[Masthead] Fair ~ 79°F  
High: 79°F ~ Low: 50°F
Sunday, Oct. 23, 2016

Malta Bend man accused of beating dog to death

Monday, August 25, 2008

Christopher L. Stover, 32, of Malta Bend, was arrested late Saturday afternoon, Aug. 23, for the class A misdemeanor of animal abuse.

Stover was charged with killing a three-month-old Labrador puppy belonging to the family of Douglas A. Greathouse of Slater by striking it several times with a hammer and a wooden board, then running it over several times with a pickup truck and finally discarding the still-living puppy in a culvert along County Road 128.

Stover was released on bond Monday, Aug. 25. A hearing on the charges against him will be held Wednesday, Sept. 3, in Division 6 courtroom.

If convicted, Stover could face up to a year in jail and fine of up to $1,000.

Contact Kathy Fairchild at marshallhealth@socket.net

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshallnews.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

To the Greathouse family-- Doug, I have known your mom a long time and I can only imagine how your animal loving family has been traumatized by this incident. I am sickened by this article, and although I hope this man gets the toughest penilty he can get, I am afraid in Saline county he will not. There are more people in our court system in Marshall who would rather find some reason to blame you for neglect of the puppy, than Stover of killing it. From personal experience, I know that the sheriff's deputies and judge Bellamy really do not side with the dog owner!!! Get PETA involved--hopefully they will "STORM" Marshall court house on Sept 3rd. What a sick, sick man and God will be the final JUDGE of his actions. I am very sorry for the loss of your puppy. "The more people I meet--the more I love my dogs!!"

-- Posted by nevergiveup on Thu, Sep 4, 2008, at 9:01 PM


Ok, this isn't school; therefore, you do not need to give any of us the definition of "integrity." What you said about how some of the previous people who have commented on this story said he should "rot" or "the book should be thrown at him," etc., didn't even make sense. Ok...so this guy beats and tortures this poor, defenseless PUPPY. That's what the article is about, correct? This guy IS in trouble because he did this, correct? OK THEN! So you tell me WHY he shouldn't "rot" or WHY the "book shouldn't be thrown at him." You stated, "infact he did commit this crime." Well if he committed this crime and did what this article says he did to this animal, what other "facts" do you need? He did what he did and we all know that but you still need some "facts." What do you need to know? Do you need to know how hard the dog was beat? How many times this puppy was run over? Do you need to know the times? I mean, c'mon! What WE ALL KNOW is what is stated in the article and, in my opinion, that IS enough to let this disgusting man "rot" and to have "the book thrown at him."

Please don't think you need to give us anymore definitions either, because we could all care less. I think it was probably in the second or third grade when we learned what words like, and including, integrity are. It's usually the people who go slamming a word like that in peoples' faces that usually don't have it.

-- Posted by alisteer_xoxo on Thu, Sep 4, 2008, at 8:57 PM

With all due respect Two Sides, I saw what your intention was from the get-go. So, just as yourself, I have my opinion about what you stated, that's all. No feather's are "ruffled" here. What DOES ruffle my feathers, are people like this person who "allegedly" did this. It takes more than a stranger blogging/commenting about mt word choices and getting definitions of my words to upset me. All that shows me is that one knows how to go to resources and look up the meaning of words. , which isn't what this is about( although i wish it was). I simply don't think this particular topic should be the platform in which to express how we don't have all the facts, etc. Perhaps, because it's such an abusive allegation and people do get sensitive about these type of situations. Maybe a person who "alledgedly" broke into a car and no person or animal was hurt...would be a better platform to make the point of how "we should get the facts, etc." That's what i'm suggesting. This topic stirs up emotion in normal human beings. So, technically, every word you have said, in my opinion, is true. All, i'm seeing emphasized, is how people have the right to due process, etc. Morally..it's no different than listening to these high-profile people's lawyers defend the "process"...such as OJ Simpson, Michael Vick, just to name a few

and it gets old hearing how we need to hear the facts. I don't need to hear the facts from anyone's atty., advocate, or their own mouth, and I'm not ashamed to say, I have made my mind up about this individual's alleged actions. Right or wrong, good or bad...I have. We, as people, need to be the voice for animals, and children who see or experience abuse of any kind happen. Maybe he will get a good atty. who can put their "spin" on their version of the facts. I guess if people can get away with murder, then i'm sure an animal killer can too. Ahhh...those "facts".

-- Posted by bsc1223 on Wed, Sep 3, 2008, at 10:02 AM

Now, Now.....I think you have allowed yourself to jump to conclusions regarding my thoughts on the matter, and the intentions behind my post. After reading your statements about me, I thought you must have typed the sentence regarding my LACK OF INTEGRITY in error. By definition, Integrity is firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic. Other descriptions of the word being- an unimpaired condition and the quality or state of being complete or undivided.

Now, it would stand to reason that if I had a LACK of Integrity I would not adhere to any morals, I would be impaired and I would be incomplete and divided. With all do respect, I don't see how you can make that kind judgement about me knowing absolutely nothing about me...soley based on the post that I made earlier.

I was not defending this person, or his actions or stating that it should be okay in anyway regardless of the circumstances. I was simply stating that in my opinion I don't know enough about the situation to state in print that this person should ROT, as the previous posters had. Not saying that I didn't think he should be punished in any way, if infact he did commit this crime. If he did harm an animal in this way he should definately be punished. It simply fascinates my how people can already be determining that he needs to be beat to death with a hammer, rot, have the book thrown at him and so on when he hasn't even appeared in court and we don't really know many facts.

Nothing stated in my post was untrue, lacking integrity, abuse of an opportunity to push my point or any of your silly accusations. Don't get your feathers ruffled because I have an opinion that differs from yours and don't pass judgement upon me for wanting to know the rest of the story before I say that I think someone should ROT.

Not that I care what some print on a newspaper blog says about me, but, your judgement is incorrect and unjustified. I'll stand before my judge when I am called from this world and rest comfortably knowing that everyone else will do the same.

-- Posted by two sides on Tue, Sep 2, 2008, at 1:20 PM

TO: TWO SIDES: Plain and simple: I don't care if this individual had every reason one could think of to kill this puppy...I DID say "puppy". Nor, do I care if people stood around and "just watched"...or if the news media is getting attention for this. NO PERSON, for ANY reason, has the right to kill an animal in such a way. The method allegedly used was torture. People who kill in such sickening steps as were taken, definately is sick. Now, just because you CAN say something...doesn't always mean you, SHOULD. So, it shows your lack of integrity to choose THIS particular incident to make your point of..how this hasn't been proven, how people haven't gotten the "whole story", etc. I realize we all have the right to a defense, etc. You simply trying to drive your point home using this subject as your platform, is pathetic.

-- Posted by bsc1223 on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 5:26 PM

Good2begranny: I agree 100%. The laws in this country vary state by state. Even IF a judge wants to set punishment to a degree this man truly deserves, he/she can only do what the law provides. What we, as normal people must do, and it takes effort for a long time...is talk with your state legislature...etc., and get the law changed that animal cruelty should be a FELONY. Many people who believe this act is heinous, still won't take the extra steps necessary to change the law. Most people look at a person who takes such steps to help, as.."radical, fanatics, etc.". It's being a part of the problem to sit around and talk about how awful it is, but yet do nothing to change the laws. "We, the people"...do have a voice and must exercise it. What kind of citizens are we who see our own families are in the military and do what needs to be done, but we, as civilians, cannot email or send a letter to our state for harsher penalties for things as this? As I posted previously...report this to PETA.ORG

My first post on this issue was deleated, so everyone, be careful what you say. This is, indeed, an emotional subject. I feel sorry for the children that witnessed this as well. But, good for you, granny!! I appreciate your comment and hope you, too... will go to your state legislature and to the PETA site. I don't live in MO, but I did report this to them.

-- Posted by bsc1223 on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM

I don't know if any one noticed "in bloom's" entry showing the animal abuse penalties, but I hope someone can get it to the courthouse and to the prosecutor and bring it to his attention!!! Why is he being charged only with a class A misdemeanor?? If that poor puppy wasn't being tortured and mutilated while he was still alive. and the man was defiantly WELL aware of what he was doing, then this should be a CLASS D FELONY!!! I say, throw the book at him, or even the hammer, that's even better!!

-- Posted by good2bgranny on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 3:39 PM

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."

~Cardinal Roger Mahony

-- Posted by bsc1223 on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 9:57 AM

report this to peta.org, these people will fight for justice for this poor animal.

-- Posted by bsc1223 on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 9:47 AM

Nineteen nighty-eight had also been a year for notorious crimes committed by young people with prior histories of animal abuse, and 2001 had its own atrocities of violence. The body counts for the seven months from October of 1997 to May of 1998 were twelve dead and forty-four wounded in four schools in Springfield, Oregon; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Pearl, Mississippi, and West Paducah, Kentucky.

Prior to these school shootings:

Kip Kinkel decapitated cats, dissected live squirrels and blew up cows

Andrew Golden shot dogs before he turned his guns on his classmates

Luke Woodham beat and burned his own dog, Sparkle, describing his dog's painful and tortured death as a "thing of true beauty"

Michael Carneal threw a cat into a bonfire

It isn't just youthful offenders who move from animal abuse to violence toward humans. Russell Weston Jr., the man who is awaiting trial for shooting two Capitol Hill police officers, shot his father's cats before his assault on the Capitol.

Animal abuse doesn't occur in isolation; rather, it takes place in a complex net of disturbed family relations. For example, animal abuse is frequently found in families where there also is child abuse and domestic violence. Children in these disturbed families who witness the abuse of family companion animals are more likely to abuse animals; in addition, children who commit animal cruelty are more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults.

We also see a close link between domestic violence and animal abuse. In one national survey of women seeking shelter from domestic violence in safe houses, 83% of women with companion animals reported that their batterers had also hurt or threatened the family pet.

-- Posted by bsc1223 on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 9:38 AM

Most of those who complain of censorship on this paper's blogs never bother to explain what was censored, therefore it is extremely difficult to be sympathetic to their outrage.

Even though Mr. Crump on numerous occasions has specifically asked that they rephrase their comment they remain silent. I have yet to see an indication that an idea has been censored, nor an argument for or against any expressed thought.On the other hand I have seen discussions of thoughts and ideas such as atheism that are anathema to many, and there has been nary a hint of censorship.

That leads me to believe that the cries of censorship are merely complaints by the writers of purged comments that they were not allowed to insult others, utilize scatological references and other words generally considered obscene, or threaten others. If the point of such writers is to campaign for total freedom of speech they can do so by stating the case for that.

Please, those of you have complained when your post was removed, review your comment, rephrase it, then resubmit your post. Until you take that constructive approach most of the readers of this newspaper's blogs are not going to offer sympathy to your cause. However, if you are unable to express your idea in any other manner than that which was purged I personally do have sympathy for the struggle it must be for you to live your life limited by such marginal ability to express yourselves.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Sat, Aug 30, 2008, at 2:51 AM

Ok, so he may get a year in jail and a $1000 fine? Someone who has done what this man has done should receive a much harsher punishment than this. My opinion is, is that HE needs to be beat with a hammer and a board, run over and thrown on the side of a highway and see how much he likes that? He is obviously a useless human being and has no purpose in this world if he can do things like this. I wouldn't expect much different from a hick from Malta Bend though (no offense to any reading). He's trash and a year in jail and a possible $1000 fine just isn't enough. He obviously needs to be places into a mental institution if he can do half of what he did to this poor baby animal, get on some serious meds (hopefully overdose), and live with himself without getting out into the real world. I'd love to see this guy so I could bash him with about 20 other people. (I'm sorry I kind of went off but I can't stand animal abusers.)

xx Ali

-- Posted by alisteer_xoxo on Fri, Aug 29, 2008, at 11:35 PM

I think that he should be beat with a board and a hammer for what he did to that puppy! Animal abusers should rot in hell!

-- Posted by BTwilling24 on Thu, Aug 28, 2008, at 8:06 PM

Now being an animal lover all my life and raised on a farm and having dogs most of my life, this guy is lucky it wasn't my dog he did this to. A year and $1,000? That's barely even a slap on the wrist for a senseless inhumane act like this!!! Maybe more like 10 years and $10,000 would be a good start as punishment!!!Plus he should never be alowed to even own any kind of pet or animal or have them anywhere around where his lives when he gets out if he gets out!!!

-- Posted by EagleFire on Thu, Aug 28, 2008, at 8:05 PM

i am a animal lover always have been allways will be ive lost a lot of them to death but not because thay was beat to death what this man done is so very wrong i think it should be a fenloy because in somecases people who cant have children get dog r cats for there kids so if us as humans does that why isnt it a fenoly it is if a child is abuse

-- Posted by angel1968 on Thu, Aug 28, 2008, at 7:52 PM

Mr. Crump,

I keep seeing your posting of this comment,

"The Marshall Democrat-News welcomes views or questions on any issue. We hope you'll express yourself freely and responsibly. We reserve the right to exclude entries that we deem disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable."

Certainly the editor of any publication is the gatekeeper of that publication and as such retains the right to publish or not publish what ever lawful content he or she chooses and for any reason he or she chooses. However, viewing your stated criteria for doing so leaves one with more questions than answers. For example, you say you "...reserve the right to exclude entries that we deem disrespectful...." Well, well, well...isn't that special. The term "disrespect" is defined by Mariam Webster Dictionary as "lack of respect" (primary definition). The Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary gives the same definition. So we see that the word disrepect means lack of respect -- or do we? Does it mean completely void of any respect? Perhaps it means some respect but not full respect and if so, at what point does it go from respect to disrespect? Is there a line at half-full of respect that when crossed becomes disrespect? How much "dis" does one have to have before respect becomes "disrespect," and how do we gage such objectively? I doubt you know the answer to that, and I know I don't know the answer. In fact I don't know of anyone who can accurately answer that question despite the fact that I am quite well educated and associate with some of the best minds in the education business. Looking at some of the other qualifications you give as justification of excercising your duty as gatekeeper, such as "threatening," and "obscene, we stumble upon the same defining problem. Finally, when reading the last phrase of your sentence where you say, "...or in other ways objectionable." we find the root of the quandary we, some of your reader, find ourselves in -- subjectivity.

The criteria you cite for excercising your gatekeeper duties are highly vague at best and appear to be so intentionally. I mean let's face it, it is so subjective that it justifies any reason you may decide is sufficient for allowing some comments but not others even if you have no reason at all. In other words, your criteria are so vague and subjective that if creates opportunity for abuse of the right of gatekeeper. For example, let's pretend for the moment that you were a big fan of the Chicago Cubs baseball team and someone wrote a comment that said, "I don't think the Chicago Cubs should be allowed to play professional baseball because they don't play fair." Well, if you were a diehard Cubs fan, you might be tempted to use your position as editor to simply not publish that comment for no other reason than you as a Cub fan find it objectional. However, you would probably be hardpressed to find anyone who would agree that your personal objections to that person's opinion are justification for using your position as Editor to prevent that opinion from being freely expressed -- except for another diehard Cubs fan.

Perhaps in the end, authority, any authority, is something that should be dispensed with great care. I think perhaps its fair to say that calling it your job, ol' hoss, doesn't make it right. You need more than that to satisfy this reader's curiousity. Hey maybe you should just say, "I disagree with you the reader so I am not publishing your comment." At least that would be to the point and a bit more honest than to give vague and undefinable "reasons" for doing so.

That is my humble opinion -- No disrespect intended Sir!

-- Posted by news across on Thu, Aug 28, 2008, at 5:23 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
We've discussed revising the guidelines to make them more specific. The current guidelines are vague, yes. And judgment is (and will always be) required in decisions about which messages to allow and which to delete. The process is subjective. I don't believe the current guidelines imply otherwise.

We reserve the right to exclude entires that "we deem" disrespectful, etc.

I can -- and do -- claim that my personal agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Certainly I disagree with much of what's posted here. I've deleted comments I agree with and allowed comments I think are completely wrong because my agreement or disagreement isn't a criterion of our guidelines. But you might not take me at my word (I don't expect you to).

Perhaps you could tell me some examples of messages you suspect have been deleted because of my bias. I would be glad to respond to specific cases. So far, I've only seen an accusation without any specific case that might have generated it.

What did I delete that you think I deleted because I disagreed with it and what led you to believe I disagreed with it?

I also do not assume that my judgment is always correct. There's no science to this. On occasion people have challenged my decisions and I've reversed them. On other occasions I've stuck with the original decision.

I do have the authority to make those decisions and I use care in exercising it.

To those of you who may be planning to be present for the hearing at 9 a.m., Wednesday, Sept. 3: Please note that this is only a hearing, not a trial. In addition, there are more than 40 other cases scheduled at this same time in the Division 6 courtroom.

This information is not meant to discourage anyone from attending - just letting you know what to expect if you haven't attended court in the past.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Aug 27, 2008, at 6:23 PM

It seems to me that the editor is censoring opinions that aren't the same as theirs. I could understand deleting a comment that has foul language or really offensive content. I really don't think that a comment should be deleted just because the person in charge of the delete button doesn't agree with the comment. This is supposed to be America with every person having the right to their opinion.

