Dog killer deserved prosecution
One of our residents, who was unable to get results from the borough and the police department about his rabbits being disturbed by stray dogs, resorted to vigilante tactics, took the law in his own hands, and with malice and cruelty, maimed one dog and killed another with a lethal bow and arrow, not to mention what he may have done with two or more other dogs that went missing.
If little boys and girls bother his rabbits, will he shoot them with a lethal instrument or just make them disappear? All across America, animal activist groups are getting serious about this issue. I have received stickers in the mail that say, “Abuse an animal: Go to jail.” But not here, it would seem. And why is that? According to your July 25 article “Police let dog killer off hook,” magistrate John Hutchins decided police had probable cause. So the department got the go-ahead on this but, and here’s the rub, and I again quote your article: “Assistant district attorney Amy Williams declined to file state charges in early June, alluding to deficiencies in the investigation.” I think that the real cause for dropping the ball is that the police department does not want to face the fact that it simply did not do its job. We wouldn’t let a sex offender live here without close scrutiny, so why do we allow an animal abuser to just store up more arrows for whomever or whatever his next victims may be?