What the Ohio Revised code actually says.

Some thoughts for the morning on the Dayton Ohio dog mauling death of Klonda Richey.  These thoughts will focus on the responsibilities of Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf (new president of the Ohio County Dog Warden's Association).





Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf

 Here is a short quote from the OCDWA, note the reference to health and safety of the public.

OCDWA Objective

The OCDWA objective is to promote effective, efficient, and humane dog control programs for the health and safety of the public and their companion animals. Improve, promote, and obtain education, training, benefits, equipment, and adequate facilities for Dog Wardens and staff.

It is important to note that  I have the highest respect for the OCDWA, the members of that organization, and their objectives but I do not respect the efforts of those who use the organization to further personal agendas.

A short historical note, in 2011 Mr. Kumpf, OCDWA treasurer and member of the executive board,  and then OCDWA president Matt Granito fully supported and campaigned for HB 14, a bill written by an out of state animal rights, and breed specific PAC with a sanctuary in Utah.  Kumpf and Granito never produced meeting minutes that indicated that the rank and file of the organization supported their position on the bill despite being asked to do so.  Members of  the organization complained that they had never been given the opportunity to discuss or vote on it. The bill is a nightmare.  Here is a link to the Ohio Revised Code procedure set out in HB14  for legal action regarding dangerous dogs.  This procedure is a labor intensive nightmare, it protects violent dogs and their owners precisely because it is so difficult to use, it is rarely used.

Having said all that, lets fast forward to recent statements made by Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf on the horrific mauling death of Klonda Richey.  “This is a tragic accident and there is nothing foreseeable or doable to prevent a situation like this from happening,” “It doesn’t matter how many times you call, unless we see a violation, we can’t change the law and just write a ticket because somebody doesn’t like this particular dog or that particular neighbor. We have to see a criminal violation.”  “Whether we respond to one complaint or 13 complaints or any other number of complaints, unless we find a violation when we arrive that has enforceable component to it, it’s simply a call.” 

Per WDTN News " Numerous warnings were left for the dog owners at 35 East Bruce Avenue, but no action was taken. Kumpf says a warning is simply a notice that an officer responded to a complaint. There’s really no follow-up after that unless the owner calls the Animal Resource Center to find out more."

This statement was found on the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center Facebook page
 "February 10, 2014 Statement from Animal Resource Center Director Mark Kumpf:

I first want to extend our condolences to the Richey family. Klonda was a member of the Montgomery County family at Children Services for 25 years.

There have been many questions about what happened at 31 Bruce Avenue in Dayton last Friday, February 7, 2014. We cannot comment about the active police investigation, but we can provide background on calls and reports we received concerning dogs at 35 Bruce Avenue.

The Montgomery County Animal Resource Center has received 13 calls concerning 35 Bruce Avenue, ranging from condition checks on dogs to dogs running loose and dogs barking, beginning in December of 2011 and with the final call coming in September of 2013. Animal Care and Control Officers responded to each and every call. In all but two cases, we found no one at home or no one answered the door. In addition, all but one call made to our agency were anonymous.

Under Ohio laws, for a “dog at large,” the officer must witness the dog off the property and not under the owner’s immediate control. It cannot be issued as a citation based on a third party witnessing the event. In each of these calls, our officers did not witness the dogs off the property or not in the control of their owner.

We educate when possible and issue citations when we witness the violation. If no officer witnesses the conduct, the number of complaints does not allow for a citation or other action. When we received a complaint and find no violation, that closes the complaint.

Many have asked why these dogs were not designated as “dangerous dogs.” Here is the criteria for a “dangerous dog:”
- Dangerous dog means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division of the Ohio Revised Code, has done one of the following:
o Caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any
person;
o Killed another dog;
o Been subject or a third or subsequent violation of division of
section 955.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.

We have no record of either of these dogs biting a person or killing another dog, nor have any citations been issued for a nuisance animal or running at large violation."

Here is a link to Ohio Revised Code  regarding the duties of Dog Wardens.  I have pulled out a few important passages.  I find no reference to any requirement that an officer must actually see a violation in progress in order to act.

955.23 Prohibition against failure of duty by dog warden.

No county dog warden shall willfully fail to perform his duties under section 955.12 of the Revised Code or other duties required of dog wardens.

