Go Back   Pet forum for dogs cats and humans - Pets.ca > In the News - Pet related articles and stories in the press > Newspaper Articles of Interest (animal/pet related) from Around the World

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old April 18th, 2007, 02:25 PM
dogmelissa's Avatar
dogmelissa dogmelissa is offline
Pet Guardian
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 565
Finally an update with some information!!

Today's drive to Didsbury was NOT a waste. Today I got to see the younger accused, who I cannot name due to the Alberta Youth Justice Act, but who I will refer to as "T."

Tomorrow I may have some articles or something to post, though since the Global News van passed me on my way AWAY from Didsbury, I'm not sure that there will be anything in the news. I did not see anyone from any media there at all. So I'm going to guess that I am going to give the only update on this case.

First, T. is facing 2 charges. One under section 445(a) of the Canada Criminal Code, and one under section 446(1)(a) of the Canada Criminal Code. As you probably know, Alberta Law doesn't have much teeth for animal protection, but it has more teeth than the CCC which he is charged under. I have yet to understand why he is charged under a weaker law than the one in place in Alberta. Regardless, these laws are as follows:

Quote:
Injuring or endangering other animals

445. Every one who wilfully and without lawful excuse

(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose, or

(b) <snipped>,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 401.

Cruelty to Animals

Causing unnecessary suffering

446. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;

(b) - (g) <snipped>

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering, damage or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully or was caused by wilful neglect, as the case may be.

Presence at baiting as evidence
(4) <snipped>

Order of prohibition
(5) Where an accused is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any other sentence that may be imposed for the offence, make an order prohibiting the accused from owning or having the custody or control of an animal or a bird during any period not exceeding two years.

Breach of order
(6) Every one who owns or has the custody or control of an animal or a bird while he is prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under subsection (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 402; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 35.
Now, to describe T.
I would say he was probably around 5'11", overweight (280 lbs?), with shaggy, sandy blond hair. I have no idea what colour his eyes were, I couldn't look. He presented himself to the court wearing a button-up short-sleeved "dress" shirt, black jeans, and black running shoes. His ears were pierced, with those black rings that stretch the hole open (do you know what I mean?).
He did not speak.
There were 3 other people with him, 2 who I would guess were his parents, and though I didn't spend a lot of time looking at them, they didn't have a much "nicer" appearance than T. did. I have no idea who the third person was and didn't get much of a look at him to determine if he could be a friend or other family member or I dunno what. Daniel was not there.

Now, to the actual information...
Defense attorney entered a plea of Guilty on 446(1)(a), and did not enter a plea on 445(a). The judge asked if they would like to proceed to sentencing today, and the Crown said that they would not. First they would like to send T. for a psychiatric & psychological assessment (I'm not sure how this would affect sentencing), and would like the professionals to focus on the areas of "possibility of re-offending, possibility of harm to others and possibility of harm to self". Defense was asked if there are any other areas he wished to have them look at and he declined, saying it was better to keep it broad.
Analysis & reports are being expedited, Crown will submit suggested professionals, and sentencing (with reports) will occur on Thursday May 10. The Crown & Defense both asked for this judge to do the sentencing (he has seen this case before him 3 times now), though he'd just committed to another case in Okotoks. Judge said he would re-schedule Okotoks.
Pending the results of the analysis & reports, then the terms on the first charge 445(a)--plea was not entered--will be decided at that time. They are all doing everything in their power to make sure this happens BEFORE the trial starts for Daniel. It'll be much easier now for his defense lawyer, as T. has pleaded guilty, so now they can say that Daniel *tried* to stop him and could not. So that email (where he claims he went in the house to bed and it was T. who dragged the dog through town), and the fact that T. has now pleaded guilty, is likely going to get Daniel clean off the hook. I hope the judge takes into account his assault charges and the fact that he did not call for a vet or someone to help, even if he didn't hurt the dog, and punishes him regardless, but I think I'm dreaming if I really think that'll happen.

In related news... the Crown said something about a "gateway".. "if the gateway was open, we'd be looking at a request for incarceration, but since it wasn't, we'll accept non-custodial sentence" or something like that. What I understood from that is that *something* happened (or didn't happen) or maybe because he plead guilty, or because there's a concern about his mental health, that they are not seeking a jail term as punishment. He's either going to end up with house arrest or probation. And even if they mandate him to have treatment should he end up to have a mental problem, I'm sure we all know that no amount of treatment is going to help if a person doesn't WANT to change, and what are the chances of that??

*sigh* I'm tired of this, sick of having to listen to this and know that neither of these boys will be punished or helped in an way, but I can't stop. I have to know... I have to go, for Daisy Duke, for other animals in the world, for all humans. I have to have HOPE, and I find myself rapidly losing my grip on my hope. At least seeing him, and NOT seeing him look like a respectable, nice guy makes me feel a little better. No matter what the judicial outcome, I feel comfortable in knowing that this guy is not just a person who "lost it" one day and killed a dog. This is in his genetics, in his very being. He is, and probably was from birth, a true monster. He will NOT stop with Daisy Duke, and no animal or human is safe around him, IMO.

And now I need to go and think about something else for a little while. Should this show up in any of the media, I will post links/quotes again tomorrow. If not, I will be back on May 10 with another update.

Please give kisses and an extra hug to all of your furry, feathered & scaled loved ones, and your human ones too, from me. I will be thinking about Daisy Duke today and sending her all my love and I know that she is sending back her strength, that she knows I am doing this for her and all the other animals who died at the cruel hands of humans. I hope that you all will do the same, and feel the love and strength that comes from them.