-- Posted by troygilpin on Wed, Aug 27, 2008, at 5:34 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Comments are deleted when they violate our policy: "The Marshall Democrat-News welcomes views or questions on any issue. We hope you'll express yourself freely and responsibly. We reserve the right to exclude entries that we deem disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable." Or when they are posted by someone who has been banned from the site for repeated infractions.

How terribly frightened and in what unbelievable pain that puppy must have suffered as he was being beaten to death! To mutilate an animal in such a horrindous fashion is the act of a truly dangerous person who ought to be locked up before he turns his attention to a person. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.

-- Posted by Red Witch on Wed, Aug 27, 2008, at 11:06 AM

I'm with ANIMALLOVER! I'll be there! With my dog Lupin!

-- Posted by Lupinsmom on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 10:19 PM

i am doug greathouse i was at work when the insedent happend. had i been there you can believe this whould not have happend.when i got off work the perps nephew told me what happend. not only did he kill coco my 3 year old daughters puppy,he killed it in front of his children plus others.when i asked him what happened he said he didnt hurt the puppy he just dumped it off on a gravel road and the puppy ran off. then i asked him where he dumped it so i could find it he said marshall fenner road so i went to go find it and found it in a drainage covert dead.

-- Posted by j4k3jon3s on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 8:44 PM

I think all the people who think there should be stiffer penalties for animal abusers should show up at the court house at his trial which is September 3, 2008 at 9a.m. not Sept. 6th like was printed in the paper.

-- Posted by animallover on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 7:40 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
The web version of the story has been corrected and we'll run a correction in the paper Wednesday. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I'm sorry, but facts are facts. The reason doesn't matter (if the "alleged" would have a good reason, which I doubt) he was the cause of an animal's demise for selfish reasons. I hope he gets the full sentence. It is time that those who harm animals get what is coming to them or it will keep occuring. Obviously he is a sick person to inflict such pain and torture on another living creature and has no respect for life, human or otherwise.

-- Posted by readitonline on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 5:47 PM

History is full of high-profile examples of this connection:

Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to attack and mutilate them.

Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-year-old boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs? rectums and strung up cats.

Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on fire.

Albert DeSalvo, the "Boston Strangler" who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.

Carroll Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.

In 1987, three Missouri high school students were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats he?d lost count. Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates that they had decapitated a cat.

Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs? heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.

More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Ore., and Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Miss., tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees. Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12 classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their friends.

As powerful a statement as the high-profile examples above make, they don't even begin to scratch the surface of the whole truth behind the abuse connection. Learning more about the animal cruelty/interpersonal violence connection is vital for community members and law enforcement alike.

-- Posted by marshallite on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 5:22 PM

In regards to "Two Sides" - -

Say the dog did attack his small child for example, there are other actions that could have been taken besides by "striking it several times with a hammer and a wooden board, then running it over several times with a pickup truck and finally discarding the still-living puppy in a culvert along County Road 128." He could have taken the child inside (duh) away from the "dangerous dog", and called the police and have them send an animal control officer out to investigate and contain the puppy. Like I said, no matter what the reason this man felt he should beat this puppy for, other actions could have been taken.

..Not to mention that I hardly doubt a 3 month old puppy could do enough damage to deserve such treatment.

-- Posted by aj on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 1:44 PM

Information for this story was taken directly from the Sheriff's Department incident report, which included the accused's statements as to what occurred. I incorrectly stated Stover's age as 22; he is 32. Otherwise, the story is correct as it stands. It was as difficult to write as it is to read.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 1:42 PM

What could a puppy do to deserve this? Bite? Scratch? Chew up his favorite boot? In either case, if the man was p*sed off enough to torture an animal in such manner and you were wittnessing it, being out into the country, maybe... no cell phone, ARE YOU going to try and stop a man ENRAGED in the ACT of KILLING???? What was any one supposed to do?

No, we do not have the whole of the situation. What in the world could a 3month old dog do?Either way, this man has a demon inside and does not deserve freedom for the safety of others.

-- Posted by nomad on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 12:54 PM

Two Sides:

If you will take the time to read my post before you comment I say. "if proven guilty."

-- Posted by Cheese on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 12:12 PM

Let us not forget that there are two sides to every story and that those in the media know dirt sells.

We have no idea why this happened, how it happened or any of the background on the story. The story says "accused of". How do they know that he did? Were people just standing around witnessing these acts? Did he just choose torture a puppy just for the fun of it? Perhaps he has small children and the innocent 3 month old lab puppy, (which can outsize a young child) was rabid and attacked his infant child? Should he still ROT?? The fact of the matter is at this point as citizens of Saline County you have half of a story regarding an alleged incident.