Per Ohio Revised Code NO COUNTY DOG WARDEN SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES 

955.12 Dog wardens.

Except as provided in section 955.121 of Revised Code, a board of county commissioners shall appoint or employ a county dog warden and deputies in such number, for such periods of time, and at such compensation as the board considers necessary to enforce sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code.

The warden and deputies shall give bond in a sum not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars, as set by the board, conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties. The bond or bonds may, in the discretion of the board, be individual or blanket bonds. The bonds shall be filed with the county auditor of their respective counties.

 Per Ohio Revised Code THE WARDEN AND DEPUTIES SHALL GIVE BOND IN A SUM NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, AS SET BY THE BOARD, CONDITIONED FOR THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES. 

Here is more from the same section.  

"If a dog warden has reason to believe that a dog is being treated inhumanely on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer, the warden shall apply to the court of common pleas for the county in which the premises are located for an order to enter the premises, and if necessary, seize the dog. If the court finds probable cause to believe that the dog is being treated inhumanely, it shall issue such an order.

The warden and deputies shall also investigate all claims for damages to animals reported to them under section 955.29 of the Revised Code and assist claimants to fill out the claim form therefor. They shall make weekly reports, in writing, to the board in their respective counties of all dogs seized, impounded, redeemed, and destroyed and of all claims for damage to animals inflicted by dogs.

The wardens and deputies shall have the same police powers as are conferred upon sheriffs and police officers in the performance of their duties as prescribed by sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code. They shall also have power to summon the assistance of bystanders in performing their duties and may serve writs and other legal processes issued by any court in their respective counties with reference to enforcing those sections. County auditors may deputize the wardens or deputies to issue dog licenses as provided in sections 955.01 and 955.14 of the Revised Code.

Whenever any person files an affidavit in a court of competent jurisdiction that there is a dog running at large that is not kept constantly confined either in a dog kennel registered under this chapter or one licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code or on the premises of an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code or that a dog is kept or harbored in the warden's jurisdiction without being registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of. The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by the warden, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law. If the owner, keeper, or harborer cannot be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, the officer shall post a notice in the pound or animal shelter both describing the dog and place where seized and advising the unknown owner that, unless the dog is redeemed within three days, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law."

Per Ohio Revised Code THE WARDENS AND DEPUTIES SHALL HAVE THE SAME POLICE POWERS AS ARE CONFERRED UPON SHERIFFS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 955.01 and 955.27.

This part is important and this section deals with both low volume kennels and with companion dogs., per Ohio Revised Code WHENEVER ANY PERSON FILES AN AFFIDAVIT IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION THAT THERE IS A DOG RUNNING AT LARGE THAT IS NOT KEPT CONSTANTLY CONFINED EITHER IN A DOG KENNEL REGISTERED UNDER THIS CHAPTER OR ONE LICENSED UNDER CHAPTER 956.16 OF THE REVISED CODE OR THAT A DOG IS KEPT OR HARBORED IN THE WARDEN'S JURISDICTION WITHOUT BEING REGISTERED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE WARDEN TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND THE DOG. THE WARDEN SHALL GIVE IMMEDIATE NOTICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER, KEEPER, OR HARBORER OF HE DOG SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED BY THE WARDEN.    

Additional material is found in Ohio Revised Code 959.132.  Feel free to read the whole thing but here is a section I feel is important.

  

(4) "Officer" means any law enforcement officer, agent of a county humane society, or other person appointed to act as an animal control officer for a municipal corporation or township in accordance with state law, an ordinance, or a resolution.

(B) An officer may seize and cause to be impounded at an impounding agency a companion animal that the officer has probable cause to believe is the subject of an offense. No officer or impounding agency shall impound a companion animal that is the subject of an offense in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by a board of county commissioners pursuant to Chapter 955. of the Revised Code unless the board, by resolution, authorizes the impoundment of such a companion animal in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by that board and has executed, in the case when the officer is other than a dog warden or assistant dog warden, a contract specifying the terms and conditions of the impoundment.