Thanks for reading.
Melissa
__________________
Guardian of Taz (10) & one-eyed wonder Cube (11).
Forever in my heart: Patches Gizmo (1987 - 2008), Sierra (1999 - 2010), Rusty (1999 - 2012), Aubrie (1999-2014)


"If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet."
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old April 18th, 2007, 03:54 PM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
Thank you very,very much for doing this for Daisy-Duke,just thinking about her suffering brings tears to my eyes.:sad:
Thank you too for going through the trouble of reporting to us,there probably will be no justice for D-D,but at least T has to go through the courts and will have a record.
It takes an evil mind to do evil things to another living beeing and I am certain,for this young man,it will not stop with the torture of Daisy-Duke,one day he will get the punishment he deserves,whether it be jail-time or any other bad time.
Melissa,please continue to keep us updated,I appreciate it very much
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old April 19th, 2007, 07:46 AM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
Melissa,we just read about this on Canoe News,at least some newspeople are interested Youth guilty in dog cruelty case





DIDSBURY, Alta. (CP) - A 17-year-old Alberta youth pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of animal cruelty in a horrific case of abuse that made national headlines.

A Lab-border collie cross named Daisy Duke was found barely alive and had to be euthanized by a veterinarian in October 2006 after it was dragged behind a car with a rope around her neck, a bag over her head and all four legs bound.

She suffered injuries including a broken neck, back and pelvis.

Tamara Chaney, an outraged animal lover in Didsbury, collected 110,000 signatures from across Canada on a petition calling for new legislation on animal abuse. The petition was later presented to Parliament.

Sentencing arguments for the youth's conviction on the animal cruelty charge will be heard May 10, the same day that a second charge against the youth of causing death or injury to an animal will be dealt with.

Another male accused, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial May 23. The dog had been a family pet in Haskett's home.

Current laws allow for a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine for a conviction under animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code.

Earlier this year the Conservative government announced it would support a bill introduced by Liberal Senator John Bryden, known as Bill S-213, which would raise the maximum jail term to five years and the maximum fine to $10,000.

However, many animal-welfare groups oppose that bill, complaining that it continues to treat animals as property and doesn't address cruelty to wild or unowned animals.

Many such groups have put their support behind Bill C-373, a private member's bill introduced last fall by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, who has complained the animal cruelty laws haven't been modernized for 100 years and are "woefully inadequate."

The final hour of second reading debate on Bill S-213 has been tentatively scheduled for April 24.














CANOE home |Terms of Service | Need assistance? Visit our Help Desk.
Copyright © 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie

Last edited by chico2; April 19th, 2007 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old April 19th, 2007, 11:37 AM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,769
Human hearts

I truly believe how a human treats an animal is a reflection of what is in their heart! It is scary to think what is in these two hearts.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old April 19th, 2007, 03:58 PM
lizzieblue lizzieblue is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 23
It is SO truly horrifying (sp?) that in these 'modern & enlightened' times that evil is still allowed to go unpunished.
It has been proven time and again that animal abusers do not stop; they almost always escalate, up to include people too.:sad:
So very sad that we will undoubtably be reading about T in years to come because of a messed up law/judicial system.
Eventually the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it??
I don't care how old a person is, my 5 year old knows that dragging a living being behind a moving vehicle is cruel!
That poor DD is in a better place now, I have to believe that.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old April 19th, 2007, 07:17 PM
Frenchy's Avatar
Frenchy Frenchy is offline
-
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 30,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogmelissa View Post


First they would like to send T. for a psychiatric & psychological assessment (I'm not sure how this would affect sentencing)
I think it will, they could say,; he's too young, didn't know what he was doing...stuff like that

I do hope they get the maximum sentence. Thanks for keeping us updated.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old April 19th, 2007, 07:40 PM
dogmelissa's Avatar
dogmelissa dogmelissa is offline
Pet Guardian
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 565
Frenchy, I think you are right. Despite it being a crown request, I expect that any psychiatrist/psychologist will decide that he's too young to know what he was doing was wrong, or find that he had "temporary insanity" or some other lame excuse and let him off. Sad sad sad. Maybe they'll decide that he's sick and twisted and shouldn't be allowed around humans at all... I highly doubt it, but who knows.

There is a tiny light in this very dark tunnel, and I'm sure you'll all be able to find it in this article from the Calgary Herald (I'm going to add that this was on the first page of the city section; previous articles about Daniel were put on like page 5 or 6 of that section):

Quote:
Man pleads guilty in Didsbury animal abuse case
Dan Singleton, For the Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007

An 18-year-old man charged in a dog abuse case in Didsbury will be sentenced next month after he pleaded guilty Wednesday to one of the two charges against him.

The Didsbury man, who was 17 at the time of the offence and therefore cannot be named, pleaded guilty in Didsbury provincial youth court to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.

Police discovered an injured female collie-Lab cross named Daisy Duke lying severely injured on a Didsbury street on Oct. 8.

The dog had its legs bound with duct tape, a plastic bag over its head and a tow rope tied around its neck. Its back, pelvis and neck had been broken.

The attending veterinarian put the dog down.

At the request of Crown prosecutor Richelle Freiheit, Judge Peter Barley ordered pre-sentence, psychiatric and psychological reports prepared on the accused.

Freiheit told the judge the prosecution will be seeking a non-custodial sentence for the man.

"If the gateway to custody had been open, the Crown would have been seeking incarceration," she said.

Following court, Freiheit said she may be asking the judge to impose a so-called intensive support and supervision order for two years.

"That is essentially a ramped-up probation order. A lot of that will depend on what the reports say," she said.

Except to enter his plea, the man did not speak during Wednesday's court session.

The man will be sentenced on May 10. A second charge of injuring or endangering an animal against him will be spoken to on that day.

A second person, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, also of Didsbury, faces charges of injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal in the same case.

Haskett has pleaded not guilty to the charges and goes to trial in Didsbury provincial court on May 23.

Didsbury is 75 kilometres north of Calgary.
Note that he said the man spoke to enter his plea? Funny; I was there, and I never heard him say a word. And I don't recall seeing Dan Singleton there either. :P Does that make me a better reporter than him?

Anyhow... despite the crappy weather, and the wealth of confusing and frustrating family issues I'm dealing with right now, and having a cat recently diagnosed with anxiety and urinary crystals, I'm still fighting for Daisy Duke. She may never see justice, but I'm going to continue to believe that her death was NOT for nothing.

