OH firefighter gets jail; accused of killing dogs to avoid boarding them while on vacationhttp://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/pets/49088636.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUeDa_:DCiUiacyKUUr

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A judge has given a 90-day jail sentence to an Ohio firefighter accused of killing his dogs to avoid boarding them while he went on vacation.

Forty-three-year-old David Santuomo of Columbus pleaded guilty Wednesday to two counts of animal cruelty and one count of possession of a criminal tool — a homemade silencer he used on the end of a rifle.

Assistant Franklin County Prosecutor Heather Robinson says Santuomo shot his two mixed-breed dogs Sloopy and Skeeter on Dec. 3 after tying them to a pipe in his basement. She says he dumped the remains in a trash bin behind his firehouse.

Prosecutors have said he bragged about the killings to colleagues.

Defense attorney Sam Shamansky calls the crime an isolated event "totally out of character" for his client.

___

Information from: The Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com

While I think the firefighter was a heartless jerk, I see no crime there. If he had brought the dogs to the veterinarian and paid for it, he could have had them killed with sodium pentothal and no one would have blinked an eye.

Back during the coverage of Hurricane Katrina, I got some very unpleasant comments after I observed that the dog owners who had to be evacuated had an obligation to put their dogs down, rather than to leave them behind.

Should be no crime. and maybe "discharge of a firearm in city limits" or some such are certainly crimes that would seem applicable. I am one who rarely fails to pick up the banner for decriminalizing silencers/suppressors, but it is hard to deny that federal law is currently on the books. I don't see it as cruelty if he was careful and made an effort to get a brain stem shot. . . but then there are some sick and twisted individuals who might "play" a bit with new toy like a suppressor & that would make me very, very Angry

It is very likely a crime in Ohio to dispose of animal carcasses in the trash. When my cat died last week I called the city about the regulations on what to do with the body the first thing they told me was "DO NOT put the body in the garbage". Apparently this is a state law:



And, as Macx mentioned, there is the homemade silencer and discharge within city limits.

AND

Somehow I imagine myself being somewhat despondent about having to put down my pet, but hey thats just me.

He's an insensitive prick. I hate people like that.

Doesn't anybody think that there might be something very emotionally wrong with this guy? All the dogs I've had have been like members of the family...why the hell would I shoot them?

If there's not a law, there should be. If you take on the responsibility for a creature, you care for it.

-Mark

I agree with Mark. We have had several dogs over the years and all of them were more than just pets. My kids grew up with some of them and they were truly, "Part of the Family". I can see having them "Put Down" but not just killed for the sake of it. Very sick individual

Seems to me he's just a guy who can't tell being tough from being a dick. He probably thought killing dogs would be a manly thing to do.

Some other news stories are saying the dogs were sick from ingesting antifreeze before he killed them. Toxicology tests are pending.

The guy is a jerk, and a ass, and a whatever you want to put here, but are more laws and more government really the answer. I do not understand the folks who say there should a law and then also try to champion freedom and liberty. You cannot have it both ways IMO. YMMV.

I've got no problem with a law saying that I need to treat animals under my care humanely. That in no way infringes on my rights. Then again, I don't consider a pet to be mere property (not saying you do, mind you, but there are those who think that way).

I'm not out for anarchy. I'm out for less laws that cut down on my rights.

-Mark

Who gets to define "humanely"? PITA, Obama, Micheal Vick? I am not trying to attack your position, I am trying to challenge it to make you think about it though.

No offense taken, and I'm an animal lover, so I'm going to come down solidly on one side on this one.

I'm leaving Obama out of it. He's got nothing to do with it other than being the current executive.

I don't see how anybody can consider what this guy did to be the least bit socially acceptable, or moral, or ethical, or anything else.

How about "any animal registered as a pet within the city (e.g. dog license)" for a definition of what is covered. Make it a city-level ordinance, that leaves the farm folks out of things. How hard would it be to state that unwanted pets under the above definition would need to be taken to a shelter? Shit, with the cost of ammo the gas to drive them there is probably cheaper. Not saying the animals might not be euthanized, but at least this way it's done in a humane manner (under a definition I think we can agree on).

-Mark