Thursday, January 28, 2016

Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

In an animal rights controlled America, animals have more rights than you do. In an animal rights America, you can murder all the babies you want on the taxpayer dime, but killing a stray dog that was threatening your life and that of your child is a felony punishable by immediate jail time. Is that justice? Does that punishment fit the crime? 

The Commonwealth of Virginia in particular is dominated and controlled by the animal rights terrorist front. Their headquarters is the rural county of Fauquier. In my recently released book, F'cker County:  The Peyton Place of the Piedmont
, I document in at least four chapters the animal rights domination and control of the citizens by uber-extremist Hilleary Bogley and the suffering she has caused to numerous victims. 

In Bogley's own ba
ckyard last winter a hunter, Howard Van Nostrand, defended himself by killing a stray dog he felt was a menace to himself and his 10 year old son. He has sworn that he was afraid for his life and that the dog was approaching him and his son with its hackles raised and its ears pinned back in an aggressive stance. He has sworn that he thought it was a stray and had seen it in the area all morning with another dog chasing wildlife before it came at him. 

Once he shot and killed the stray dog, he found it was wearing a tag, meaning it was someone's dog and not just a stray. Van Nostrand immediately called 911 and reported what he had done. From the very beginning Van Nostrand took responsibility for his actions with local authorities and in the media. In his own defense, he claimed he was in fear of his life and that he shot the dog in self defense.   Never at any time has he attempted to evade justice for his actions.

Yet a 
crime of this nature can't go unpunished in the hell hole known as Fauquier County. Locals were determined to destroy the life of this highly respected Doctor and now they have succeeded. Testifying against Dr. Van Nostrand were so-called text messages that a James Pinsky claimed he received from Van Nostrand about murdering the dog. It sounds bad, but the average person on the street wouldn't know that James Pinsky is an apologist for the animal rights front in Fauquier. He was sued back in 2013 by dog breeder Irina Barrett for his biased and highly inflammatory reporting that destroyed her life. James Pinsky is not a credible witness in any animal case. 

After a public lynching, 
Van Nostrand was convicted of two felonies for cruelty to animals and destruction of property. 

If this dog was so irreplaceable, they why did the LeValleys allow this dog to roam at will on other people's properties? Why doesn't LeValley bear any responsibility for the fact that his dog was out chasing deer through other people's property for hours? For the fact that LeValley made no effort to ensure that his dogs were contained and remained on his property? The media reported that LeValley said he went looking for both his dogs who were both missing and looked in his horse barn to see if they were there. LeValley truly had no idea where his dogs were, and showed little care that these highly trained "
protection" dogs were roaming the neighborhood potentially menacing anyone.  And if they were truly so highly trained, why were they roaming the neighborhood at will?  That tells me there was something wrong with their training. 

 Part of the training for personal protection dogs is to make sure that they "get the bite at any cost, on any level." These dogs are trained to scale ladders, to climb any obstacle to get the bite they are trained to do. Personal protection dogs are trained to protect people, cars, and property.  Was this dog acting in regards to its training to attack Van Nostrand in his tree stand?  The dog doesn't know where its owners property ends and another begins.  We weren't there and so we don't know.  But the fact that this dog was professionally trained as a protection dog does have bearing on this case.   These dogs are trained to bite and hold no matter what the circumstances.  

Is it possible that this man was in fear of his life from a stray 
dog and acted justifiably? Does it matter that this dog was professionally trained? Does that count in downgrading these charges to misdemeanors vs. felonies? Van Nostrand has taken responsibility for his actions from the very beginning but Fauquier wasn't going to allow that to stand. Van Nostrand tried to plead guilty but Fauquier wasn't going to allow him to get away without having the public spectacle of a public trial and lynch mob. If they could have gotten away with a public hanging at high noon in the local square, I'm sure they would have tried. 

A personal protection dog in action. 

Local experts have told me that Applejack has a bad reputation as producing dogs are a uncontrolled menace that don't hold to their training. T
he dogs are alphas who come back to their owners with very limited bonding. Hollering at a personal protection dog will make the dog go on the defensive and make it react worse, not better.  These experts say they are like police dogs, they will get the bite at any cost, at any part of the body. 

The animal rights front has smeared the reputation of Dr. Van Nostrand and filed the internet with claims that he was angry that this stray dog was ruining his morning hunt and that he killed the dog on purpose.  They want you to think that this was some fluffy little family pet instead of a dog trained to take you down.  Yet, in Virginia, it is perfectly legal to kill any stray dog that is menacing any livestock in any rural area, just as this stray dog was menacing Dr. Van Nostrand and his son. This dog is not Fluffy, a beloved family pet.  This dog was a menace.  

In order to shift blame, the dogs owners created a Facebook page for their dead dog to make Dr. Van Nostrand look more guilty than he is and to white wash themselves. They are even selling t-shirts for their dead dog to benefit local animal rights groups.   Since when does a dead dog equal fame and fortune for the owners?   What truly grieving owner would be selling t-shirts?  

Is it credible that the sole witness in this case, James Pinsky, has a reputation of selling people out to
 the animal rights front and has been sued, making his testimony biased and potentially not truthful? Does it count that Judge Whisenant also dances to the animal rights terrorists tune giving him a bias in his rulings? 

The facts of the case are
, you have one dog that is dead and one family whose lives are ruined forever by a felony conviction. The question is, does the punishment fit the crime? What would you do if an out of control professionally trained "protection dog" was menacing you and your child? 

Was this "crime" worth two felonies? Or are there mitigating circumstances that make it realistic to say that a misdemeanor conviction was more appropriate?  Or no charges at all? 
Why wasn't the dog's owner charged for his dogs running loose? 

In the end you have:

1 dead dog.

1 man who will never work again in his life. He has lost all of his occupational licensing and as a convicted felon, he'll never get a job... He'll be lucky if he can even flip fries for a living now.

1 man now struggling to support his family, wife and children under the burden of a felony conviction.

1 man who will never legally vote again.

1 man who will never be able to hunt again.

1 man who will never be able to exercise his 2nd amendment rights ever again.

What is the justifiable sentence for killing a stray dog? What if this was a pit bull who was menacing your child?   Why was this Doctor sentenced to two felonies?  Because its Fauquier County.  The most corrupt, out of control county in Virginia. 
The biggest menace to Virginia.  And the biggest menace as it turns out to Dr. Van Nostrand.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.