Intent of dog fighting & equipment used for dog fighting?

[SDJ2010]

I don't know about all you, but as I pointed out in the most recent issue of the SDJ - I don't really understand the term “intent of dog fighting”. I mean the prosecutors must prove that the owner intentionally trained and kept a dog with the intent of entering it into dog fights! Right? So, let's make this clear! What constitutes intent? There is no definition of what constitutes intent. How do you prove intent?

Here is another interesting story: Willie Coleman was arrested and charged with 17 counts of animal fighting and one count of possessing equipment used for animal fighting. Equipment used for animal fighting? What exactly is equipment used for animal fighting? A treadmill for example? It is illegal to own a treadmill? It is illegal to use a treadmill? Oh, c'mon! In fact, possessing ANY KIND of equipment does not mean that someone has the intent to train a dog to fight or that the equipment is used in the furtherance of dog fighting. Because someone has a treadmill, does this mean they have the intent to fight a dog? Bullshit! Dog trainers of ALL BREEDS use treadmills to exercise their dogs and in no way indicates training of fighting dogs.

What is your take on this?

Yours Truly,
LC

[Officially Retired]

I was a Litigation Specialist for 12 years, and basically having "intent" laws punishes a man for his thoughts (and/or people's assumptions as to what his thoughts might be) ... which, to me, is a crime unto itself. Depending on the evidence involved, however, proving "intent" is often very hard to do in a court of law "beyond a reasonable doubt." It really all depends on the amount (and kind) of evidence.

Regarding the validity of intent laws, I can understand having them for an "intent to commit murder" case, for example, because the consequences are so dire--but even here the burden of proof of intent to commit murder is huge, with not much room for "reasonable doubt," that there simply has to be hard evidence in order for it to stick.

To show what I am talking about, say for example you get arrested for attempting to kill your wife ... and they find a book hidden under your mattress entitled "How to Kill Your Spouse." (Now they have evidence.) And suppose they discover you have made repeated inquiries on the "limits" of her insurance policy ... now they have motive. And suppose they further find a small vial of arsenic stashed away inside your wall ... still more evidence ... and if they put all of this together with the fact your wife is green & half-dead with her hair falling out ... and tests come back to show that she has severe arsenic poisoning ... I am pretty sure you would be charged and convicted of "Attempted Murder." If, however, your wife was perfectly fine and hadn't been poisoned at that point ... but all of the other elements were in place ... the jury would have a much tougher time convicting you.

Therefore, if we apply these same principles to a dogfight busts, and some guy has a bunch of conditioning equipment, he's got a room full of dogfighting mags and books, he's got cabinets full of medicine ... and if you add to these facts the additional fact that he's got a yardful of chopped-up dogs ... the chances are very high that such a guy is going to get charged and convicted for dogfighting.

If, however, the guy has a yardful of dogs without a mark on them ... or (if they're marked) he's got photo-after-photo of him hog hunting out in the woods (a legal explanation for all of the cut marks) ... then the odds are very slim that there is enough concrete evidence to have anything stick. Typically, you have to have the concrete evidence (the injuries) to make things stick.

That is just the way things work.

Jack

[sinister]

post the link to the story.

[SDJ2010]

Thanks Jack!

[Nash]

your wife is green & half-dead with her hair falling out ...

[Officially Retired]