Judge declines to dismiss animal cruelty charges in PETA case

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com ^ | 06/01/06 | AP-author not credited

[cf_river_rat]

	Posted on Thu, Jun. 01, 2006
	Judge declines to dismiss animal cruelty charges in PETA case Associated Press WINTON, N.C. - A judge has declined to dismiss felony animal cruelty charges against two PETA workers accused of dumping euthanized animals into a trash container. Defense lawyers argued Wednesday in Hertford Superior Court that the charges should be dropped because the animals were killed humanely. They also argued that Andrew B. Cook and Adria J. Hinkle are being unfairly prosecuted because some people don't agree with the work of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Cook, of Virginia Beach, Va., and Hinkle, of Norfolk, Va., were arrested last June by Ahoskie police officers who were staking out a trash container in which animal carcasses had previously been found. Detectives testified Wednesday that they arrested Cook and Hinkle after watching them throw several bags of dead animals inside the trash bin. They also said they found more dead animals in the pair's van, a digital camera with images of living and dead animals and substances later determined to be euthanasia drugs. Cook and Hinkle each face 21 felony counts of animal cruelty, seven counts of littering for illegally disposing of dead animals and three counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. PETA spokesman David Perle said in an e-mail Thursday that the organization is confident its employees will be acquitted. Hinkle was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal case, he said. Cook, a new employee at the time, remains with PETA. No trial date has been set.

---

© 2006 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com

[cf_river_rat]

Hinkle was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal case, he said. Cook, a new employee at the time, remains with PETA.

Apparently peta isn't too disturbed by these employees' actions.

[paulcissa]

See this: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

[Red Badger]

If they were euthanized, how can that be cruelty if you dump the dead bodies in the dumpster? Pollution maybe, but cruelty?.......

[AnAmericanMother]

Freelance killing of healthy animals is frowned upon.

Specially when they aren't your animals but have been cat- or dog-napped from somewhere.

These PETA monsters probably were killing people's pets. They don't think anybody should own pets -- would rather they were dead.

(My pampered livestock does not agree.)

[GovernmentShrinker]

This really isn't a cruelty to animals case, as there is no evidence that the animals weren't euthanized by perfectly legal means. It is actually a fraud case, since these people misrepresented their intentions to shelter staff to get the animals, saying they were going to find homes for them. There is also potentially an "intentional infliction of emotional distress" cause of action here, since they certainly knew that the shelter staff would be severely distressed if they ever discovered the truth.

[AnAmericanMother]

I don't know about where this happened, but around here it's illegal to practice veterinary medicine w/o a license. So a creative DA could get together an animal cruelty case out of that. I would think he would also throw in fraud, and theft by deception, and illegal disposal of hazardous waste, not to mention the aforesaid practicing veterinary medicine w/o a license . . .

[cf_river_rat]

... the shelter staff would be severely distressed if they ever discovered the truth.

Oh brother. Do you have any idea the stats of the shelter Hinkle and Cook worked for?

[GovernmentShrinker]

They were telling the staff at an animal shelter that they would find homes for the animals, using their credentials as PETA employees to effect this fraud. Then they took the animals away, euthanized them, and dumped them. In teh past, other PETA employees have operated intake centers, where people brought pets they couldn't keep any more and were led to believe that if they left the pets there, homes would be found for them, as opposed to a significant chance of euthanasia at the regular animal shelter. The PETA criminals then promptly euthanized the animals as soon as the owners left. PETA believes that animals are better off dead than living in cages (this includes rabbtis) or having any other lifestyle restrictions that PETA-nuts disapprove of.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I've heard they weren't good. But imagine the shelter staff being led to believe that they'd arranged for these animals to go to good homes, only to find out they'd actually been quickly euthanized and dumped. It's pretty heart-wrenching to work at an animal shelter, since there is inevitably a high rate of euthanasia of healthy animals for lack of homes, and the staff are low-paid (a few) and volunteers (most) -- they don't need any more emotional stress inflicted on them. The PETA nuts are nasty little rats and ought to be sentenced to about 20 years apiece, to be served in cages at the animal shelter they defrauded. If conditions were so bad at that shelter, PETA could have put its energy and resources towards HELPING.

[cf_river_rat]

I'm sorry GovernmentShrinker, I thought you meant the shelter personnel at peta in Norfolk would be distressed. My apologies.

[cf_river_rat]

Please see #10 - it was meant for you GS

[GovernmentShrinker]

In most states, the restricted professional practice laws apply only to taking payment for services. I.e. in states where hair salon workers are required to be licensed, it's not illegal to give your friend a home perm. Also, euthanasia is given wide latitude re veterinary practice laws -- generally non-vets are allowed to perform euthanasia "under the supervision of a veterinarian" which is interpreted to mean that some vet somewhere in the state knows they're doing it and knows what method they're using. This is necessary both for pet shelter/wildlife rehab workers and for farm animal workers. IF PETA had a vet on staff who knew this was going on -- including the fraud and illegal dumping aspects, then that vet's license is in danger, but probably not the workers since although it appears they were paid PETA employees, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were doing these particular activities with the knowledge and consent of their employers (so nobody was paying them to euthanize animals or otherwise practice veterinary medicine without a license).

[cf_river_rat]

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2005, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during 2005 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Year	Received†	Adopted	Killed	Transferred	% Killed	% Adopted
2005	2,145	146	1,946	69	90.7	6.8
2004	2,640	361	2,278	1	86.3	13.7
2003	2,224	312	1,911	1	85.9	14.0
2002	2,680	382	2,298	2	85.7	14.3
2001	2,685	703	1,944	14	72.4	26.2
2000	2,684	624	2,029	28	75.6	23.2
1999	1,805	386	1,328	91	73.6	21.4
* 1998	943	133	685	125	72.6	14.1
Total	17,806	3,047	14,419	331	80.1	17.1
* figures represent the second half of 1998 only † other than spay/neuter animals » skeptical? click here to see the proof

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us.

From here: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, maybe they stole the drugs . . . (I can hope can't I?)

Well, a creative DA will throw the book at them any way he can. Maybe he can get a RICO prosecution out of it. THAT would be fun!

[GovernmentShrinker]

I thought you meant the shelter they took the animals from, because I have read previous articles about this case where the PETA employees' defense was that the (understaffed, underfunded) shelter was using inhumane methods of euthanasia (gassing, which isn't always quick, and is often done to large groups of animals together, with some not going very quickly). That is a problem at many shelters in areas where there isn't a lot of money for this sort of thing. However, it's total BS that the PETA employees actions were really motivated by this -- obviously if they had the time and expertise and money for the euthanasia drugs, then they could have contributed all that to the shelter and done the unpleasant job there, above board. As far as I know, PETA doesn't actually operate any animal shelters of its own.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Actually a RICO approach would be very appropriate for this group.

[AnAmericanMother]

The Poulan Weed-Eater of prosecutorial discretion. < g >

[David Allen]

I wouldn't want to see how many animals they killed if they HATED them!

[Mike Darancette]

because the animals were killed humanely

These guys are not licensed to euthanize animals.

[cf_river_rat]

peta operates a "shelter" at its hq in Norfolk, but the numbers above suggest it is merely a holding kennel until euthanasia.