Man decapitates dog, only gets five months in jail

[wrightway]

http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=944213#.UjUb_X8mVxA

A man was in the process of moving out of the house he shared with his brother after an argument. Which seems like the adult thing to do. His brother's response? Shoot the man's dog and decapitate it. The bastard only got five months for it. We really need tougher animal cruelty laws in the states.

[mellenORL]

Well, if they end up in county lockup....they need to watch their backs.

[Askold]

Five months sounds fair to me.

[chitoryu12]

Five months sounds fair to me.

I'm waiting to hear that this is sarcasm.

[Askold]

Well they also got two years of probation to go along with the jail time. And unless I miss something they shot the dog first and didn't torture it much.

If this had been a case like... For example locking up pets in tiny cages for years and torturing/abusing them routinely, which also happens, I'd certainly support a long jail sentence. Counseling as well untill that person can be released to public.

But if this was just a case of momentary anger overboiling and him shooting the dog, then although wrong and worthy of jail time this is not THAT bad.

Your mileage may vary.

[chitoryu12]

Well they also got two years of probation to go along with the jail time. And unless I miss something they shot the dog first and didn't torture it much.

If this had been a case like... For example locking up pets in tiny cages for years and torturing/abusing them routinely, which also happens, I'd certainly support a long jail sentence. Counseling as well untill that person can be released to public.

But if this was just a case of momentary anger overboiling and him shooting the dog, then although wrong and worthy of jail time this is not THAT bad.

Your mileage may vary.

Probation is barely restrictive unless you're someone who's such a chronic criminal that you can't go five days without trying to rob someone, buy drugs, or flee the state. He's effectively getting five months in jail and an extra slap on the wrist for not only killing someone's pet, but mutilating its corpse. Unless the inmates have their way with him (which they might), he's getting an extremely easy time.

[mellenORL]

The problem with the sentence is that it does not address the grief, fear, and trauma inflicted on the dog's owner and his family. Apparently, the dog was one of those sweetie-kissie, very gentle and loving pit bulls. The little kids are also devastated, as is their grandma, and the owner's younger brother. The dog killers were sending a message of terror and extreme hatred, dished up cold, to the dog's owner. It was in my mind, the absolute equivalent of making terroristic threats, which is a pre-terrorist era term for egregiously threatening bodily harm to another person, whether through threatening them, or their family, or their home. So, regardless of whatever limitations Ohio criminal code places on this case, considering it for what it really was - a terror threat - means that a felony charge should have been made against them as well.

[wrightway]

Point of contention: it happened in Colorado. Ohio has notoriously lax animal laws. They probably wouldn't have even gotten 5 months here.

[mellenORL]

Ah, my bad. Should have reviewed the link. Totally got it mixed up.

[Yla]

I'll happen to agree that five months in prison are not too inappropriate a sentence.

The problem with the sentence is that it does not address the grief, fear, and trauma inflicted on the dog's owner and his family. Apparently, the dog was one of those sweetie-kissie, very gentle and loving pit bulls. The little kids are also devastated, as is their grandma, and the owner's younger brother.

The logical conclusion of this stance is that the larger the family of the victim, the harsher the sentence. Is killing a loner a lesser crime than a family man? (switching to using human murder as an example)

[Leafy]

What. The. Hell. The dog didn't do anything.

[mellenORL]

I'll happen to agree that five months in prison are not too inappropriate a sentence.

The problem with the sentence is that it does not address the grief, fear, and trauma inflicted on the dog's owner and his family. Apparently, the dog was one of those sweetie-kissie, very gentle and loving pit bulls. The little kids are also devastated, as is their grandma, and the owner's younger brother.

The logical conclusion of this stance is that the larger the family of the victim, the harsher the sentence. Is killing a loner a lesser crime than a family man? (switching to using human murder as an example)

Take my quote in it's entirety, and you can see that I continued and lead to a reasonable conclusion that this was an act of terroristic threat against the dog's owner. I think the family of the owner were victims by collateral implication, as well. Remember, that in the case testimony,  the perpetrators also threatened to place the dog's stuffed and mounted head in the owner's home.

The problem with the sentence is that it does not address the grief, fear, and trauma inflicted on the dog's owner and his family. Apparently, the dog was one of those sweetie-kissie, very gentle and loving pit bulls. The little kids are also devastated, as is their grandma, and the owner's younger brother. The dog killers were sending a message of terror and extreme hatred, dished up cold, to the dog's owner. It was in my mind, the absolute equivalent of making terroristic threats, which is a pre-terrorist era term for egregiously threatening bodily harm to another person, whether through threatening them, or their family, or their home. So, regardless of whatever limitations Ohio criminal code places on this case, considering it for what it really was - a terror threat - means that a felony charge should have been made against them as well.

Really, the case reminds me of that famous scene from "The Godfather", where a prized race horse's severed head was hidden in the bedsheets to intimidate and threaten it's owner.