The way Lafayette County, Miss. authorities saw it, Oxford animal rescuer Stephanie Mitchell was in violation of a state law making it a felony to take or carry away another person’s dog. Mitchell says the dog was a stray and that she had put the dog’s picture on Facebook trying to identify its owner. [WMC]
10 Comments
In other words, Stephanie Mitchell was competing with government services — can’t have the dog catcher unemployed, right?
Dog-snatching, a felony?
So much for the “serious crimes” label.
[…] Read it. […]
In this case, it seems to have nothing to do with competition with government. She had an argument with the owner, who maliciously pressed charges. I don’t know if a counter charge of malicious prosecution would stand.
The real surprise is that the cops didn’t shoot the dog when they arrested Mitchell.
This is a little complicated. The people with the lost dog called the police and claimed this woman “stole” it, and the woman did have possession of the dog. At some point, it’s not for the Police to sort things out.
But surely the Police could have given one of those “appearance tickets,” or some other tool short of an arrest and taking into custody.
There’s an interesting comment in the comments section which could add an extra wrinkle if it is true, is that allegedly, the the dog’s owner is a police officer.
@Jamie R: “The real surprise is that the cops didn’t shoot the dog when they arrested Mitchell.”
Shoot a hound, named Elvis, in Mississippi?
Damn Yankee!
Actually, Robert, it is more complicated yet. According to reports I’ve heard (I am in the same town), the dog owner is a deputy sheriff. He had posted himself on Facebook that the dog was missing. When the woman called him to attempt to return it, he went off on her, and she said she was going to leave it at a Vets. He then swore out a complaint at the office where he worked.
This one will, I think, get calmed down, but the charges should not have been brought.
Actually the dog owners did not comment so all the details were not told. Therefore as I see it, there are 2 sides to every story and should both be heard before passing judgement. I personally know the “rest of the story” and it was indeed justified as to why the deputy had the same rights as everyone else to use the law to obtain his dog back. When all details are released, I do believe people may change their thinking of how “good” this good samaritan really is.