RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Jury acquits police officer who killed dog



Toolbox

By JOHN CURRAN The Associated Press - Published: November 19, 2009

HYDE PARK — A Vermont jury has acquitted a police officer charged with animal cruelty for fatally shooting a neighbor's dog.

The jury in Vermont District Court in Hyde Park began deliberating Tuesday afternoon after Michael Wootton described the April 30 dog fight that preceded the shooting.

Five hours later, the jury returned acquitted Wootton.

Earlier, Wootton testified that he shot the dog to save the life of his own dog.

Taking the stand in his own defense, Wootton said he believed his 15-pound pug, Yoda, would've been killed by the other dog, an 80-pound pit bull mix named Hooch.

He said he saw his dog in Hooch's mouth and decided to shoot him, believing nothing else would separate them.

"My dog was dying. My dog was dying," he told prosecutor Joel Page.

Wootton said he went into his house and got a .45 caliber pistol — not his service weapon — and fired one shot at Hooch, killing him. He then called Vermont State Police and told them what he'd done, saying he believed the dog's owners would be upset when they got home and found out.

Page suggested that with his law enforcement training, Wootton might have shot to wound the animal instead of shooting to kill, but Wootton said he was taught to aim for the largest part of a subject's body. "The fear of losing my dog, of Yoda dying, is what drove me to pull the trigger," he said.

Wootton was put on administrative duties by the Essex Police Department while the charge was pending.

If he were convicted, he could have received one year in prison, a $2,000 fine or both.








READER COMMENTS


I think that there is something essential missing regarding this verdict... the prosecutor. The only reason this off-duty police officer was charged with "animal cruelty" at all was the public outcry immediately following the shooting. The prosecutor went through the motions to placate the public but it's obvious he never intended to put forth a case intending to get a conviction.
If it had been the other way around, the person would have had all kinds of charges including reckless endangerment, "The State" would likely have spent months preparing the case, have all kinds of expert witnesses, Pug specialists, animal medical professionals testify regarding the wounds to the pug, psychiatrists, behaviorists, criminal profilers, charts, diagrams, DNA, etc., ad nauseum. The trial would have gone on for days. There would be a conviction.
Because the person was also a police officer none of this was done.
Here's a thought; When someone is convicted of a crime and they can prove to a court judge that their attorney did a crappy job, the court can determine that the person received "ineffective assistance of counsel" and receive a new trial. "The People", you and me and especially the victims in this case should be able to appeal this verdict with the same pleadings to a Superior Court or to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The question follows that while although that sounds right and appropriate, who will, or at least should pursue the case for "The People" if the one person who is supposed to represent "The People" failed to do so? The Attorney General?
Sadly I don't see that happening. It's all hypocritical double standards.
-- Posted by steve Nunya on Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 9:04 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout