Images for this Case
CONVICTED: Was justice served?
more information on voting
When you vote, you are voting on whether or not the punishment fit the crime, NOT on the severity of the case itself. If you feel the sentence was very weak, you would vote 1 star. If you feel the sentence was very strong, you would vote 5 stars.
Please vote honestly and realistically. These ratings will be used a a tool for many future programs, including a "People’s Choice" of best and worst sentencing, DA and judge "report cards", and more. Try to resist the temptation to vote 1 star on every case, even if you feel that 100 years in prison isn’t enough.
Case #1864 Rating: 3.8 out of 5
Dog shot with pellet gun
Northfield, VT (US)Incident Date: Monday, Jun 30, 2003
County: Washington
Disposition: Convicted
Case Images: 1 files available
Defendant/Suspect: Lewis Dustin
Case Updates: 3 update(s) available
The Vermont man who shot a friendly dog playing in a parking lot has been found guilty on a misdemeanor charge. Lewis Dustin has been sentenced to 11 to 12 months in jail (suspended), plus one year of professional counseling, 520 hours of community service and a one-year prohibition from possessing a pellet gun or having a dog in his home. In addition, Dustin has been ordered to pay restitution for the dog's emergency care and burial costs.
The dog, Shadow, died shortly after being shot. He was on a trip with his guardians, who stopped at a church to feed and water the shepherd-chow-spaniel mix and their other dog. Dustin lives near the church. The elderly man reportedly told the police that he was afraid Shadow might attack him even though the dog wasn't growling, barking or baring his teeth.
Despite repeated requests from Shadow's guardians, the local prosecutor refused to bring felony charges or appoint a special prosecutor who would pursue the case vigorously.
Case UpdatesA controversial court case in Vermont may have a big impact on pet owners in Maryland.
Sarah Scheele is a bone-a-fide dog lover and she says that was not always the case. Scheele was once terrified of dogs until she and her husband Denis adopted Shadow and Lucy. "They are like our children," added the Scheeles.
The Scheeles are in the middle of a controversial court case, after their dog Shadow was killed on a family vacation to Vermont.
The couple were at a church waiting for a family event to begin when they heard a popping noise.
"All of a sudden there was a pop and a yelp and I looked at Sarah and she looked at me and she goes, I think Shadow just got shot," says Denis Scheele.
Lewis Dustin was convicted for shooting Shadow with a pellet that pierced the dog's heart.
Dustin was charged with a misdemeanor, he had to pay a fine and all of the expenses of Shadow's death.
The Scheeles wanted more, they wanted compensation for emotional distress and loss of companionship. But the Vermont court said no and threw the case out because under their law pets are property, not people. The Scheeles believe otherwise.
Now the Scheeles are taking the case to the Vermont Supreme Court. | Source: WJZ - Jan 20, 2007
Update posted on Jan 22, 2007 - 12:36AM |
Unable to have children, Denis and Sarah Scheele got two dogs instead. When one was fatally shot by a man after wandering onto his property, they sued -- and not just for damages. The couple also wanted compensation for their emotional distress and loss of companionship.
Their case is one of a growing number around the country that asks courts to recognize what dog owners already do: A dog is not just a thing. It is man's best friend, and worth more than its retail price as a result, they say.
"You can't put a price on that," said Sarah Scheele, 47, of Annapolis, Md. "When you lose something like that, the loss is immeasurable. You can't just go to a pet store and buy another animal. It doesn't replace the family member that was lost."
No one is arguing that Shadow, a shepherd-chow-spaniel mix acquired at an animal shelter, would fetch a high price. But the Scheeles say the death of an animal they called their "little boy" entitles them to damages above and beyond the direct expenses typically awarded in such cases.
Historically, courts have allowed people suing over the death of an animal to collect only direct expenses -- the purchase price of the animal, veterinary bills and the like. That needs to change, according to the couple's attorney, Heidi Groff of Montpelier.
"Courts look at market value, and I don't think that reflects society's values," she said.
The Scheeles' case began in July 2003, when they drove north to attend a church service and reception for Denis Scheele's aunt and uncle, who were renewing their vows on their 40th wedding anniversary.
