I love it when I find cool stories on the Internet — and I love to share good news. So I was definitely excited when I came across a heartwarming article about Patty Richardson.
Richardson is a North Carolina-based private investigator who “specializes in animal cases.” Right now she’s focused on catching the (alleged) scumbags who swipe and sell dogs.
Now that may come as a surprise to you. Frankly it surprised me, too. But given what I’ve learned about “dognapping” and related scams recently, I’m glad to hear there’s someone out there who’s willing to help people whose dogs have disappeared.
In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic
Of course, you might not be lucky enough to have a PI like Richardson where you live. And even if you do, there are steps you can take to find your dog before you summon reinforcements. The website fidofinder.com offers a comprehensive plan of action to follow when panic over a missing sets in. You should:
Calm down, take a breath and start with the obvious. Thoroughly check the house, yard and immediate area to make sure your dog is really “gone.”
Try to figure out how the dog got out of the house or yard and how long it might have been gone. That will give you clues about where it went and how far to look.
Designate someone to stay at home and man the phone when you start the search. That way someone will be available if anyone calls to report finding your dog, or brings it directly back to the house.
Be prepared to conduct a thorough preliminary search of the neighborhood by bringing a flashlight and photos of the dog with you.
Re-canvas your neighborhood on foot and by car if the initial search was not successful. You should also plaster the area with “missing dog” posters; and contact local veterinarians, animal shelters and animal control.
Use all available resources to spread the word, including social media and newspaper ads.
Remember the power of word-of-mouth. Tell your family, friends and neighbors about your missing pet.
To end on a personal note, here’s a little advice from yours truly. Don’t be afraid to call the authorities if you have reason to believe someone has stolen your pet. After all, the police are here to protect and serve.
I am keeping it brief today because I really don’t have the words to express my outrage about this. It is so low, so despicable, and so disgusting …. How anyone could stoop to this is beyond me.
I mean, let’s face it — stealing someone’s pet is bad enough. Demanding money from someone who has lost a pet is even worse.
But it happens — and apparently it happens more frequently more than anyone realizes, or cares to admit.
According to one news account, it’s happening in Aurora, Missouri. The story about the family that lost their dog and then got a series of phone calls demanding money in exchange for his return appeared on an ABC affiliate’s website Feb. 17. You can read the details here.
Now imagine how you would feel if this happened to you. What would you do? Where would you turn?
In Brief Legal Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic
Numerous websites offer advice on the topic. Scambusters.org lists five different shakedowns targeting owners of lost pets and shares tips to keep crooks from taking advantage of you when you’re vulnerable. You should:
Make sure your pet is always properly licensed and tagged.
Keep your pet indoors, in a secure yard, or on a leash at all times.
Limit information in your missing pet advertisements or social media posts to the essentials.
Ask for a phone number if you get a call from someone who says they’ve found your pet and claims to be out-of-state.
Make any caller who seems to be ‘fishing’ for information about your pet initiate the questions or comments about your pet’s description.
What would you do if someone stole your dog? Or your cat, for that matter?
It’s probably something that has never crossed your mind. But it is something that you should probably start thinking about. Now.
In Brief Legal Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic
According to a commonly cited statistic, roughly two million companion animals are stolen in the United States each year. Some disappear from back yards, and some vanish from “public places.” Some are snatched from cars. Most are never seen again.
Each Valentine’s Day (February 14), Last Chance for Animals (LCA), a Los Angeles-based animal rights and advocacy group, joins similar organizations throughout the country to celebrate Pet Theft Awareness Day. Its goal is to promote public awareness of the issue.
But to be honest, I had no idea that pet theft is so pervasive until I came across an article on an Ohio television station’s website. The account includes information about a couple that is suing an “estranged family member” who allegedly stole their dog. Shelby Patton, a plaintiff in the case, has reportedly started a petition in an effort to “change Ohio laws” so litigation is no longer necessary.
Fortunately, LCA says there are things pet owners can do to help prevent thefts. You can read those tips here.
As a cops and courts reporter for more than 20 years, I covered more than my share of heartbreaking stories…
There was the aftermath of 9/11 in the New York City suburbs and the accidental drowning death of a small autistic boy. There were homicides, car crashes that claimed young lives and the “war stories” about battered young veterans coming home from Afghanistan or Iraq.
But for some reason the stories that bugged me most — the ones that I remember to this day — are those that involved animal cruelty, abuse or neglect.
As someone who loves animals and as a responsible pet owner, I couldn’t — and still can’t understand why anyone would deliberately hurt or even neglect an innocent dog, cat, horse… or any other creature for that matter. But you don’t need to love, or even like animals in order to find this behavior reprehensible. All you’ve got to be is a compassionate human being.
Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic
As someone who loves animals and as a compassionate person, I found a recent account about the confiscation of dozens of animals in Connecticut to be especially disturbing. According to a wtnh.com report, a complaint alerted authorities that something was amiss at the East Hampton complex back in September. Subsequent attempts to ensure the animals — including more than 30 horses — received adequate care on site reportedly yielded mixed results.
“The horses, along with two dogs, several rabbits and more than 80 chickens, were removed from the Fairy Tail Equine facility after an investigation that determined the animals were malnourished, not receiving proper veterinary care and kept in unhealthy conditions,” the Connecticut Department of Agriculture reported February 3.
Connecticut officials also said that the horses, which were confiscated pursuant to a search-and-seizure warrant signed by a Superior Court judge, were transported to the department’s Second Chance large animal rehabilitation facility in Niantic. The smaller animals that were also seized have since been sent to nearby animal shelters.
An investigation is ongoing and it is unclear whether the owners will face criminal charges.
In some cases, criminal charges aren’t warranted. Some people are simply financially or emotionally incapable of providing adequate care for their animals. Some are just irresponsible. In such cases, a simple ban on future ownership is all that’s needed.
Having said that, studies show in many cases that people who are capable of harming animals also show little regard for human life. As long as that is so, it’s essential that animal cruelty cases continue to be taken seriously and that offenders are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Oh, goody. New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton doesn’t seem to think a recent bunch of random attacks on ordinary New Yorkers is cause for alarm.
I feel so much better now. I’ll hop right on the next commuter train headed into the City. Once I get there, I’ll take the subway all over the place without thinking twice, as if nothing’s happened.
Or not.
I’m old enough to remember how scary Manhattan was in the 1970s and ’80s. When I was little my parents kept a close eye on me on the train, and one of them — usually my father — had a death-grip on my hand from the minute our feet hit the platform at Grand Central. He didn’t let go until we arrived at our final destination, or until we were on the train heading back to the relative safety of the New York City suburbs.
We walked everywhere in Manhattan back then. Or we took a cab. Riding the bus was rare and taking the subway was unheard of. Dad said it was too dangerous — and I believed him.
I am old enough to appreciate the City’s renaissance. By the turn of the 21st century, it was safe enough — and I felt brave enough — to venture into Manhattan alone. I even camped out in Rockefeller Center one night. Of course I did with a group of friends so we could have the best “seats” for an outdoor concert the next day.
After I moved back to Connecticut from Virginia in 2012, I took advantage of my proximity to the greatest city on the face of the earth. In fact I romped all over it. I even gained the confidence to take the bus and the subway where ever I wanted to go.
Now The New York Times report about random crimes occurring throughout the Big Apple sends shivers down my spine. According to the Jan. 27 article, at least a dozen people have been targeted by men armed with “knives or razors” in recent months.
In and of itself, news of these incidents — some of which have occurred on the subway, in subway stations and on public streets — is chilling. The police commissioner’s response is, too.
“We will always have crime in the city,” Bratton told The New York Times.
That may be true, Mr. Bratton. But it is your agency’s job to do something about it.
“Before Miller, every juvenile convicted of a homicide offense could be sentenced to life without parole. After Miller, it will be the rare juvenile offender who can receive that same sentence.”
– from the majority opinion in the recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling on Montgomery v. Louisiana, delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
Four years ago, a Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama put an end to life sentences without the possibility of parole for most young killers.
The majority held that children are fundamentally different from adults, and that several key characteristics specific to minors — such as lack of maturity and the propensity for some to be easily influenced –should be taken into account when they are sentenced. Furthermore, SCOTUS ruled, an offender’s ability to change must also be taken into account. Finally, the Court said that a life sentence without the possibility of parole is too severe in most cases, and essentially amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
Last week, America’s highest court held that the 2012 ruling can be applied retroactively.
In other words, all juvenile offenders found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole at any time before the Miller decision took effect must now get a chance to seek it. According to published reports, that could affect up to 1,000 offenders in three states.
Looking at these decisions from a strictly logical — rather than a strictly legal — standpoint, it is clear that they reveal a basic but serious flaw in the American justice system.
As we all know, the system is designed to protect the defendant’s rights from the time he or she is first questioned by the authorities through a trial (if the case comes to that) and beyond. The goal is to thwart unscrupulous police conduct, prevent wrongful conviction and remedy wrongful conviction if it occurs.
The preservation of a defendant’s Constitutional rights is paramount, and understandably so.