(C) The officer shall give written notice of the seizure and impoundment to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the companion animal that was seized and impounded. If the officer is unable to give the notice to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the companion animal, the officer shall post the notice on the door of the residence or in another conspicuous place on the premises at which the companion animal was seized. The notice shall include a statement that a hearing will be held not later than ten days after the notice is provided or at the next available court date to determine whether the officer had probable cause to seize the companion animal and, if applicable, to determine the amount of a bond or cash deposit that is needed to provide for the companion animal's care and keeping for not less than thirty days beginning on the date on which the companion animal was impounded.

AN OFFICER MAY SEIZE AND CAUSE TO BE IMPOUNDED AT AN IMPOUNDING AGENCY A COMPANION ANIMAL THAT THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IS THE SUBJECT OF AN OFFENSE.....   

THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDMENT TO THE OWNER, KEEPER, OR HARBORER OF THE COMPANION ANIMAL  THE OFFICER SHAL POST THE NOTICE ON THE DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE OR IN ANOTHER CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE PREMISES AT WHICH THE COMPANION ANIMAL WAS SEIZED.  THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A HEARING WILL BE HELD NOT LATER THAN TEN DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE IS PROVIDED OR AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE COURT DATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFICER HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEIZE THE COMPANION ANIMAL ....

This quote comes from a legal definition of probable cause  "When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

This is important PUBLIC JUSTICE AND THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE EXAMINED, THERE IS SAID TO BE A PROBABLE CAUSE ...   

And this quote from another source    The Supreme Court has ruled that police can't stop and search people on a vague suspicion or hunch. Probable cause requires specific information that a particular person has committed a crime. The four sources of this information can be observation, the direct detection of a crime or pattern of suspicious behavior, expertise, skills of detection gained in special training, testimony, reports by witnesses, victims, or informants, or circumstantial evidence, which indirectly implies that a crime has occurred but isn't necessarily proof.

REPORTS BY WITNESSES, VICTIMS, OR INFORMANTS  Klonda Richey reported repeatedly as both a witness and the victim. 

  

What is found in the ORC gives several options for action in cases like Mrs. Richey's.   She might have been informed that filing an affidavit in court would bring action.  She would not even have to make a special trip, she could have filed the affidavit while she was already in court asking for a civil protection order against her neighbor Andrew Nason.  For video of that legal event please click here to see and hear Klonda Richey asking for help from the courts.   

Mr. Kumpf dismissively stated that the law does not give him the right to impound dogs just because "someone does't like this particular dog"    This is a great deal more than personal dislike, it is about public safety.  Simply putting a post-it note on a felon's door and walking away does not constitute doing your job.  A strong case can be made for probable cause and Ohio Revised Code gave Montgomery County Animal Control the right and responsibility to act.  

I will end this post with a flash back to Dayton Ohio in September of 2013.  Neighbors, and the United States Postal Service made complaints for a YEAR before any action was taken.  WDTN's l;ink no longer works but this one does and it deals with the same situation.   

9/27/2013
Dayton Ohio



Thirteen living Great Danes, Labradors, rabbits, and per the video a live chicken were removed from a Dayton home, multiple dead dogs were also found and removed by Dayton Police and Animal Resource Center staff.   

Neighbors and United States Postal Service workers have been complaining about this situation for a YEAR.  Per the neighbors the dogs had broken out all the windows, they CLIMBED OUT ON THE ROOF AND BARKED AT PASSERSBY, the smell of death has been hanging over this neighborhood in a cloud  and this has been going on for a YEAR!

Kumpf managed to look embarrassed on camera while being interviewed on this situation. "There is quite a number of live dogs here this afternoon," said Kumpf. "That is what we are here for. We may have been too late for some of these but we won't be too late for the others. Get them the help and they attention that they need."

Mark Kumpf with surviving puppies.

Per WDTN Neighbors said they are now thankful something has been done.

They just hoped it was sooner.

"It didn't have to come to that," said Smith. "Because we've been calling and the postal service has been calling, all of the neighbors. You can smell it. The whole street just smells."

Charges are still pending as investigators compile their report to present to the prosecutor.

City inspectors condemned the property.

What has Kumpf been doing for the last year?  Receiving complaints from neighbors and the USPS regarding dogs parading across the roof of an apparently abandoned home and barking at members of the community for a year?  The response to the multiple and  very valid complaints from this community is simply too little and too late.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Too little and too late again from the Montgomery County Dog Warden.  Kumpf had a job to do and he did not do it.  Next time we will take a look at Klonda Richey's actual complaints.  We will also take a look at the criminal history of her neighbor Andrew Nason.