We love you, Daisy Duke!!!
Hope the weather is nicer over the bridge!

More updates in May (and I'm very glad that Canoe picked it up as well, I'm sure in the next few days it'll come back up in the news in a few places, but not in the majority of places until the trial starts for Daniel).

Melissa
__________________
Guardian of Taz (10) & one-eyed wonder Cube (11).
Forever in my heart: Patches Gizmo (1987 - 2008), Sierra (1999 - 2010), Rusty (1999 - 2012), Aubrie (1999-2014)


"If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet."
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old April 19th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Frenchy's Avatar
Frenchy Frenchy is offline
-
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 30,227
dogmelissa, at least this trial looks like it's being very publicised. And this is good. We (in Quebec) barely hear about what happens to these people, they do talk about it, when it happens, but you never hear what happens after, probably because nothing actually happens to these *&?%*& people.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old April 20th, 2007, 06:48 AM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
I believe the non-sentencing of people torturing animals is often reduced to a small by-line in the media,is due to the fact,often by the time it goes to trial most people have forgotten and don't really care anymore:sad:
As with Kensington the cat,Daisy-Duke will never be forgotten in my heart.
To me anybody who tortures and kills any living beeing,is CRAZY but not mentally ill,no medication or treatment will make an evil person care.
I don't think evil is anything that can be cured,but a jailsentence might make them think twice before hurting any other animal or human.
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old May 11th, 2007, 09:48 PM
UpInThisTown UpInThisTown is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2
for your information....i live in the town, didsbury where this happened...i was there and i saw it. if any of you have ever been to a small town in alberta, its plain and simple. Court dates for either hasket or the minor: students at the local high school are not allowed to leave for lunch hour. Haskett just recieved 3 months house arrest and 2 years probation for this act. But if he ever does decide to leave his house...someone in our town will probably shoot him
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old May 12th, 2007, 02:21 AM
badger's Avatar
badger badger is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,076
Shooting to kill would be too kind, I'd knee cap him so he'd be in pain for the rest of his days. I hope he is shunned. Another advantage of small towns: everybody knows.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old May 12th, 2007, 07:07 AM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
UpInThisTown,Yes,I've been to small-town Alberta,Pincher Creek,not too far from Calgary.
Everybody knows everything about everybody
I also noticed many dogs were working animals and when no longer useful,the mode of euthanasia(sp?),was shooting,a totally different feel for dogs,unlike many petowners.
I am glad that the people of Didsbury will not let Daisy Dukes horrible death be forgotten,hopefully people will keep an eye on these monsters so that no animal will suffer this way again
Thank's for posting!
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old May 12th, 2007, 11:17 PM
UpInThisTown UpInThisTown is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2
people in small towns arent exactly that cruel to their dogs, cause most of the time they are farmers best friend. But they will go out and shoot cows, turkeys and gophers along with other farm animals. I am yet to hear of a care where a dog has been shot when no longer usefull. Talk is a big thing, not their actions.

(edited by Marko ADMIN - This is a passionate thread but please tone down the "we will kill you" and "don't mess with us" vengence talk as it can taken the wrong way. - Thanks in advance)
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old May 15th, 2007, 12:08 AM
dogmelissa's Avatar
dogmelissa dogmelissa is offline
Pet Guardian
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 565
Youth's "trial" (sentencing) pt 1

Ok, sorry for the delay in posting this. I was there, and took notes on the whole thing, but I had a crazy busy weekend, just started a new job today, and have been dealing with other things, so I'm just getting here now.

First, in response to "UpInThisTown".. I appreciate your passion, but I'm afraid I don't believe your "i was there and i saw it" statement. If you are referring to the abuse, then you are either just as sick as both these boys are (despite the psychiatric assessment), or you're lying about being there. If you were there, watching the abuse and didn't call for help, you're just as guilty as the ones who did it. That's all I have to say about that.

Now, to the trial. In order to keep this post from spilling onto multiple screens, and to try to keep keyboards dry (from crying eyes), I'm going to only post a few things, a combination of my notes and articles.

Apologies if these all seem like repeats; the media that was there were all hearing the same things, and will just report it in slightly different words.

