Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Headline News

Dog Gone Shame

HARTFORDadvocate.com, Jan. 23 (DogPress.org) --

Dog Gone Shame

As the Weisenberg, dead Chihuahua case goes to court, no one can define where care ends and cruelty begins.

By Jennifer Abel
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5398

Looks like it'll be at least a year, maybe two, before there's any resolution in the animal-cruelty case against West Hartford resident (and former Chihuahua owner) Alan Weisenberg. That's a long time to have the threat of a year in jail hanging over your head, especially when you insist you're innocent.

But innocence is tough to prove in this case. So is guilt. Problem is, when you're talking about an elderly Chihuahua suffering the normal indignities of old age, there's no firm line you can draw to say "Once she reaches this point, continued existence is a cruelty." We discussed the case with the Humane Society of America and the National Animal Control Association, and they couldn't tell us where to draw the line either. But wherever that line is, West Hartford says Weisenberg crossed it.

Here's what we know thus far: Last Sept. 17, Weisenberg tied his dog Bambi to a tree.

"She wanted to be outside that day," Weisenberg said. "She followed me to the door, and she looked up at me — I'd never left her outside before, but ... it was such a nice day."

So he tied her to a crabapple tree whose sprawling branches shade most of his front yard, and then went to work for a few hours.

At some point Bambi either fell asleep or passed out, and a neighbor called animal control. Weisenberg says he returned home to find Bambi in the custody of animal control officer Karen Jones. He also says Jones made an offer: Euthanize the dog or face criminal charges of animal cruelty (and excessive tethering of an animal, it turned out).

Weisenberg refused. The cops kept Bambi at a vet hospital for 10 days, until Weisenberg's attorney Fred Boland demanded the dog back. Bambi spent her last week of life at home, and died in her sleep on Oct. 5. The arrest warrant came out Oct. 16. Weisenberg turned himself in and had a pre-trial hearing in December. At that time, Judge Gary White and prosecutor Mark Brodsky offered two years' probation, with the stipulation that Weisenberg give up his other pets while serving it.

He refused, and his second court appearance was scheduled for Jan. 15.

This is the fourth story we've done about the late Bambi Weisenberg. Our first one ran in November, and we published an update after Weisenberg's December hearing.

Both stories generated a huge uproar, with commentaters on our site and throughout the blogosphere vociferously siding with either Weisenberg or Jones. So we wrote an opinion piece about that: Why, we asked, do stories about harm done to animals generate so much more outrage than tales of cruelty to humans?

Jan. 15, Weisenberg's court date, was also the last day the opinion column ran in the paper and our Web site's front page.

Court convened at 10 a.m. We got there around 9:45 and found Weisenberg waiting for us in the lobby. In lieu of "hello," he greeted us with a bit of news: "The prosecutor told Fred to stop writing those newspaper articles! He's really pissed."

"Who, Fred?" we asked.

"No, the prosecutor." (Boland later clarified: prosecutor Brodsky understands that Weisenberg has the constitutional right to tell his story to the media, but constitutionality doesn't preclude a behavior's annoying the hell out of the prosecution.)

Despite this exciting beginning, not much happened that day. With numerous cases on the pre-trial docket, Weisenberg's turn to go before Judge White didn't come until after the morning recess. Boland went into chambers to speak with White and Brodsky, while we waited in the lobby with Weisenberg.

Boland came out 20 minutes later. "OK, the prosecution doesn't want your story in the Advocate anymore," he told Weisenberg. "He's pushing for you to do [probation] again. He said, '[Weisenberg's] showing no remorse whatsoever;' I said 'I don't think remorse is appropriate.'"

"I didn't do anything wrong! I loved that little dog!" Weisenberg said indignantly.

"If I ever get arrested around here I am so screwed," we muttered as we wrote this all down. Weisenberg overheard.

"If you get arrested anywhere you're screwed," he said bitterly. "The whole system's corrupt." (Weisenberg's 58 years old, and the Bambi incident was his first run-in with the police. He's grown steadily more cynical in the short time we've known him.)

Boland changed the subject. "[The prosecutor] told me there's about 200 criminal cases in Hartford. He said there will be dozens of hearings."