The bond posted to insure performance of Kumpf's job should be forfeit.  Mr. Kumpf is a liability to the County and a public relations disaster for the Dog Wardens Association.  Mr. Kumpf's statements have brought comments that question "if dog wardens can't do anything then why do we even have them?"    

I can't improve on this so I'm just going to share it as written.

This is a picture of one of the dogs that killed Klonda Richie, (photo on the left), next are photos of a mastiff, and of a pit bull...what do you think? Mastiff? Mastiff mix? Mastiff/pit mix?



Tr

Update on the fatal mauling of Dayton woman Klonda Richey.

Klonda Richey, age 57, was mauled to death by her next door neighbors dogs just outside her Dayton Ohio home yesterday.  Her next door neighbors.  Andrew Nason, age 28, and Julie Custer, age 25, were arrested and charged with reckless homicide.  For video of the arrest please click here.  Nason has previously been booked on suspicion of child endangerment. 

Ms. Richey was an employee of Montgomery County for 25 years.  She worked for the Montgomery County Job and Family Services Administrative Services Division working at the Haines Children's Services Center.  The County Communications Director made this statement about Ms. Richey "“She looked after the supply needs of our workers at The Haines Children’s Center. Those who knew her within JFS remember her fondly. Our sympathy goes out to her family, friends and co-workers.”

Dayton police described the dogs as pit bulls.   County Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf initially described the dogs as Bull Mastiffs and stated that they were registered as such.  Not so fast. WDTN News searched the County Auditors website and found that the dogs were actually recorded as "mixed breeds" not  Bull Mastiffs as Kumpf claimed.  Kumpf's breed identification has continued to evolve, currently they are "mixed Mastiffs" but he now believes that are "part Cane Corso" for no apparent reason.  

I find a section of the 1991 Ohio Supreme Court ruling Ohio v. Anderson  relevant here.  I include the whole passage lest I be accused of pulling a quote out of context.  " In addition to arguing that the statute does not provide fair notice to potential offenders, appellee contends that the statute poses an unfair danger of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Appellee's contention is based on the confusion which he believes has arisen as to whether the statute covers only purebred pit bulls or mixed breeds as well. We perceive this as a problem of semantics alone. If a dog possesses the physical and behavioral traits discussed in this opinion, then its owner must comply with the statute or risk arrest and prosecution for noncompliance. The formal breed name which has been assigned to the dog is not relevant.

Before executing an arrest, an officer need not ask for the dog's papers and determine how it would be classified by the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club. Given the urgent circumstances under which pit bull-related arrests are generally executed, it would be counterproductive to compel officers to do extensive research into the background of a particular dog prior to arrest. Allowing the officer to execute the arrest based on observations of the dog's appearance and behavior leads to a rational administration of the statute. As the court recognized in American Dog Owners Assn. v. Dade Cty., supra, at 1537, "[p]resently, there exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. * * * Even if a scientific method is developed to identify breeds of dogs, an enforcement scheme will still depend on initial visual identification. * * *"

The passage of HB 14 does not modify the Supreme Court ruling.  Ohio v. Anderson still stands.  The police had the right to call it like they saw it.  "The formal breed name which has been assigned to the dog is not relevant" "an enforcement scheme will still depend on initial visual inspection."   

For a photo of one of the dogs involved please click here.  This hot mess of a canine, complete with dog fighter ear trim and testicles is one of the killers.  The photo is from Julie Custer's Facebook page.  This is not a Poodle or a Pug, this dog is what Ohio v. Anderson would call "commonly known as a pit bull dog."  

Records indicate that nine complaints had been made about the two dogs, plus six 911 calls, at least 5 of these calls appear to have been made by Richey because she was afraid of the dogs .  Dayton police told reporters that 911 calls to police may not result in a police report but are sent to the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center run by county Dog Warden Kumpf.  Kumpf acknowledged receipt of those complaints but gave this weak response "“We are aware of additional complaints, unfortunately, the owners have never responded to any of our calls to the best of our knowledge. We are looking into this matter,” Kumpf said.   “We have had previous complaints on the animals but we’ve never located them or seen them.”