First:
The Calgary Herald/Canada.com

http://tinyurl.com/2tl94r
Quote:
Didsbury teenager gets probation for dog abuse
Dan Singleton, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, May 10, 2007
DIDSBURY -- An 18-year-old man charged in a horrific case of animal abuse in the town of Didsbury has been given two years probation, ordered to complete 240 hours community service, placed under house arrest for three months, and ordered to stay away from animals.
The man, who was 17 at the time of the offence and therefore cannot be named, pleaded guilty on April 18 to a charge of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
He was sentenced before Judge Peter Barley on Thursday.
A Lab-collie cross named Daisy Duke was found severely injured on a Didsbury street on Oct. 7.
The animal was put down at the scene.
Reading from an agreed statement of facts, Crown prosecutor Richelle Freiheit told Barley that the accused ran over the 25-kilogram dog after visiting the dog's owner's home late on the night in question.
Finding the dog under his vehicle "conscious, whimpering and cowering" the accused got a 10-foot tow rope from the garage and tied it around the animal's neck.
The accused then dragged the animal into the garage where he decided to kill it by asphyxiation.
"He decided to kill the dog because he didn't want to lose his driver's licence," said Freiheit.
She said the accused then duct taped the animal's legs and mouth, before placing a plastic garbage bag over its head.
The accused then struck the animal on the head with a shovel, before dragging it a short distance down the back alley by the tow rope.
The accused then attached the rope to the bumper of his car and dragged the animal a few blocks before running over it a second time.
He then fled the scene, leaving the dog to be found by a passerby who called a veterinarian.
The vet recorded numerous injuries on the still living dog, including a fractured skull, pelvis, vertebrae, lumbar spine, a prolapsed right eye, profuse bleeding and choking on blood in the mouth.
Police followed a blood trail back to the residence where they found the accused with the dog's blood on his shoes.
Freiheit said the animal was "repeatedly and systematically attacked" by the accused.
"He was worried about getting in trouble with his friend's mother (the dog's owner) and with losing his licence," she said.
"What (the accused) did was anything but humane. This animal suffered as no living animal should ever have to.
"He committed an act that is beyond the comprehension of most people in the country."
Defence lawyer Brian Forestell called the killing an isolated incident by an individual with no criminal history.
"The steps he took were wrong. He should have contacted a vet," said Forestell.
The accused thought the dog was dead when he dragged it down the alley, he said.
In passing sentence, Judge Barley said, "The suffering of Daisy is unimaginable. He (accused) could have recognized her spirit."
The accused, dressed in blue jeans and a collared shirt, did not speak during the proceedings.
About half a dozen animal activists from Calgary and Edmonton attended the court appearance.
A second individual charged in the case, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, faces a charge of injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. He goes to trial in Didsbury May 23.
Didsbury is 75 kilometres north of Calgary.
CBC.com
http://tinyurl.com/3c6d9h
Quote:
House arrest in Didsbury animal cruelty case
Last Updated: Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Canadian Press
A central Alberta man who pleaded guilty in a horrific case of animal abuse involving a pet dog has been sentenced to three months of house arrest followed by two years of probation.
The young man from Didsbury, Alta., was less than three weeks away from his 18th birthday when he became involved in what his defence lawyer told court was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."
Court heard the accused accidentally backed over a lab-border collie cross belonging to his best friend's mother. The teen helped try to kill the dog, named Daisy Duke, by taping a plastic bag over its head, dragging it behind a car and hitting it over the head with a shovel.
The dog was found still alive in the middle of an intersection, but had to be put down by a veterinarian.
The young man will also have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and do 240 hours of community service.
Another male accused, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial May 23.
The Calgary Sun:
http://tinyurl.com/3699yx
Quote:
Pet lovers outraged
UPDATED: 2007-05-11 01:48:46 MST

Probation for animal torture called lenient
By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA

DIDSBURY -- Animal rights activists expressed their outrage yesterday over the probationary sentence handed to a young Didsbury man who clubbed a dog and then dragged it behind a car.
The man, who was 17 at the time of the Oct. 8, 2006 offence -- and who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) -- was given two years probation, three months' house arrest and ordered to perform 240 hours of community service.
He pleaded guilty to a charge of animal cruelty in striking Lab-border collie cross Daisy Duke with a shovel, trying to asphyxiate it with a plastic bag then dragging the pet behind a car in the town, 60 km north of Calgary.
The gravely injured Daisy Duke was then found in the middle of a street by a passerby and euthanized by a veterinarian.
Calgary dog owner Heather Anderson, who showed up to protest what she calls lenient sentences given animal abusers, said the sentence and comments given by provincial court Judge Peter Barley were unacceptable.
"I'm just sick about it because the judge made it sound like an accident," said Anderson.
"How is this town going to forgive that dog killing? I hope they don't because he'll do it again."
Earlier, Barley concluded the accused inadvertently ran over the dog at his friend Daniel Haskett's home and then crudely attempted to dispose of the dog to hide the original accident.
"It can't be said the young person dragged Daisy behind the vehicle to torture her but that, of course, doesn't justify the callousness of his actions," he said.
Barley said it's possible the man believed the dog was already dead before they tied her to a tow rope.
But Crown Prosecutor Richelle Freiheit argued "there was an intentional infliction of pain in which there is no lawful or reasonable excuse," noting the YCJA rules out a jail sentence.
"If custody were a legal option, the Crown would seek it ... I could not find one case in Alberta close to matching this."
She'd argued for a more stringent two-year probation.
Defence lawyer Brian Forestell accused the press of blowing the case out of proportion and that his client was guilty only of a clumsy mercy killing.
"It was a poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt," he said.
The accused's friend, Daniel Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty in the case.
Haskett is expected to go on trial May 23.
From Q107 News (a local radio station)
http://tinyurl.com/2gnagp
Quote:
Alberta man gets house arrest for inflicting 'unimaginable suffering' on dog
at 20:48 on May 10, 2007, EST.
JAMES STEVENSON
DIDSBURY, Alta. (CP) - Outrage quickly followed an Alberta teenager's sentence of three months house arrest and two years probation Thursday for his "extreme callousness" on a pet dog that was run over, beaten, dragged and left to die.
Provincial court Judge Peter Barley said he accepted the teen's explanation that he accidentally backed over Daisy Duke, a Lab-border collie cross belonging to a friend's mother, last October. But then he panicked and tried to avoid responsibility.
"It's not the case of a deliberate torture of an animal," Barley said while sentencing the teen in the central Alberta farming community of Didsbury.
"It was a case of stupidity ... in the extreme."
A small group of animal rights activists who had travelled from across Alberta for the sentencing were furious at the result.
"I'm appalled that they would actually believe that these kids hit this dog unintentionally and then didn't get it medical treatment," said Calgarian Heather Anderson.
And in Ottawa, Liberal MP Mark Holland, who's put forward a private members' bill to modernize Canada's animal cruelty laws for the first time in a century, said it was disappointing.
"That doesn't sound like much of a sentence for such a horrendous crime."
In an agreed statement of facts in the case, the teen - who was just weeks away from his 18th birthday at the time of the crime and therefore can't be named - admitted that he was afraid of losing his drivers' licence because he had backed up and hit Daisy.
The statement said he and the friend then decided that to avoid getting caught, they would kill Daisy and pretend she had run away.
He said they taped a plastic bag over the dog's head to asphyxiate it and when that didn't work, they duct-taped the dog's muzzle and legs, the statement said.
When that didn't kill the dog, the teen said he hit it over the head with a shovel.
Trying to take the dog out of town, the teen tied dragged it three blocks behind a car before running over it again and snapping the tow-rope.
The animal was later found still alive in the middle of an intersection and had to be destroyed by a veterinarian.
Defence lawyer Brian Forestell told court it was a "poorly thought-out euthanasia attempt."
The youth "realized that the most important thing was to put this dog out of its misery," said Forestell.
"His steps were wrong and he realizes this," adding that his client did plead guilty to the crime of animal cruelty.
Crown lawyer Richelle Freiheit argued that it was a premeditated case of "horrific gratuitous violence."
"This is not a one-punch, thin-skulled situation," Freiheit told court. "These boys discussed it and deliberated on how to get away with it."
Outside of court. Freiheit said she had not seen any similar animal abuse cases, and said it had provoked an unprecedented amount of community outrage.
"We've had a number of e-mails and a number of letters that were sent in, more than any murder case I've ever seen. I think it's an interesting comment."
An adult convicted of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code can face a maximum sentence of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine.
Asked if she thought Thursday's conditional sentence was fair, Freiheit said: "Well, he's not going to jail."
Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, is also charged in the case. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. The charges have yet to be proven in court. His trial is set to start on May 23.
In delivering his sentence, the judge ruled the youth thought the dog was already dead when he dragged it. But that did not excuse the "extreme callousness" of his act.
"The suffering of Daisy is unimaginable, but it must be noted that the Crown cannot prove if the young person knew she was dead," Barley said.
The man, who lives with his parents in Didsbury, can't be identified under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He will have to abide by a curfew for nine months after his house arrest is up and also do 240 hours of community service.
The case triggered a national petition with more than 110,000 signatures calling for stronger federal legislation against animal abuse.
Earlier this year, the Conservative government said it would support a bill introduced by Liberal Senator John Bryden, known as Bill S-213, which would raise the maximum jail term to five years and the maximum fine to $10,000.
However, many animal rights groups support Holland's private member's bill that he says would give the judiciary "the tools they need to get convictions." Currently he says only one quarter of one per cent of all animal rights cases end in a conviction.
Holland says the Bryden bill would only be used as an excuse by the ruling Tories for not doing anything more to stop animal abuse.
There's tons more stories if you search.. and even a forum where someone posted his name (which is ILLEGAL and though I agree that 18 days should not protect him, I will not argue with the law).