We went back into the courtroom, and when Weisenberg refused again to plead guilty he got another court date, this one for Feb. 15. Boland explained to his client: "Every day the prosecution is delayed is another day your civil case [against the town] is delayed, because the civil case can't go forward until after the prosecution. ... They're going to delay it as long as possible."

It's not just Weisenberg's civil case that's on hold until the criminal case is resolved; neither Karen Jones nor anyone else from the West Hartford police can (or will) discuss the case while it remains open.

That puts us in an awkward position. There's two sides to every story, and what do you do when only one side can be told? One option is to cobble Jones' side together from what's written in the arrest warrant.

It's a dense document, six typewritten pages long, and describes a dog in horrible health. "Bambi was generally diagnosed as non-ambulatory [unable to walk] with severe muscle atrophy [muscle loss]," the warrant says at one point, and goes on to describe a thin and dehydrated dog with bad teeth, poor eyesight, a heart murmur and paralysis of the back legs, among other problems.

But an affidavit signed by Weisenberg's neighbor Sebastiano Buccheri says the dog could walk; the afternoon of Sept. 17, Buccheri saw Bambi as far from the tree as her rope would allow. He picked her up and carried her back to the base of the tree; at some point she returned to the edge of the sidewalk, where animal control later found her.

As for the warrant's other health complaints: The dog was nearly 19 years old, equivalent to a human centenarian. What 100-year-old woman doesn't have bad teeth, lousy eyes and a weak heart?

Then, too, there's Weisenberg's claim that Jones demanded the dog be killed. (Weisenberg's roommate Rick Bouchard said the same in a signed affidavit.) Jones wrote in the warrant that "Bambi ... seems to have a very poor quality of life. If treatment is not pursued, then [the vet] would recommend that Bambi be humanely euthanized."

Sounds like Jones truly felt the dog was suffering, and offered Weisenberg a deal: "I can arrest you for cruelty, but won't if you put Bambi out of her misery."

Weisenberg couldn't bear to do that. "I've had her since she was a pup. I didn't want to put her down. If she was showing she was in pain, crying or something, then I would've said 'All right.' But she didn't." And Weisenberg's own vet at the non-profit Fox Clinic, who gave Bambi a check-up on Sept. 27 before she was returned to Weisenberg's custody, made no mention of euthanasia.

The Humane Society of the United States has no qualms against euthanasia. We spoke to Dale Bartlett, the society's Deputy Manager for Animal Cruelty, and he said, "If animals are suffering terribly, the Humane Society believes they should be euthanized."

So does the National Animal Control Association. Debbie Dawson is one of NACA's directors, and when we called her to discuss this case and its ambiguities she said, "That is a hard one ... the animals can't speak for themselves as humans could ... we had [a case with] a really old dog, 19 years old, who escaped out the front door, and we took it to the vet and he said 'Whoa, 19 years old, he's lucky he's walking.'"

Neither Dawson nor Bartlett could give a solid answer to the question "Where do you draw the line between actual cruelty versus a forgivable lapse in judgment?"

"If only it were so easy, a line where you could tell," Bartlett said ruefully. "I know nothing about the case, so I can't say if the owner or the animal control officer was out of line."

Dawson said basically the same thing with different words. But she agreed with our "he said/she said" theory behind Jones' alleged euthanasia ultimatum. "So often, it is the perception of what is said, not what was actually said."

Talking to Dawson and Bartlett, it's obvious they pursued their respective careers out of a desire to save animals from suffering. Karen Jones presumably shares that motivation. But any suffering Bambi experienced ended when she died.

Tying Bambi to a tree on Sept. 17 was a bad idea. In retrospect, even Weisenberg agrees. But was it such a bad mistake that he deserves to spend a year in jail for it? Based on the criminal proceedings against Weisenberg, it appears that the town of West Hartford says "yes."

Write to us at editor@... or jabel@...

Comments (1)

â–¼Post a Comment

1. My compliments to the HartfordAdvocate Staff for upholding American's Right to Free Speech, even when Prosecutors get 'pissed off' at American's Rights to Freedom.
Stifling a Citizen's Free Speech Rights is the first step to Nazi-ville, USA.