The owners did not respond so the complaints were ignored?  Nine times?  Mr. Kumpf, it is your job to investigate, and enforce law.  Kumpf additionally stated "Any large breed dog has the potential to seriously injure or kill a person.  Anybody who encounters a dog that they're not familiar with should try and back away from the situation.  If they are not able to do so, one of the things that we recommend is that they make themselves a smaller target as possible."    This unbelievably insensitive comment to make after a fatal mauling was made by none other that Mark Kumpf,  new president of the Ohio County Dog Warden's Association and past president of the National Animal Control Association.  Who screens candidates for these organizations?
 
Here is Kumpf's announcement from his Facebook page

Mark Kumpf

January 15

So after leaving Virginia and the Virginia Animal Control Association President's position, I've found myself in Ohio for 7 years. I stepped up and took on the position of Treasurer for the Ohio County Dog Wardens Association for the last several years. Today I presided over the first of many meetings as the new President of the Ohio County Dog Wardens Association. I've got a great board comprised of both new faces and experienced folks supporting the association and our members as we move into 2014. It is my privilege to work with such an awesome group of animal control professionals representing Ohio's 88 counties. I intend to insure that we live up to our motto "Striving to be Man's and Dog's Best Friend" as I take the helm of the oldest continually meeting state animal control association.

Mark's post of 2/7/2014

Mark Kumpf

23 hours ago

Been in animal control since August 1989. Today counts as the hardest day I have ever had and the worst case I have responded to in my career. Can't say enough good things about the professionals at the ARC - ACCO's Torbin Peterson, Brian Baker &Kandi Angi Broadus & Dr Kelly Meyer and all the folks who helped work our case today.

The same can be said of Klonda Richey, her hardest day ever too, and her last.  "Striving to be Man's and Dog's best friend"?  Ms. Richey was obviously very familiar with these dogs and she was afraid of them. Her concerns and her requests for help were ignored and she died.  Now the County Dog Warden who failed to do his job nine times is head of the Ohio County Dog Warden's Association as well as past President of the National Animal Control Association (2007 to 2009).   This is obscene.

The passage of HB 14, written by lawyers employed by Best Friends Animal Society and strongly promoted by failed County Dog Warden Kumpf was to have protected Ohio residents from ALL dangerous dogs.  The claim was that the law "finally gave Dog Wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs."  With the previously unrecognized death of Elizabeth Hirt of Miami County Ohio, not Montgomery County as has been incorrectly stated in several news articles, this brings the total number of Ohio residents killed by dogs to seven in the two years since the passage of the breed neutral law.  Does this look like a success to anyone?  

Another Ohio fatality, this time in Dayton, Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf's territory.

Ohio has recorded a sixth fatal dog attack since HB 14 was passed in February of 2012.  Prior to the successful efforts of Best Friends Animal Society (a PAC headquartered in Utah)  to change Ohio law the state had a dog bite related fatality every 5 to 8 years.  Best Friends Animal Society claimed that the new law "finally gave dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs." In the two years since the the law was passed six Ohio residents have died by dog mauling. Epic fail.

Today's fatality was a Dayton woman, her name has not yet been released.  Neighbors called 911 early this morning to report a body on the sidewalk, face down, and naked.  When police arrived on the scene they were charged by two dogs that they reported "looked like pit bulls."  Both dogs were shot and killed.  Dog owners Andrew Nason and Julie Custer were arrested and charged with reckless homicide.


Booking photos for Custer and Nason.



Dayton is located in Montgomery County Ohio.  The Montgomery County Dog warden is Mark Kumpf, vocal supporter of Best Friends efforts to change Ohio law.  While police have identified the dogs as pit bulls, predictably, Mr. Kumpf has muddied the waters on this, calling the dogs mastiffs and stating that they were licensed as such.

It is not unusual for bully breed dogs to be purposely misidentified with the purpose of fooling nervous neighbors,the insurance company, or local law enforcement.  Click here for the arrest warrant of Arkansas resident Brande Coy.  Coy also claimed that her dog was a Mastiff but investigation following the dog mauling death of Joan Kappen revealed otherwise.  It is important to note that Coy's dog was the litter mate of the dog that killed a five year old child six months prior to the death of Joan Kappen.  The same claim was made for that dog.  Both of these dogs were actually pit bull/mastiff mixes.



