That @#$*ING DOES IT!!! - Page 2

Yes, one and the same.

I thought about editing my above post but decided against it.

Instead of reporting trolls as stated above. I will instead report as abuse anyone who has a differing opinion than mine.

Thank god for freedom of speech.

Go ahead pukes keep on hitting abuse, I will save all posts and when they are deleted I will repost them word for word.

Who knows why the thread was deleted.  I didn't read it, so I don't know how bad the language got, but there are terms of service that were most likely violate, or someone repeatedly reported abuse.

Regardless, the thread is gone, and that's that.

I don't know this person, don't know if the case was really as bad as was stated.  The only information that I have seen is that little article on petabuse.com, I have seen no pictures, no court documents being linked to.  If she did abuse or neglect dogs the way the article stated, that is horrible indeed.  There are many, many people doing exactly the same, and getting caught every day.

As for not showing remorse over what happened, again, I don't know this person.

She was not convicted, according the article.  She and her husband took a plea agreement, rather than go to trial. If a DA was willing to plead a case down to what they got, then I wonder if it was as bad as the article stated. The reason I say that is that if I were a DA, or PA, as the case might be, I don't think I could have offered a plea in a case like that, certainly not a plea that was nothing more than a minor slap on the hand.  Serious neglect deserves serious punishment, in my book, especially in light of the laws on the books regarding proper care of animals.  And if she was barred from owning dogs for only three years...Well, that's rather light, too.

Anything that causes suffering to living creatures is abhorrent, be they dogs or humans.

I will withhold any more severe statements, because again, all I have to go on in this case is that newspaper like article on that website, and no court documents or photos.  When I see those, I might think differently.

With regard again to the thread deletions, I wonder if the abuse button being added was a good idea.  I mean, when we had the palerider drama going on, or the rest of the non sensical dramas, and the filthy language was oozing from a bunch of keyboards, then it made sense to hit it and have those posts deleted, particularly the pornographic ones. But to click abuse on every single post you disagree with...That's just childish!

Crys

 Crys...she never once said it WASN'T as bad as they said. Just blamed her husband, who was supposed to be feeding them. If she'd said it was different than the article stated, or did anything but cry AR Activists and blame everyone but herself, then you would have a very valid point. Do you have any knowledge of how hard it is to even seize a dog legally??? I have seen DISGUSTING situations in which authorities were called repeatedly and were unable to do a thing. For 64 to be seized, it was bad.

And yes, right next to the outcome column, it reads "convicted." 

And there are people on here who saw the dogs and took a few. Not good.

I am with you 100% on reserving judgement w/out evidence- the "housing" thread is going that way right now and it's a very very slippery slope!

I saw where it said convicted, Jenni...But I also didn't see any links to pictures of the scene, and by pleading guilty, 30 counts of cruelty were dismissed.  Thirty plus two equals 32..I thought there were 64 GSDs being abused and neglected there.

Nothing about this case adds up.  Nothing makes sense.  You have DDR saying what she said, blaming A/R, which is indeed very possible, but then you have the statements that 64 dogs were in deplorable conditions, with no pictures to prove the conditions.   After all that, she was only charged with 31 or 32 counts of abuse, to which she took a plea for only one count.  The others were dismissed.  Something's fishy there.

She admitted there were problems, but not specifically what they were.  She admitted that she had needed help, but didn't get any.  Whether she asked but never got help, or asked and never got help, I don't know.  But what I know for sure is that there was a court case, she was punished mildly, along with her husband, and they were only prohibited from owning dogs until they were off probation. 

Is she neglecting her dogs still?  I don't know.  She claimed that she got a good many of them back...Is that true?  No proof again.  No one argued against her statements, not even Hodie, who claimed to have personal, first hand knowledge of the case, so it leaves me shaking my head in confusion.  I think I will leave the case to the party involved and the law in California.  I am sure they know what she's doing, or her neighbors do. 

Back out to enjoy the sunshine and the warm temps!

Crys

No Oli does not have time to read this stuff all it takes is one or 2 cowards to report it a couple times each and Oli deletes it. Give me a break I didn't read it, it was about dog abuse. No language got out of hand and even if it did. When racist and sexists words are used things are not deleted. Babies, it seems pretty apparent to all who did what and who is trying to defend it.

I have one last question about this CONVICTION.  What happened to the dogs?  "The dogs will be kept at the shelter until the case has an outcome. Bartmess said she doesn't know if she wants the dogs back."  So, where did they go?  How many ultimately had to be put down?  How many found homes?  That's quite a few dogs and I'm wondering...

Boy for someone who didnt read it you know a lot about it.