On the other hand — as the SCOTUS rulings in Miller and Montgomery demonstrate — the system routinely shows little regard, much less compassion, for victims and their families.
Of course it goes without saying that not all victims of violent crime are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens. One could even argue that some people who are murdered deserve their fate. Make no mistake about it: my argument does not pertain to them, but to ordinary people who have been killed in cold blood. It also pertains to the “young offenders” who have taken their lives.
Take Henry Montgomery. Today he is known as the petitioner in Montgomery v. Louisiana. But he was just 17 when he killed a cop in East Baton Rouge back in 1963. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and is now 69.
In delivering the court’s decision that the Miller ruling should apply to Montgomery’s case, Justice Kennedy wrote:
“Extending parole eligibility to juvenile offenders does not impose an onerous burden on the States, nor does it disturb the finality of state convictions. Those prisoners who have shown an inability to reform will continue to serve life sentences. The opportunity for release will be afforded to those who demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition — that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change.”
After spending most of his life in prison, Montgomery claims that he has changed. Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t. The bottom line is that he was convicted of killing Charles Hurt. A jury determined that Montgomery robbed Hurt of his future, and robbed Hurt’s family of a future with him. And that will never change.
Yet the Court makes no mention of the toll the crime likely took on Montgomery’s loved ones in its January 25 ruling on his case. Instead, Kennedy quotes from another case, Graham v. Florida, writing:
“Because retribution ‘relates to an offender’s blameworthiness, the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult.'”
Yes, it would seem that a young killer’s rights trump all. The fact that a life has been taken means little. The fact that a family is left behind to pick up the pieces means nothing if the murderer was young, or too stupid to know better, or easily influenced.
A cynic could even say the odds are stacked against victims, their loved ones and the hard-working prosecutors that seek justice for them.
Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic
As anyone with even the most basic knowledge of criminal justice can tell you, crimes are committed against the community, not individuals. So technically, prosecuting attorneys represent “the people,” not the individual victim. In and of itself, that fundamental lack of personal advocacy can be confusing and frustrating, especially for those traumatized by violent crime.
Then there are the rules that can prevent the revelation of certain information about the defendant — such as prior convictions — at trial because it could be prejudicial. On the other hand, there’s little to keep the defense from calling witnesses to discredit the victim — especially if there’s anything sketchy in his or her past.
Now, to make matters even worse, the families of people murdered by minors initially sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole must come to grips with the fact that those killers may someday go free. For those who wish to prevent it, their only recourse may be to write the Parole Board or appear at the offender’s parole hearing to have their say.
I can only imagine how scary, unpleasant and stressful that would be. It would be cruel and unusual punishment, indeed.
*Because this blog is written for a general audience, Bluebook citations are not included.
“Nothing surprises me, but many things disappoint me.”
Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic
It’s something I often said while working as a reporter for more than 20 years — and it’s something that remains true today.
So, no, I wasn’t surprised when my daily search for blog fodder unearthed a recent techdirt.com article about the Virginia Supreme Court’s failure to implement new rules that would correct alleged imbalances the Commonwealth’s court system.
But I was definitely disappointed.
As I said, the premise of the article in question is that Virginia’s court system is flawed and willingly operates in such a way that the odds are constantly stacked against defendants. Furthermore, comprehensive policy review and public pressure has done nothing to convince those in charge to change the status quo.
That may all be true. In fact, after spending more than eight years on the cops and courts beat in Fauquier County, I don’t doubt it.
But perhaps the author wouldn’t have painted Virginia’s judicial system with such a broad — and scathing — brush if he’d been sitting with me in Fauquier County Circuit Court a few years ago.
Back then I was covering a case in which a man employed at the Pentagon was facing charges after he allegedly hit a state trooper with his car at the Virginia Gold Cup (or perhaps it was the International Gold Cup) steeple chase races at the Great Meadow Field Events Center in The Plains. The accused, who held some sort of military rank (I believe he was a lieutenant colonel) had supposedly been drinking and engaged in a verbal dispute with the trooper as he was leaving the grounds. When the trooper told him to stop his car, the man allegedly refused and the vehicle knocked the trooper to the ground.
When the case finally made its way to Circuit Court, the accused appeared in his military uniform. Now to me, that was highly unusual and highly questionable. After all, anyone who has ever covered courts knows that defendants in criminal cases can’t be tried in their “jail jumps” because it could potentially prejudice the jury. So why on earth would a defendant in a criminal case be allowed to appear in a military uniform? Couldn’t that also sway a jury, especially while the U.S. was in the midst of a war in the Middle East?