Dayton police report that nine complaints have been received about the dogs.  Montgomery County Dog Warden Kumpf stated "We've had complaints in the past, our office has been out here on several occasions and in an attempt to contact the owners to resolve those complaints without success," says ARC Director Mark Kumpf.

Just when will Mr. Kumpf use the "tools" given to him with the passage of the law he helped promote?  Nine complaints PLUS a fatality may indicate that he has not taken his responsibility to protect the public seriously.

More to come on this fatal attack.

For a bit of background on Mark Kumpf please click here.

The Lexus Project's relocation of dangerous dogs, a good idea?

The Lexus Project has once again taken possession of a dangerous dog.  Onion, a mastiff/Rhodesian Ridgeback mix that killed his owner's grandchild, at the child's first birthday party, has been turned over to the Lexus Project.  After two years of legal maneuvers the Lexus Project has taken possession of Onion and has relocated him out of state to a rescue facility that they refuse to name.

Given the refusal to name the facility one must consider the possibility that local animal control on the receiving end has no idea what is coming, much less have the opportunity to inspect the facility to make sure that it meets the requirements of the agreement with the city of Henderson.  Per the Las Vegas Review-Journal "According to the city’s statement, its agreement with the Lexus Project indemnifies the city of future liability for the dog, “which was picked up from the Henderson Animal Shelter well cared for and in good health.”

“It also requires that the group transfer the dog out of state to a licensed dog rescue facility and provides assurances that the animal will never be allowed to be adopted out or in an environment with children present. The city is also requiring the Lexus Project to pay for a memorial for Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan that will be placed in a city of Henderson park.”

Representatives of the city of Henderson agreed to the transfer of ownership and custody of Onion in order to spare the family of Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan the stress of reliving the tragedy through testifying.   Per the Las Vegas Review-Journal  “As part of the court proceedings, family members would have been required to testify and relive the horrible details of that day,” city spokesman Bud Cranor said in a statement. “We didn’t want the family to have to endure that tragedy all over again.”

Please note that the Lexus Project has no similar sensitivity and has blocked the euthanization of Onion, the dog that killed a toddler at his own birthday party, and was going full on toward court proceedings.  It is only after the fact that the Lexus Project developed any sensitivity.  The following is a statement from head of the Lexus Project Robin Mittasch "“The litigation for Onion has been dismissed, and he has been relocated permanently to a rescue,” she said. “And out of respect to the family of Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan, we will make no further comment on this subject. It’s over.”

Mittasch would not say where Onion went, but she said he will not go to the Colorado sanctuary the group originally sought to send him to.

An  interesting quote from Richard Rosenthal husband of Robin Mittasch, this one from The Daily Mail "Eskew-Shahan died just after celebrating his first birthday when the six-year-old Onion lashed out and clamped onto the child's head for 30 seconds with his massive jaws.The dog shook Jeremiah as he bit down, breaking the boy's neck and mangling his face. 'There is nothing vicious about the attack,' Lexus Project's Richard Rosenthal told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in May of 2012."

What planet do these people live on?  What might Rosenthal, lawyer husband of Robin Mittasch consider vicious?   Your average man on the street would consider grabbing a baby by the head and shaking that baby until he is dead of a broken neck and mangled face to be the very essence of a vicious attack.  

 More interesting quotes from Mittasch are found here," Mittasch told The Associated Press she is "overjoyed" with the outcome, "and so happy that (Onion's owner) and her family finally has closure that brings her peace."

Contrast this with family statements "‘For what he did to my son, he deserves to be punished,’ Jeremiah's father, Christopher Shahan, said. ‘I’ve already accepted the fact that he’s dead,' the Chicago Tribune reported.  Jeremiah's grandmother, Elizabeth Keller, watched in horror as the dog bit her grandson in the head. She sobbed as she told the Review-Journal that the public legal fight over Onion's fate was putting even more strain on the family.  'I don't care if they save the dog or not. We need to get past this,' she said.