2. A member of a family in distress, ( be-it from illness, sickness, or threat of death or extremes in the law's intervention into our lives and our pet's lives) is just as important to our 'family' members, as it is to our 'extended members' of the family, called Bambi and the 2 remaining living dogs of Mr. Weisenberg. (Bambi was a bonifide true member of the family as well). I can assure you, as well as in God's Name, that there are some things, and family members in life worth 'standing up for' even unto death do us part. Naturally! Bambi was one of those things to 'stand up for." It matters not whether life's 'value' in the family was human or dog, or pet. It is a 'living being' with a soul from God. Period. Others do not value pets as family to defend them, as they have not the same value of life, as I just presented.

3. There is a 'line' in this matter that determines if and when the line was crossed. It is 'INTENT' of the alleged or charged offense that will have to be PROVEN in court. The Prosecutor knows this, and most likely cannot establish this fact in front of a jury of 12 pears. In front of a prejudice judge alone, maybe so. The safe thing to do for the legal system, and animal control, etc. is delay this case until the charged subject (Weisenberg) runs out of money for his attorney to fight for years and many hearings, and subsequently 'caves in' to any plea bargin as a result. Additionally, the court, will 'hope' this case goes away from public view, and interest by such an extended delay of 'due process of law." Ya Right!
If it were me, I would fight until Hell freezes over, and hope the Attorney will delay any payment in fees to go the distance of Justice. But that's just me! At some point the court WILL have to decide this case. Period! Can they prove INTENT to commit cruelty, and abuse? Time WILL tell! Period!

4. Both the righteous and the wicked suffer 'anguish' of the soul, meaning 'excruciating' distress and extreme pain of body and mind, thru all actions of their so-called 'GOOD INTENTIONS' paving their way to HELL, by their actual intended 'agenda' actions in dealing with the living and dieing beings. Enough Said.

5. I assure you, that the Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom National Organization will follow this case until it's conclusion, and post the circumstances as they develop over the years 'permanently" on the Internet for public review. It is a freedom of speech issue, and issue of RIght to Life, even for a simple old dog, like Bambi. This case is about more than just Bambi or Mr. Weisenberg or Karen the ACO. Maybe, just maybe, if Tyranny prevails in West Hartford, the next old dog to face the death sentence will be YOUR OWN! But Not on MY WATCH!

6. Passions be-it 'Honorable' or in 'Secret-Combinations' of evil intent thru agendas, appertain to, and are, a part of every stage of existence. A God without passions cannot exist, for he would neither love his children, hate their evil ways, or be importuned by their pleas for mercy; he would sit tranquilly by, having neither moved nor affected by any occurence, reacting neither to be good or evil, and hence able to bestow no rewards and impose no penalties. In other words.

There for, why is it so unusual to have passion for our beloved pets who are extended members of our families?

Do you not 'defend' your family from evil, in any form?

Or do you allow your family members to be 'raped' unto death, without defending them?

7. As much as you want this case to go away, I assure you it will not fade into the dust of forgotten matters.

8. In summary, of my thoughts, once again stated; "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Choose Life and make a 'Stand for the Right'!

9. A "massacre" for the public's acceptance for death has struck the State of Conn.. Alleged Innocent citizens UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY INTENT, in West Hartford are involved. It starts out as follows:

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight, when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight, that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, least we become unwitting victims of the darkness." by Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)

10. "Courage is not defined by a person's ability to speak their mind, yelling like a lion's bellow. Courage is an Action of Humility, putting one's Cause of Honor, before his/her Life, to retain the Freedom and Liberty which We as People, seek, from an Honorable and Just God, Not from Oppressive Men in Secret Combinations." -Quotes By Dean A. Ayers, Prior Special Agent, AFOSI

11. God's speed to the 'truth' of 'intent' whether a crime against Bambi was committed, OR NOT! AMEN.

Posted by Dean A. Ayers, Director, Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom on 1.22.08 at 23.54

Post a Comment at original article link:  http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5398

Fair Use Notice:
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 Â· Return to Website ·

© Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom Headline News Powered by Bravenet.com