(Continued next post; too long)
__________________
Guardian of Taz (10) & one-eyed wonder Cube (11).
Forever in my heart: Patches Gizmo (1987 - 2008), Sierra (1999 - 2010), Rusty (1999 - 2012), Aubrie (1999-2014)


"If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet."
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old May 15th, 2007, 12:09 AM
dogmelissa's Avatar
dogmelissa dogmelissa is offline
Pet Guardian
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 565
Youth's "trial" (sentencing) pt 2

Part 2.

First thing of note; he was again wearing one of those short-sleeved "big & tall" dress shirts. Black jeans this time, and again, running shoes. His mother was wearing a hawaiian shirt, his father a suit. He sat right in front of me at the beginning, before he was called to sit beside his lawyer, and I wanted to crawl out of my skin. I couldn't get far enough away in my chair, and felt really creeped out.

Points from the "trial" (it was actually just sentencing):
-Crown contrasted his behaviour with the behaviour of the woman & man who found Daisy Duke at the side of the road:
Everything T did increased her suffering. He caused her more pain by dragging her up the driveway by a towrope around her neck (the driveway is gravelled, not paved). He taped her legs & muzzle shut, and put a bag over her head. He hit her with a shovel. Then he dragged her down a gravel alley by hand, and then further with his car, and then dragged her across paved streets until he finally ran over her again.
The lady that found Daisy Duke... she called the police and her boyfriend (male companion?) called the veterinarian. As they waited for help, she took the bag off Daisy's head, took off her own jacket (it was about +4 degrees C that night, so not overly warm), placed it over the dog to try to keep her warm and cradled the dog as best she could to try to comfort her.
The Crown said that the behaviour of the lady was what any "reasonably compassionate" human should do if faced with an injured animal.
She defined "euthanasia"--the big thing that the defense was saying they were trying to do to Daisy--as a humane way to end suffering; and yet everything they did INCREASED her suffering.

I know many of you feel that the punishment did not fit the crime, and I agree, but she was very good about going through all the ways that it could have been moved into "adult" court, and how absolutely nothing she could find would allow that to happen. As it was, the terms she was seeking for punishment were the maximums set out by the Youth Justice Act (or whatever it's called), including:
- 2 years probation
- Prohibition on owning or living with an animal for the duration of probation (she literally said if there is a family pet "sorry for the inconvienence" but that pet must go)
- 240 hours of community service (she suggested something like a Humane Society but expressed concern that no organization like that would accept him)
- counselling/treatment to include "Moral Reasoning Programming" which is a guided form of group or individual therapy which helps a person to have compassion and empathy for others
- suggested curfew as follows: First 3 months 24 hr curfew (house arrest), exceptions work/school, community service, professional appointments, 1 hr grocery shopping each week and travel time to all of the above. 3-9 months, 8pm curfew with the same exceptions 9-18 months, 11 pm curfew with same exceptions, and 18-24 months, no curfew.

The scariest thing for me was the details in the pre-sentencing report & psychiatric report; it showed that T has a supportive family, good social bonds (as in, he's not a recluse), that he has never been in trouble (school, law, at home), and has been making efforts to better himself. They showed no sign of any mental illness, nor was he intoxicated or under the influence of any drugs at the time of the "incident". He was in a clear, normal mental state. There does not appear to be any explanation for his behaviour.
The defense in talking about these reports had a few things to say: the reports showed that T did not have an understanding of what his behaviour did to his family--his parents disagreed with that. And also the defense stressed that T did not want to have this "incident" change him, that he wanted to return to his normal life and "put it behind him".
Anyone else find this frightening?

