Time to Stir the Pot

I know this forum is very pet friendly and even though I am without a pet....I still cherish the animals owned by my kids. This story gives me mixed feelings. I agree the events are awful but I also feel the sentence is not justified.... the woman did attempt to help the dog...in a very stupid F'd up way.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Woman Gets 300 Days For Duct-Taping Dog’s Injured Eye

February 28, 2013

An Escambia County woman has been convicted of animal cruelty for duct-taping her dog’s injured eye, State Attorney Bill Eddins said Wednesday.

Mechele Renea Potter, 46, was convicted Tuesday by an Escambia County jury and sentenced by Judge Thomas E. Johnson to 300 days in the Escambia County Jail along with all fines and costs.

On September 18, 2012, Potter called Escambia County Animal Control to report a stray dog in her yard with duct tape on its head, according to the State Attorney’s Office. The dog was not a stray but instead was actually owned by Potter.

Prosecutors said Potter had put the duct tape around the dog’s head and over its eye to act as an eye patch. When animal control picked up the dog, they removed the tape from the dog’s head. Animal control found the dog’s eye injury had been left untreated and found the dog’s eye was protruding from its eye socket and was also red and extremely swollen. As
a result, the dog’s eye had to be removed.

While the cause of the injury was unknown, the injury was made worse by the defendant’s failure to seek medical attention, the State Attorney’s Office said.

Potter testified that she tried everything she could before calling animal control, which consisted of using the duct tape and calling some vets. Her husband also testified, stating that he told her to lie to animal control about owning the dog, and that he helped her put the tape on the dog’s head, prosecutors said.

The dog has since been adopted by a family.

It's too harsh of a sentence, given the info in the article. I don't think a sentence anything like that is called for unless a person intentionally abuses an animal.

I tend to think a sentence requiring her to work with the animal shelter would be more beneficial.

I admit that when I first read it I was glad that she got such a harsh sentence, but on second reading and with context, you're probably right. I'm not sure how helpful it is to anyone to sentence so harshly when she tried to help... she was just... well, ignorant, really. Particularly when there are violent criminals out there getting off scot free.

I had to reread it also

I am not sure why she did not try the humane society since thats what they are there for?

Community service would make more sense.....however we don't know all the facts, the jury did.....

The dog is the victim wonder what happened to it? The news could do a favor and follow up someone may come forward to adopt...

Or maybe there is a follow up story?

Pet freindly?

Hhahaha

Animal friendly...

2 plus members of the sea shepherd society

2 plus members of peta

1 or more loosely affiliated with ALF

GUESS SO!!!

whowherewhy wrote:

I had to reread it also

I am not sure why she did not try the humane society since thats what they are there for?

Community service would make more sense.....however we don't know all the facts, the jury did.....

The dog is the victim wonder what happened to it? The news could do a favor and follow up someone may come forward to adopt...

Or maybe there is a follow up story?

The dog did lose the injured eye. A family in Mobile adopted the dog.

The poor dog might have lost the eye regardless?

I agree with riceme--the woman is just ignorant. I don't think she meant to harm the dog any further. Some people are cruel and evil and some people are just not very bright.

If the husband was directly involved, why wasn't he charged with anything?

I agree. The sentence seemed excessive to me, but I wasn't privy to the details.

I agree eric one of the cornerstones and great things about our system is the right to a trial by a jury of your PEERS.

I have to defer here to those who sat in the trial and had to render a verdict there might be more than was reported

whowherewhy wrote:

Pet freindly?

Hhahaha

Animal friendly...

2 plus members of the sea shepherd society

2 plus members of peta

1 or more loosely affiliated with ALF

GUESS SO!!!

Call me ignorant, but are you referring to the TV show with the same name? If so then that sentence has just gone completely over my head.

Ghost_Rider1949 wrote:

whowherewhy wrote:

Pet freindly?

Hhahaha

Animal friendly...

2 plus members of the sea shepherd society

2 plus members of peta

1 or more loosely affiliated with ALF

GUESS SO!!!

Call me ignorant, but are you referring to the TV show with the same name? If so then that sentence has just gone completely over my head.

I'm guessing it's the makeup of the jury...

whowherewhy wrote:

I had to reread it also

I am not sure why she did not try the humane society since thats what they are there for?

Community service would make more sense.....however we don't know all the facts, the jury did.....

The dog is the victim wonder what happened to it? The news could do a favor and follow up someone may come forward to adopt...

Or maybe there is a follow up story?

My thinking is that she did not call the Humane Society simply out of ignorance, and I'm not saying that to be ugly, just based on my opinion of the facts as they've been presented. I really think she tried to help then panicked after she realized that what she'd done had made matters worse and not better.

