Page 1 of 1

animal cruelty case

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:07 am
by nugget
I just found out that the courts reduced the bond for the women who was charged with animal abuse from $5000.00 to $500.00. :eek: Now she is free to start all over again. This was the second time she has been charged. She has been convicted before this case. If she could not be stopped after the first conviction what makes them think she will stop now that she has been slapped on the hand(again)? I was told she was released so she could care for her childern. I hope she is better at that then she is with animals. If a person can and will not care for the animals in her custody how do they, even for a second, believe she has the ability to care for childern? The more I watch the news from Lincoln County court the more I am amazed with how passive and lenient they are. We must have no room at the Inn(Jail). I do believe this case was a great thing for the Lincoln County Humane Society though. They did a great job and got lots of publicity and donations.

Re: animal cruelty case

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:23 am
by Catfish
She only bonded out of custody for $500. She still has to have a court trial. There, is where she should and would pay the consequences. She could face heavy fines or even jail time. They ought to sock it to her, being it's her second offense. That was a disgustingly cruel environment she operated there.
Wouldn't that be something if they parked her on the end of one of her chains and sent someone to walk by her every couple days and say, "I see you there, and I know you need some water, and you're probably real hungry, but too bad."

Re: animal cruelty case

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:36 am
by nugget
Yes, I like your idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Or maybe put the food and water just out of her reach. Again though, from watching what is printed in the local papers on the court reports I do not believe they(the courts) will do much.

Re: animal cruelty case

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:27 pm
by Kerry Tobin
Bond only needs to be set based on flight risk and risk they'll do it again while they are out on bond. I seriously doubt this woman will be acquiring any more critters before her court date and if she doesn't have anywhere to run then a low bond makes sense.

I suspect the punishment will be much worse than $500.

Re: animal cruelty case

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:56 am
by Catfish
As per the Tomahawk Leader's report, at her bond hearing she plead "not guilty" by reason of mental defect. I guess so!!!