This article is discusting and the responses follow suit.

I'm not at all defending the alleged actions of this man. I just think maybe we should not be so quick to decide he should rot.

-- Posted by two sides on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 12:09 PM

Has anyone contacted PETA? ASPCA? Call for action?When it comes to people like this, one phrase comes to mind..."EYE FOR AN EYE".

-- Posted by Lupinsmom on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 11:05 AM

This article made me sick. I hope he gets to feel the same fear and pain that puppy felt. I also want to know if someone just watched all this happen and did nothing about it. The article is not clear on this point.

-- Posted by Hobie1 on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 11:02 AM

I agrea with you this town is over. They removed mine to. That's just not right

-- Posted by cahman8 on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 9:54 AM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
"The Marshall Democrat-News welcomes views or questions on any issue. We hope you'll express yourself freely and responsibly. We reserve the right to exclude entries that we deem disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable."

WOW! What big man he is! He can torture and kill puppies...whose next? Our kids maybe?

They better keep a good eye on that one when he gets out of jail.

-- Posted by news across on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 6:22 AM

Unimaginable, unbelievable and unforgivable. If proved guilty, this worthless piece of human flesh should rot for the rest of his life.

Some actions in life just require that you give up your human card and get the heck off the planet.

We don't need you anymore.

-- Posted by Cheese on Tue, Aug 26, 2008, at 12:36 AM


-- Posted by gokinser11 on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 10:12 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Just a reminder: "The Marshall Democrat-News welcomes views or questions on any issue. We hope you'll express yourself freely and responsibly. We reserve the right to exclude entries that we deem disrespectful, threatening, obscene or in other ways objectionable."

VERY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by marshallite on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 10:12 PM

Animal abuse--penalties.

578.012. 1. A person is guilty of animal abuse when a person:

(1) Intentionally or purposely kills an animal in any manner not allowed by or expressly exempted from the provisions of sections 578.005 to 578.023 and 273.030, RSMo;

(2) Purposely or intentionally causes injury or suffering to an animal; or

(3) Having ownership or custody of an animal knowingly fails to provide adequate care or adequate control.

2. Animal abuse is a class A misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously plead guilty to or has been found guilty of animal abuse or the suffering involved in subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of this section is the result of torture or mutilation, or both, consciously inflicted while the animal was alive, in which case it is a class D felony.

-- Posted by in bloom on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 6:27 PM

i think it should be just like child abuse a fenoly to hurt a animal not cool hope i never meet this creep

-- Posted by angel1968 on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 5:52 PM

what a fraking jerk i think people who abuses anmials should be treated like child abusers after all there just like children in a lot of was grrrrrrrrrrrrrr he better hope i dont ever meet him

-- Posted by angel1968 on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 5:51 PM

I'm glad the whole description of how he killed the dog was included. Actually tortured is more closer to the truth. Now we all know what a sick this sorry excuse of a person is. He should be forbidden to ever have an animal of his own after the courts are done with him. I agree with "animallover" on that point.

-- Posted by troygilpin on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 4:32 PM

A year in jail and possibly a $1000 fine!? That is crazy. He should be treated the same and see how he would feel. What a sick morbid person. Lock him up!

-- Posted by prd123 on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 3:36 PM

Hang him out and let him dry...then let the buzzards have whats left. I hope this man never has children.

-- Posted by tommob on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 2:52 PM

This is HORRIBLE. He needs to face more than a year in jail and more fine $ as well. This should be a felony. If he could do it to a dog....what would he do to a person? The Greathouse family should do as much as they can and push for more punishment on this.

-- Posted by luv4animals on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 2:13 PM

What in the world was this man thinking beating a small innocent defensless puppy? Let alone it wasn't even his puppy. It seems to me there is more and more animal abuse everyday we HAVE to make stiffer penalties for the individuals who choose to be mean to our best friends. I think one of his punishments should be that he can never own an animal as long as he lives.

-- Posted by animallover on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 2:10 PM

Did they really need to put the whole description of what happened in the paper? Just say he killed the dog.

-- Posted by mtownresident on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 1:38 PM

i hope they make this sick individual pay! i mean really what kinda sick person does this to a dog. Push hard Greathouse family this kid needs to learn that his actions are not apperciated!

-- Posted by SalineFire on Mon, Aug 25, 2008, at 1:11 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Related subjects