I'm not sure it was a jury trial... ?? Maybe I need to re-read a 3rd time... I've been feeling under the weather all week and am finally feeling better today. I am in agreement that community service -- like at the Humane Society or some such -- would have been far more appropriate.

EDIT: Yessir, you were right it was a jury trial... said so right there in Joani's post. Apparently I'm still not firing on all cylinders!

When speaking of a trial, people comment that the jury knows more about the facts than the public. That can be true and also false.

Some evidence that could be detrimental to the defendant can be barred from testimony. My example is the Jody Arias trial. She was charged with stalking the man she finally killed, charged with stalking his girlfriend, and charged with slashing their tires (his twice an hers once) with a knife. This testimony was barred by the Judge, stating it may be incriminating. If I was on a jury....I would want to have all the facts when deciding on death penalty case. Jody Arias is accused of Stabbing her boyfriend 28 times, slashing his throat from ear to ear all the way to his spine, and shooting him in the face. She said it was self defense.

So, Joani, how is that trial going? It over yet?

It won't be over for weeks....I'm watching and I hope to hell this doesn't end up being another Casey Anthony miscarriage of justice.

[quote="Joanimaroni"]When speaking of a trial, people comment that the jury knows more about the facts than the public. That can be true and also false.

Some evidence that could be detrimental to the defendant can be barred from testimony. My example is the Jody Arias trial. She was charged with stalking the man she finally killed, charged with stalking his girlfriend, and charged with slashing their tires (his twice an hers once) with a knife. This testimony was barred by the Judge, stating it may be incriminating. If I was on a jury....I would want to have all the facts when deciding on death penalty case. Jody Arias is accused of Stabbing her boyfriend 28 times, slashing his throat from ear to ear all the way to his spine, and shooting him in the face. She said it was self defense.[/quote

I have not watched this sensationalized trial and quite frankly shocked that the judge has not gagged the proceedings. If this jury was hung a retrial could seriosuly hampered by this whole proceeding being tried in the media.

I have no idea what testimony jm is referring to because the post says she was charged. You can be charged with anything and have witnesses also that is why there is examination and cross. There are rules of order, admissibility, and pertinence, the media has no such rules.

Again i am not familiar, but the media is rarely to be trusted.

I misspoke I should have said suspected and not charged with the tire slashings that occurred.

The prosecutor has done a good job in breaking her story down and his closing arguments will be very interesting. Arias claims she has no memory of stabbing Alexander after she shot him. Forensics shows the shell casing is laying on top of the blood on floor....indicating she shot him after she killed him with the knife.

GRRRRR..... off subject rant:

I once had all four tires slashed by an off-meds schizophrenic college roommate who we had to kick out. She also slashed the tires of one of our other roommates. Tires are not something that I EVER cheap-out on, and they were new. I was SO pissed. We did file a report, but there was no way to prove that she'd done it although we knew it was her. One of the boys we lived with went over to her mom's place (where she went to live when we gave her the boot) in order to try to get her to fess-up and make things right, and he actually had to place an SOS call to us to come save him from her crazy butt. We went in Ninja-style and extracted him from his hideout in the bathroom, no issues. lol. Good riddance to the roommate days!

My son had a girlfriend that he was serious about. She cheated on him. They split up completely and she moved to another state.

He then dated someone else and the ex. found out and took a knife to his couch and broke a bunch of his stuff.

Now, a couple of years later, she wants to get back together with him. Uh, I don't think so.

My wild sister-in-law had the owner of the biker bar Cacks living with her. Reuben (his name) called my mom-in-law to come get him. He came out of the house with a bloody crotch. No words were said about the injury.

We never saw Reuben again.

Eric wrote:

My wild sister-in-law had the owner of the biker bar Cacks living with her. Reuben (his name) called my mom-in-law to come get him. He came out of the house with a bloody crotch. No words were said about the injury.

We never saw Reuben again.

LMFAO. I won't elaborate on what the word "cacks" means in my lingo... I'll just leave it up to your imagination.

So can you kill your own dog?

hallmarkgrad wrote:

So can you kill your own dog?

Did your doggie piss you off, Georgie?

To answer the question, I guess it depends how you do it. Stabbing or shooting will probably get you arrested for cruelty. My damn vet was too busy when the time came unexpectedly for my dog to be put down. We did it with ether. One of the hardest things I have ever done.

An old neighbor took his old dog out in the woods and shot it in the head with a 22. He then walked home and found the dog sitting there waiting for him.. The dog licked his hand. The neighbor cried like a baby and took the dog to the vet.