Saturday, October 18, 2008
UPDATE 10/18/08: The reporter that broke the original story about the $8,000 boarding fee, Bob Gardinier, has posted a follow up. Jacquelyn Boudreau, who suffered 3,000 stitches after a vicious rottweiler attacked her, now fears that someone else will be hurt after Judge Robert Jacon ordered the dog released back to its owner.
"Jacon, in his written decision, said state Agriculture and Markets Law was clear that the lower court should have examined whether or not the dog was provoked in some way. Without testimony regarding that issue, Jacon ruled that under the law the dog could not be deemed dangerous."Due to her injuries, Jacquelyn was unable to provide testimony at that time. She was later deposed in the civil matter. She said she and her cousin were outside walking and Max was following them when he started to nibble at the girl's ankles. She tried to move away but slipped and fell on the icy driveway. That's when she said the dog jumped on her and attacked.
Henry Bauer, the attorney handling the matter for the town, said officials are considering their options in the case. The Boudreau family is pushing for the town to hold another hearing.
10/16/08: Dog Returned to Owner
North Greenbush, NY - Last week, we reported a story about a rottweiler that accumulated an $8,000 boarding cost -- over the course of a year and at a cost to taxpayers -- while the dog's owner fought to keep the animal from being declared dangerous. It was announced today that a county judge ordered the town of North Greenbush to release the dog back to its owner, Steven Agar, citing lack of proof it's dangerous.
"On Dec. 7, 2007, Jacquelyn Boudreau, 11, of Sand Lake was visiting the North Greenbush home of Agar, her uncle. While walking outside, the Rottweiler, attacked her, ripping off a large section of the front of her scalp and part of an ear. The girl required 2,700 internal stitches and 300 external stitches to close her head wounds and almost lost her ear, her mother, Laura Boudreau, has said."Back in January, the town had ruled the dog "dangerous" and ordered the animal destroyed. But, today a judge ruled that the town failed to substantiate the dangerous dog label because no testimony was taken from the young girl and her cousin, who were alone with the dog before the attack. In other words, the judge ruled in favor of the assumption that the children provoked the attack.
This judge needs to step down.Related articles:
10/04/08: Law Keeps Vicious Dog in Boarding at $8,000 Cost to Tax Payers
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 10/16/2008 6:44 PM |
From the other story, the county judge that set this dangerous dog free to attack or kill again is County Judge Robert Jacon
There needs to be a complaint and an investigation
This judge is a danger to the community.
| 10/17/2008 2:55 AM |
For some reason Judges in the Northeast seem to be reluctant to order dangerous dogs to be put down. There have been numerous incidents of Judges making the cowardly decision of ordering the dog out of town instead of doing the responsible thing.
| 10/17/2008 4:29 AM |
The East seems to be steeped in "property rights" laws... and other things of this nature. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is either. But clearly, there is something WRONG.
| 10/17/2008 2:01 PM |
From the original writer (of the first article). DBO pegged it, the judge ruled that this kids "must" have provoked the dog into attacking and causing the need for 3000 stitches! UNREAL!
"The two girls, who were present when the attack occurred, were not called as witnesses," Jacon wrote in his ruling. "Without any testimony to explain the dog's conduct in the moments leading up to the attack, the court is unable to determine whether the dog's conduct was unjustified. Such a determination cannot be made based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing."
| 10/17/2008 5:08 PM |
This judge has been already made a fool of
From the above article "She says in the course of answering claims she makes in a civil lawsuit against her brother, Stephen Agar, he argues the girl should have known better than to go near the dog because the dog is vicious."
The owner ADMITS that the dog is vicious.
So this manipulated judge just sent a vicious dog out to maim or kill again.
This judge needs to removed. He is a danger to the public.
This judge seems to be confused about the difference between people and dogs. There is no justification for any dog to do this.
Since this Jacon is elected, it does make one wonder what his affiliations are with any special interest groups.
| 10/19/2008 1:03 AM |
It is so clear that this judge has been given large political donations by "responsible" dog groups. If I were Henry Bauer, I would be checking into any city or state group titled "Responsible Dog Owners of..." and find out their activity with Jacon.