His excuse for panicking and trying to "euthanize" the dog? He didn't want to lose his license for hitting her. I still can't figure out how pulling away from a curb and hitting a dog can cause the dog so much injury that it can't walk on it's own and has severe head injuries (the statement of facts didn't say, or it was omitted about whether or not the eye prolapse--bugging out--was there after she was hit the first time, but the defense said that this was the case)... nor can I figure out how a kid who has only been licensed a little more than a year wouldn't know that hitting a dog accidentally (or even a human for that matter!!) is usually not cause for losing your license. I keep wondering to myself what would he do if he hit a pedestrian? A child? What if a child darted out into the road in front of his car? You can't expect a person to be able to stop every time... kids get hit, dogs get hit, all sorts of things get hit... they're called accidents! But if you run over a person, and drive away (or worse, run over them a couple more times to make sure they're dead), THEN you will lose your license. Stay, be there when the cops come, tell them it was an accident, that the person (dog) jumped out in front of you, and show that you actually CARE, and you *might* get a fine, worst case scenario. And it's sad, but in the eyes of the law, Daisy is "just a dog"... and until the laws take them out of the property category, no dog getting hit would be grounds for having a license suspended. Grrr.

I really can't say anything bad about the Crown Prosecuter. She really did everything she could, and fought for the toughest sentence the law would allow her to go for. She read through the statement of facts with compassion, with feeling... and when there was a sob from the people there (not me, though I was openly crying most of the day), she paused and waited for that person to compose themselves before continuing.

The defense lawyer... well, as a person, I think he's a nice guy. As a lawyer, he is only doing his job.
One thing he said twisted my guts into a total knot... these boys were sure the dog would die even if they called for help, and they didn't want to get into trouble. He said the eye was prolapsed after Daisy was run over the first time, and that she was "surely going to be put under" . The italicized words made me just feel sick... especially when I think about my little dog. He was kicked in the head. His eye was bugging out... he may have had a fractured skull (was never x-rayed)... no he didn't have any broken bones, his neck wasn't broken, his back wasn't broken, nor was his pelvis... but his eye was removed and he's ALIVE! I have personally seen dogs get hit by semi trucks going a good speed and get up and run away! I've seen dogs with pelvises so smashed the vets couldn't tell where the bones came from--they survived. I've seen dogs with broken backs... they just get a little wheelchair and they survive. Maybe it's not the best quality of life, but it's probably better than being dead. So her eye was bugging out, does that automatically mean she's dead? If that was going to kill her, she would have been dead long before the veterinarian showed up to end her suffering.

The defense said that T didn't cooperate with the RCMP the date of the incident because he was resentful of the way they treated him... isn't this something that should be taken seriously? As a citizen, we have a responsibility to cooperate with the police, or they have the right to pretty much do whatever they want... he lies to the police and nothing happens? Because he confessed later???

The Judge's Sentence; in explaining his reasons, the Judge said the following:
he was more worried about his clothing than the life of a dog (this is why he dragged her up the driveway rather than carrying her). That he didn't believe it was deliberate torture, but rather a tragic accident followed by stupidity. That it was callousness and lack of empathy for another living being which brought him to this situation.
He said that he hoped that this incident would at the very least teach T that when you make a mistake, owning up to it rather than trying to hide it may get you in trouble, but it's nothing compared to what having the hiding discovered will result in.
The judge ordered a 2 year probation period. He said, as with all probation sentences, you are expected to have good behaviour, to appear in court when requested and appear when directed by the probation officer ("if they want to see you every day, you will go!"). T will reside with his parents, if they will allow him to, and provide him with the care and supervision that he needs. If the parents will not allow him to, he will reside where directed by the PO. He will maintain full time work or school. He will go for assessments, counselling, treatment as directed, when directed and to whom he is directed to by the PO. He will be "enrolled" in the Moral Reasoning Program, run on an out-patient basis, and he will provide proof of this treatment as a term of his probation.
T is required to complete 240 hours of community service. The judge originally said to be done no later than April 10, 2008 (11 months). When the defense complained that this is 3 full days a month and it would be very difficult to set up something quickly enough to get it done on time, the judge extended the date to the maximum allowed time, 12 months, so to be completed by May 10, 2008. He also recommended that the PO try to find an organization working with animals to teach him that animals have feelings and can feel pain, as well as to teach him that part of being a human is that we have a responsibility to treat animals with respect and compassion and not inflict pain and suffering on them. He did not suggest where this might happen, or with what organization, nor if it was even possible, but recommended the PO could try. (My personal opinion is that any Humane Society or shelter could probably work something out, if he was under constant supervision. I would never trust this guy alone around animals, but they have lots of mentally handicapped people around animals, constantly supervised, so maybe they could do the same for T.)
The judge imposed a curfew as follows: for the first 3 months, 24 hr curfew/house arrest (same exceptions as Crown laid out), with an additional 2 hours allowed out with his parents on either Saturday or Sunday, depending on his work/school schedule. For the next 9 months, he will have a 9pm-6am curfew (same exceptions), and after 1 year, no curfew will be imposed.
The judge said that he is NOT to have ownership or care of any animal of any kind for the duration of his probation. However, he did not make this a "condition" of the probation, so that it would not be the responsibility of the PO to enforce this rule. But if the PO did find out about it, he would be considered in breach of his probation, and would face severe punishments.

When the judge asked him to stand, and addressed him, asking "do you understand the terms of your sentence?", T replied "yuh" (hard to type that... but basically, it was more of a yup than a yes, and showed no respect for the judge's position). He also reminded him that breaching the terms of his probation would result in reprimands which could exceed those of the original sentence. Suggested he be on his best behaviour and do as he was told.

Anyhow... that's about all I have for that. Daniel is in court on May 23, and I do not believe (though I could be wrong) that he was sent for any pre-trial reports or psychiatric assessments. He does, however, have a previous record, stemming from his assault charges & failure to show in court. I don't know if there are things prior to that, but those have got to work against his plea for freedom.

As soon as I can dry my eyes and compose myself (and after the articles hit the 'net), I will post the results of Daniel's trial. If it is going to go more than a day, I will update after the first day with the next date and what happened so far.