Never mind. That’s a rhetorical question. In my opinion, it did. In my opinion, this guy was allowed to wear his uniform in order to increase his chances of acquittal. And it worked. He didn’t even get a slap on the wrist. And when he got off, he celebrated by doing a little “victory dance” outside of the courthouse.
As far as I am concerned, his behavior was a disgrace to his uniform, and in his case, the odds were stacked against the prosecution.
So here’s the official disclaimer: I am not “pro gun.” I don’t even like guns…
They scare me. I’ve never even touched one (unless you count the toy cap guns and water pistols I played with when I was little). The thought of ordinary, law-abiding citizens having access to, much less toting assault rifles and similar firearms makes me sick. That they’re seemingly the weapons of choice for all manner of criminals, terrorists and other “bad guys” is an issue I will touch on later. For now all you need to know is that absolutely no one outside of the military, para-military organizations (law enforcement) and similar groups needs or should have any access to those types of weapons. Period.
Having said that, I am not a “gun grabber,” either. I fully respect and support the right to bear arms afforded to Americans under the Second Amendment. I believe that most law-abiding citizens who have guns believe and engage in responsible gun ownership. I also believe that any laws aimed at restricting access to certain types of firearms – or limiting gun ownership in general – will always backfire. Ultimately these well-intentioned but deeply misguided laws will result in more criminal activity and more violence – not less.
The simple reason for this is one that President Obama and the rest of the gun control gang fail to realize: Laws only matter to those of us who choose to follow them.
NYPD barriers. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic
Does anyone honestly believe that criminals will be deterred by tougher gun laws? If anything, organized crime groups, gangs, terrorists and their cronies welcome them. Think about it. It’s a simple question of supply and demand. Less or stricter access to “legal” firearms will create an even more lucrative black market. Unfortunately for the general public, the rush to claim the lion’s share of the revenue generated from illegal arms sales could easily result in more competition among certain people who couldn’t care less about who gets caught in the crossfire.
If you don’t believe me, all you have to do is find a U.S. History book and turn to the section on Prohibition…
Then there’s the matter of mass shootings. In their wake, much is made about how the perpetrator obtained his or her weapon(s). While it is largely a moot point, those who call for new gun laws claim stricter rules will reduce public access to the types of weapons used in the course of these tragic events. In a perfect world, that would be true. But we all know this world is far from perfect. Does anyone honestly think that someone desperate or angry or crazy or determined enough to commit an act of terrorism or a mass shooting is all that concerned about the law? If someone is truly hell-bent on committing such a heinous act, he or she will use any means necessary to do so.
So President Obama can weep and stomp his feet, gnash his teeth and threaten to take executive action on the issue as much as he would like, while the rest of the gun control gang sings his praises.
“The real purpose of this post is to encourage independent, critical thinking.”
On Sunday, The New York Timesactually shared some “good news.” Contrary to public opinion… or more accurately, public perception, crime is down. New Yorkers are safer than they think. Their fears are baseless.
If you know me at all, or if you are any good at reading between the lines, you can easily detect the sarcasm here. Or perhaps it’s merely a healthy dose of skepticism. In any case, the purpose of this post is not to bash the Times. If anything the newspaper, which, in my humble opinion, joins the rest of the mainstream media in demonstrating a blatant anti-law enforcement bias, actually made a fairly decent attempt at presenting both sides of this particular story.
The real purpose of this post is to encourage independent, critical thinking – a skill that is not taught (much less encouraged) in American schools and hence one that I find sorely lacking among the vast majority of Americans.
Of course it is far easier to take what the government – or any other authority – tells us on face value than to question it. Deep down those of us who live in free societies want to believe that authorities have our best interests at heart – so it is far easier to believe that our duly-elected leaders, teachers, police and the media are telling us the truth rather than what we want to hear.
ISIS is being defeated, the economy has recovered, unemployment is down and – at least in New York City – crime has declined as well. A rosy picture indeed. And why not believe it? After all, those who are telling it say they have data to prove their point. Numbers. Cold, hard facts. That’s all the proof you need. Or so they say.
But the numbers can be – and are – easily manipulated by those who provide them and those who report them. This tactic is hardly unique to one political party – or even one group, for that matter. Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists, anarchists, liberals, conservatives, economists, the media and even scientists engage in it.
Acknowledging all of this is the key to sorting through the BS and drawing your own conclusions. It is just one step though. Once you realize that any data can be – and is – manipulated, you must then ask the tough questions. Who is manipulating it? How are they doing so? How do they benefit from twisting the facts?
In some cases finding the answer is simply a question of following the money but in most cases it’s simply a question of using a little bit of common sense.
Speaking of which, here’s a newsflash for The New York Times: perception is reality.
In Brief Legal Writing Services 