Animal Cruelty Case--Not Guilty Verdict: Protecting Livestock

[chickened]

The guy probably will not get it back due in part to the fact the courts will not award money to falsley accused they think it will keep "real" victims from seeking justice.

D'Angelo N Va. :

It is unfortunate the man had to waste good money trying to defend himself.

That's the part that makes me the most upset...This guy has to spend his time and money...will he get it back?? Probably Not.. I feel sorry for him on both accts. now.​

 

[dsqard]

Well you also have to wonder about the grand jury that allowed this to go to trial. Weren't they instructed what the law was? I don't understand how they could have handed down an indictment if they did. I am so glad that he won for protecting his livestock. I also own dogs and like speckledhen, we had fencing put up to keep the dogs on our property before we even moved in. If my dogs were to get out and kill the neighbors chickens and they shot them it would be my fault for not making sure that the dogs couldn't get out.

 

[aprophet]

Quote:
X2 and bill the owners of the dog for court costs and any expense incurred by the man Charged and convict them of filing a frivolous lawsuit the DA and the dog owner

 

[proudmama88]

Poor dogs. But really, what did the owners expect? For the livestock owner to watch the dogs attack his animals, shrug, and go about his merry way?

I have a dog who means the world to me... therefore she is *always* under my control, and within sight.

I'm glad for this verdict.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Agreed--and I do not see how there is any cruelty involved (and that is ignoring the legality of protecting ones livestock and poultry)?

 

[axion_lotus]

Quote:
Kudos to you! I absolutely adore responsible dog owners. My family and I have been through the same thing with our neighbors and their stupid belligerent mutt nosing under the fence and attacking our horses, and my disabled grandmother while she was out walking with her dogs one evening; it was awful. It took over a year and many threats before our neighbor finally put the dog in a small kennel in his backyard.

I'm glad justice was done and this guy was allowed to protect his livestock.

My parents are very strict when it comes to the dogs being kept on leashes and behind their fence so that they'll stay safe and not wander off. My pup, Delilah, is always where I can see her. Dogs roaming free is a serious pet peeve of mine.

It even annoys me when my lover lets his parents' shih tzu run loose in their yard without a leash on.

 

[Urbanfarmerkc]

I have tried to make a living farming since I was a kid on my family farm. It is impossible now... In fact, a friend of mine who owns one of the most amazing organic farms in the Kansas City area just announced that he is hanging up his hat.

When I read this, I get so upset knowing this probably was the straw that broke the camel's back... No, the only way to get his money back for the time and expense of defending himself is to hire ANOTHER attorney to go after the dog owners and the county/state. Several years later he might get his money back... Such a shame...

 

[cazyaniamllover]

my grandpanters are alway to roam but they have 5 or 4 arces and the one that went off the protecty got a cute puppy son but the people living there cant do anything about it because half of them dont pay their rent to them plus the wrost they do is they get a cute puppy sons/draughters well only my grandpathers now because the only male that wasnt fix get really sick and now his in better places with all his sons draughters and their morthers (they propply going to be all like

i had you kids

) srry i rant...alot

 

[theFox]

Quote:
X2 and bill the owners of the dog for court costs and any expense incurred by the man Charged and convict them of filing a frivolous lawsuit the DA and the dog owner

Sorry aprophet, they can't go back on the dog owners for the court cost etc... as the dog owner didn't file a lawsuit, in fact no lawsuit was filed at all.

The starting point for reimbursement is to go after the DA who should not have asked a grand jury for an indictment in the first place.

DA's are political animals who just happen to be lawyers. These are frequently elected officials so one avenue one can pursue is removal via recall (it isn't an easy thing to do, however sometimes just starting that process results in, shall we say, self removal).

The owners of the dog should be gone after in any manner allowed to recoup the expenses involved with the attack on the livestock. In some places there are state or county processes that can be taped for reimbursement for livestock loss as well, those avenues also need to be followed.

Now it is possible that a civil lawsuit against the county should be stuck out there at least as an inducement for them to engage in constructive negotiations, after all they did both libel and slander the falsely accused along with making him subject to public ridicule.

 

[Sassafras]

Quote:
Exactly!