Thanks all for your continued support in this case... but as the judge said, though there was obviously a breach in the law, for which T is being punished, there are some who have the opinion that the punishment is not enough. He said that he hoped that no one would take the matter into their own hands and further breach the law; he wished for those who were against his opinion to at least respect his power of authority and accept his judgement.

Thanks again, folks, and sorry for the length of this.
Melissa
__________________
Guardian of Taz (10) & one-eyed wonder Cube (11).
Forever in my heart: Patches Gizmo (1987 - 2008), Sierra (1999 - 2010), Rusty (1999 - 2012), Aubrie (1999-2014)


"If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet."
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old May 15th, 2007, 06:58 AM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
Melissa,I did not read the description of what Daisy Duke suffered,I know it would make me ill again:sad:
For the judge to say this horror was not intentional and the following sentence says it all,no regard for the suffering of an animal in our courts
There will be many more Daisy Dukes,whatever a sick,twisted mind can think of to inflict on an innocent animal,be it for kicks or sadistic pleasure,will always go unpunished.

As for UpInThisTown,I did not understand he/she witness this,I know,if I had,these two"innocent,not knowing they did something wrong"monsters,would have felt my fury!!
I am hoping there is something like the Rainbow Bridge and that Daisy Duke can forgive the injustice done to her,by not punishing the evil-doers.
Thank's Melissa,good luck in your new job!!
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old May 25th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,769
dogmelissa,

Any news on how the trial is going for Dan Haskett?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old May 25th, 2007, 03:34 PM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
It's strange,as I was putting away the dishes,I too was thinking of Melissa and if she had any news
Unfortunately,we all know,there will be no jail-term for these two monsters
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old June 7th, 2007, 12:42 PM
dogmelissa's Avatar
dogmelissa dogmelissa is offline
Pet Guardian
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 565
omg... I can't believe I forgot to update!!!!!! I'm SO sorry!!!!!!

Ok, here's what happened, briefly (I promise I'll post more later).
Daniel Haskett changed his plea to guilty (on both animal cruelty charges & failure to comply with police), and they read the same statement of facts (almost word for word) into the record. It was horrible to hear it again. Tamara Chaney (the lady who started the petition) was in attendance, and had not heard this before, and she was sobbing. The rest of us who had heard it before were crying but it wasn't as shocking to hear it again (still hard, but not as shocking).

The long and short of it is that he is also going to be sent for psychiatric evaluation and a pre-sentence report, and due to lawyer vacations, will not be back in court until August 1 to face sentencing.

His brother was there (older? younger? the one who owned Daisy Duke??) and the same group of protesters from Edmonton were there (someone had made a "display" of a black stuffed animal dog with duct tape around it's feet & muzzle and a rope around it's neck and covered it in red paint and it was truly horrible; completely over the line, IMO), media was all over it and there's lots of stuff on the 'net about it (I'll link some articles tonight).

Daniel was also in court on his un-related assault charges, but he did not have a lawyer on that matter. They weren't sure if he would be eligible for "legal aid" so pushed those off until June 18 to give him time to find a lawyer for those charges. I will also be at that court date, as I think it'll make a difference if he gets a conviction for that charge before the sentencing for animal cruelty, then it might change his sentence. I don't know if they'll have decided by then or if the judge who sentences him will see that and looks at the date of it will even take it into consideration, but I still want to go.

Again, I am terribly sorry that I didn't update sooner... things have been chaotic in my life the last few weeks. I will get online tonight and link some more articles as well as add more of my notes.

The good news is that he's an adult, and he plead guilty, so he *will* almost certainly get jail time. The question is whether or not they will give him the maximum (6 months) or not, and even if they do, he'll likely serve no more than 3 months of it. But at least that's something worse than probation.

More later (and HUGE apologies again!),
Melissa
__________________
Guardian of Taz (10) & one-eyed wonder Cube (11).
Forever in my heart: Patches Gizmo (1987 - 2008), Sierra (1999 - 2010), Rusty (1999 - 2012), Aubrie (1999-2014)


"If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet."
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old June 7th, 2007, 01:47 PM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,769
Thank you Dogmelissa.

In Ontario, my MPP tried to amend the penalty for cruelty to animals (harsher punishments), but the bill did not make it through legislation prior to summer break:sad:.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old June 7th, 2007, 03:37 PM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
Oh please Melissa don't apologize,you are the only source we have for info and i am greatful for whenever you have the time to update us.
I am glad people from Edmonton still care,even though it might have been a gory display,but so was Daisy-Dukes last hours:sad:
I hope at least on of those monsters will go to jail
Looking forward to your links,thank's again,Melissa!
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old July 6th, 2007, 01:02 AM
Dusk_Adrian's Avatar
Dusk_Adrian Dusk_Adrian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Didsbury, AB.
Posts: 2
I'm amazed to discover how oblivious I am, as compared to people who don't live in Didsbury. I was greatly shocked when I heard about what happened to Daisy Duke, along with the rest of the folks who live here. It impacted our town in a bad way, and we're still trying to recover from it.

I didn't know Charles Haskett personally, but I attend(ed) school with his younger brother. From what the teachers at DHS have told us, I have found out that Charles was a very demented young man. He once nearly assaulted the Language Arts teacher, in front of some students in my grade (this was in 2005, when he was still in school). After the incident, his family did show how the were affected, but not Charles. I work at the AG Foods grocery store, so I hear a lot of gossip, and see a lot of people. A while ago, Charles came in, smiling and laughing with his friends. He is actually good friends with some of the stock boys I work with. I was shocked at how he could be at ease when he had done such a thing.
Haskett has some serious problems. He is a sick individual, who should be on medication, and should be punished moreso for what he has done. I just hope that you all don't judge the other people of Didsbury for one sick kid...
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old July 6th, 2007, 06:46 AM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,769
Thank your for your comments DA, I would never judge a whole town based upon a couple of individuals. I used to live in Alberta (St Albert) and I know Albertans love their dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old July 6th, 2007, 06:51 AM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
Adrian,there are crazies everywhere,capable of doing horrific deeds,so of course we don't judge Didsbury.
It's unfortunate Disbury was put on the map because of Daisy-Dukes suffering:sad:
Thank's for taking the time to post.
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old July 6th, 2007, 08:38 AM
Mahealani770's Avatar
Mahealani770 Mahealani770 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 771
I just need to voice how sick to my stomach I am over this awful story. The tears that are pouring down my face, while I'm at work, cannot express my despair and heartache for Daisy. These two monsters need to rot in hell with gasoline shorts on.
Sweet Daisy (My heart bleeds for you)
__________________
Two Moms and a Pom!