Here are some thoughts on the transfer of a dog that has undeniably killed a toddler.  Has the Lexus Project given the placement of this dog more thought than they did with Bones, the dog too dangerous to remain in New York City?  The Lexus Project sent Bones to a supposed sanctuary for dangerous dogs in Toledo Ohio called North West Ohio Underdog without knowing anything about the organization or the facility. This did not turn out well, the "sanctuary" was a garage behind a tiny house in a tiny yard in a densely populated neighborhood.  The garage already housed 15 to 16 other dangerous dogs.  For more on the Bones disaster please click here, and here,  and here , and here, and here,  and here, and here, and here, and here, and finally here.

This beautiful child was Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan, the dog is Onion.   It is to be hoped that the Lexus Project has done a better job here than they did with Bones.  The Lexus Project is once again responsible.    

Callous killers

Details released today from Brande Coy's arrest warrant portray her as the most callous dog caretaker since Marjorie Knoller.

The documents also confirm a rumor that fatal mauler Patrone was from the same litter as the bull mastiff/pit bull mix that killed five year old Ayden Evans in Jessieville Arkansas in June of 2013. Pit bull advocacy denies any genetic propensity for violence in the breed but seems unlikely that two dogs out of a litter of nine would be trained to kill a child and an elderly women in a six month time span.

Emily Coy, owner of Patrone, admitted during questioning that Patrone would "bite out of fear." A Hot Springs Village police officer made a statement that when he worked with Emily Coy at an area business she came to work with bandages on an arm and a leg, she stated that Patrone had bitten her. The investigation revealed that Patrone had bitten Emily Coy twice. The investigation also revealed that Patrone had bitten the face of Brande Coy's sister in the months prior to the fatal attack on Mrs Kappan.

Hot Springs Village police received a statement from a woman who stated that she lived near Emily Coy when Emily lived in Jessieville and was a regular caretaker for Patrone. She said that she was bitten in the face by the dog in July of 2012. Per her statement Emily Coy witnessed the bite, helped stop the bleeding but refused to pay for medical care.

Please keep these statements in mind and watch the video provided by THV11. Patrone had long history of biting, was a litter mate brother of the dog that killed a five year old child just months earlier and Brande Coy just opened the door to let him run with absolutely no thought to the danger to her neighbors. A fatal mistake.

Per THV11 "The following information was obtained from the Saline County Arrest Warrants for Brande and Emily Coy:

- At about 7 a.m. on November 21, 2013, Brande Coy released two unleashed dogs into an unsecured yard on Ornado Lane in Hot Springs Village. The dogs were a rat terrier and a bull mastiff/pit bull mix. The bull mastiff/pit bull, named Patrone, belonged to Brande's daughter, Emily, who was not home at the time.
- Brande told officers that after she let them outside, she went back inside the home, and after some time, heard someone screaming outside. Once she went outside to investigate, she saw Patrone biting a woman in the road in front of the house. Brande tried to stop the attack and was bitten herself. She said it took her about 30 minutes to gain control of Patrone. She then went inside and, at 7:38 a.m., called 911 to report the incident.
- Brande remained in the home - washing her face, hair, and changing clothes - until emergency personnel responded on scene about 16 minutes later.
- The victim, identified as Joan Kappen, was found in a ditch and taken to Mercy Hospital with severe injuries to her legs, hands, arms, and face. She was pronounced dead at the hospital at 9:33 a.m."

Joan and Hans Kappen

Brande Coy washed her face, hair, and changed her clothes while Joan Kappen lay dying in a ditch. Callous? Yes!
For more information please click here.

1/6/2014
Update

The mother / daughter team of Brande and Emily Coy were booked into the Saline County Detention Center today.  Below are their mug shots.

 

This is Brande Coy"s new image, unattractive isn't it?



This woman's trial will be a circus.  It will be difficult for a defense lawyer to put a good slant on this.

For the actual arrest warrant please click here.  VERY interesting reading.

The charge is manslaughter. Orange is the new black.

.  

Manslaughter, unlawful dog attack, and harboring a vicious animal charges were filed against Brande Coy for the attack that resulted in the death of 75 year old Hot Springs Village resident Joan Kappen in November of 2013.

Manslaughter is a class "C" felony and punishable by up to 10 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.  Brande Coy is the mother of dog owner Emily Ann Coy.  Brande Coy was harboring Emily's dog at the time of the attack upon Mrs. Kappan.

Dog owner Emily Coy was charged with one count of harboring a vicious animal in violation of a county ordinance.





Emily Coy and Patrone

For more information on this attack please click here.