeal to her humanity. Hope she hears.
Sue, you are a thinker. :)
Thanks for posting the city website. I'll send an e-mail or two, at least.
I kinda figure she is already on the defensive, ya know.
I've done rescue work, it is very hard to give up an animal, but we can't keep them all. And certainly shouldn't keep one signed over in a time of crisis.
Somehow I think because of her reaction so far, this could fall on deaf ears, but it was how I was lead to speak.
Breaks my heart.
A very kind e-mail. Far more kind than she deserves.
I watched those clips of her and she seemed like a mean woman. She will give the dog back sometime. But not because she had a change in heart. She will do it for the money and the fact she can't take the heat that is about to come her way soon.
I think it will after media outlets start reading the emails.
I am worried that her children might be as mean as she is..They could mistreat Shuma and cause a negative reaction from her. This might prompt this despicable woman to have Shuma 'put down'.
Please keep the pressure on until Shuma and Mr Wyrick are united.
I think that I might have a mean streak. Look what I just found in the Kanas Criminal Statutes--a section on Criminal Defamation. http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-4004.html
21-4004
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 40.--CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
21-4004. Criminal defamation. (a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4004; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 187; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 135; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 14; July 1.
I think that we should call the County Prosecutor's office
LOL, really.
I believe I have found her email address. She posted on a golden retriever message board .. Lynn Nevills, Independence Mo .. the people on the board are saying it's her.
I know I can't post it here .. anyone want to freepmail me with protocol? How do I get this out??
My e-mail to the news station:
I viewed your newscast about the woman at issue slandering Mr. Wyrick on a radio station. Are you aware that Kansas has a Criminal Defamation statute?
21-4004
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 40.--CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
21-4004. Criminal defamation. (a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4004; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 187; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 135; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 14; July 1.
If I were you, I'd inquire of local law enforcement authorities as to whether on not they intend to investigate the possible violation of a crime against this Katrina victim. Didn't the woman claim that she checked with FEMA? If she did, then a prosecutor might be able to prove knowledge that the information was false.
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.