I looked at all the caged animals in the shelter...the cast-offs of human society. I saw in their eyes love and hope, fear and dread, sadness and betrayal. And I was angry. "God," I said, "this is terrible! Why don't you do something?" God was silent for a moment and then He spoke softly. "I have done something," He replied, "I created you." -The Animal's Savior, Copyright Jim Willis 1999
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old July 6th, 2007, 07:27 PM
Dusk_Adrian's Avatar
Dusk_Adrian Dusk_Adrian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Didsbury, AB.
Posts: 2
Thank you for the quick reply, and, for understanding. People in small towns - especially farming towns- are often misunderstood. Thank you - because you're right; sick people live everywhere, just as good people do.

I would also like to point out some flaws in one of UpInThisTown's posts (I don't mean to sound rude, I just want to post the truth). It is true that many people are angry with what the two boys did, and that one received a death threat, but I have seen one of the boys at least three times this week, and people treat him with indifference (I don't believe they actually really recognize him). They wouldn't harm the boys physically; Didsbury people are so sweet, I think the extent they would go to is verbal harm.
And, for your comment on the high school students lunch hours; we are free to do whatever we want at lunch. I and my friends travel to Grandma's Bakery every Wednesday at lunch (while school is in), without violating any school rules. If you were a student, or even lived here, wouldn't you have known?
I don't mean to be offensive.
__________________
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." >~ Andrew A. Rooney
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old August 27th, 2007, 12:42 PM
dogmelissa's Avatar
dogmelissa dogmelissa is offline
Pet Guardian
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 565
Gack! Update!

Geez... I know that things are way too busy and crazy when I'm like 3.5 weeks late posting updates on this.

Ok, so August 1st... the long and the short of it is that Daniel failed to show up at the doctor's appointment and so when he did finally get there, there wasn't enough time to prepare the reports before the sentencing. He claimed "job interviews" for missing his appointment, but when asked, said he's unemployed.
The judge (same one has seen the case once before and got mad at them for delaying it) imposed a $1000 bond (fine) for essentially delaying the court's time and requested to be the judge when it returns to court. As a result, the next available date for all parties is October 17.

It was annoying and frustrating to sit there and listen to him being allowed to walk away again. It's going to be over a year from the day Daisy Duke died by the time they decide if the only adult that was involved will actually be punished for what he did. That part makes me feel quite sick.

Ok, sorry again for the delay in posting. Here is an article talking about it:

http://tinyurl.com/2m8rde

Quote:
Judge lectures dog abuser
Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald
Published: Thursday, August 02, 2007

The leash has been shortened on a Didsbury man who pleaded guilty to animal cruelty in May, then failed to show up for an appointment with a psychologist, which had been ordered for Wednesday's sentencing hearing.

Provincial court Judge Ian Kirkpatrick lectured Daniel Charles Hassett, ordered a $1,000 bond as part of his tightened bail conditions and threatened to put him in jail pending his next sentencing hearing on Oct. 17, if he does not comply.

"He missed one appointment with a psychologist and went to another psychologist," said defence lawyer Mark Takada.

"Then, he didn't go to an appointment with probation and went to a job interview instead."

Hassett, 19, admitted to being involved in cruelty to a Labrador-border collie cross dog, Daisy Duke, which had to be euthanized because of her injuries and suffering caused by being dragged with a bag over her head behind a vehicle last October.

A youth was given probation after pleading guilty last spring to a similar charge in connection with the same incident.
When it goes back to court, I'll be married. So I won't have as many things going on and will be able to update right away.

Thanks again folks for following along and for sending your love and support along with me when I go to Didsbury.

Melissa
__________________
Guardian of Taz (10) & one-eyed wonder Cube (11).
Forever in my heart: Patches Gizmo (1987 - 2008), Sierra (1999 - 2010), Rusty (1999 - 2012), Aubrie (1999-2014)


"If you can't afford the vet, you can't afford the pet."
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old August 27th, 2007, 01:11 PM
Love4himies's Avatar
Love4himies Love4himies is offline
Rescue is my fav. breed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boating in the 1000 Islands
Posts: 17,769
Thanks for the update!!

Can't believe this person can be so irresponsible and the court just lets him walk away and puts up with his excuses. He is probably laughing everytime he leaves court.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old August 27th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Jim Hall Jim Hall is offline
Kitty pimp
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: paterson new jersey
Posts: 4,788
Justice is slow but will prevail >
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old August 27th, 2007, 03:41 PM
chico2's Avatar
chico2 chico2 is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oakville Ontario
Posts: 26,591
Thank you Dogmelissa,even if it was not the news I wanted to hear,thank you for keping us updated.
I have no doubt this young man will get away with this scotfree,no jailtime,I can only hope Daisy-Duke,wherever she is,know how many people cared and cried for her suffering:sad:
__________________
"The cruelest animal is the Human animal"
3 kitties,Rocky(r.i.p my boy),Chico,Vinnie
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Terms of Use

  • All Bulletin Board Posts are for personal/non-commercial use only.
  • Self-promotion and/or promotion in general is prohibited.
  • Debate is healthy but profane and deliberately rude posts will be deleted.
  • Posters not following the rules will be banned at the Admins' discretion.
  • Read the Full Forum Rules

Forum Details

  • Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
    Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
    vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 0%).
  • All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.