The Scheeles, who feed their dogs human food, brush their teeth and dress them in raincoats when it's wet outside, got to St. John's Catholic Church about an hour before the 1 p.m. service. The idea was to leave dogs Shadow and Lucy in their truck, with the windows ajar and an ample water supply.
But first they let the dogs loose, in violation of the leash law in Northfield, which is located about 10 miles south of Montpelier.
The dogs followed their noses through a row of evergreen trees and into the adjacent yard of Lewis Dustin, 70. Dustin, who had been squirrel hunting earlier that day, happened to have a combination BB and pellet gun at the ready.
According to the Scheeles, Shadow didn't growl at or menace Dustin. But Dustin, who said later he'd had problems with dogs before, fired a pellet at Shadow's "hind end" in hopes of scaring him off.
Instead, the shot penetrated the dog's chest and severed an aorta.
The yelping dog ran back to the Scheeles, who skipped the church service and reception they had driven to Vermont for and rushed the dog to a veterinarian in South Burlington -- 50 miles away. The dog died en route.
Dustin later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of animal cruelty. He was given a year probation, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and to pay $4,000 in restitution to the Scheeles.
In the Scheeles' civil suit, meanwhile, Superior Court Judge Matthew Katz ruled that there's no provision in Vermont law that would allow them to recover damages for the loss of Shadow's companionship or for emotional distress.
Groff and David Putter, a lawyer hired to help with the appeal, plan to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
"What we're trying to do is expand the law to recognize that the companionship between a dog and its owner is such that the owner is entitled to compensation" when that relationship is destroyed, Putter said.
They acknowledge it's a novel legal theory, noting that you can't sue for loss of companionship over the death of your best friend -- or even your domestic partner.
They want an exception for four-legged friends, though.
In recent years, trial courts in Florida, New York, Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington have carved out a category for household pets that is somewhere between property and people.
In Washington state, an appeals court last May created a new tort -- or reason for suing -- called "malicious injury to a pet," allowing someone to collect emotional distress damages. The case involved three teenage boys who doused a cat with gasoline and lit it on fire. It had to be euthanized.
Until very recently, there hasn't been much in the way of appellate court opinions that lawyers can point to, though, according to animal law expert Geordie Duckler, a Portland, Ore., lawyer.
Duckler said courts have lagged society at large in recognizing the relationship between a pet and its owner has value.
"As soon as some good appellate panel (of judges) recognizes this special relationship that people have had for a long time with their pets, I think it will be like the flip of a light switch," and the law nationwide will change, Duckler said.
For his part, Dustin believes the issue has been overblown.
"These people think that this dog is a human being," he said. "It's not a human being. And that dog was trespassing. They (the Scheeles) have never admitted that the dog was trespassing."
Dustin, 74, said he would take what comes as the litigation continues. "I can't afford a lawyer. If they want to put me in jail, that's what they can do. I'm not going to pay them anything because I don't owe them anything. All I'm going to do is go to court and go through the motions."
Sarah Scheele said she and her husband are pursing the matter "to honor Shadow. We're not in it for the money. We want to get national legislation that will recognize pets as companions and not just property. That is our long-term goal, and we will continue to work on that until it happens." | Source: Boston.Com - Dec 2, 2006
Update posted on Dec 4, 2006 - 3:35PM |
The Vermont man who shot a friendly dog playing in a parking lot has been found guilty on a misdemeanor charge. Lewis Dustin has been sentenced to 11 to 12 months in jail (suspended), plus one year of professional counseling, 520 hours of community service and a one-year prohibition from possessing a pellet gun or having a dog in his home. In addition, Dustin has been ordered to pay restitution for the dog's emergency care and burial costs.
The dog, Shadow, died shortly after being shot. He was on a trip with his guardians, who stopped at a church to feed and water the shepherd-chow-spaniel mix and their other dog. Dustin lives near the church. The elderly man reportedly told the police that he was afraid Shadow might attack him even though the dog wasn't growling, barking or baring his teeth.
Despite repeated requests from Shadow's guardians, the local prosecutor refused to bring felony charges or appoint a special prosecutor who would pursue the case vigorously.
ALDF thanks all of the animal advocates who wrote to the prosecutor and the judge to urge vigorous action in this case. Shadow's guardians continue to pursue civil charges in the case, and they are working with officials in the town where Shadow was killed to create an ordinance banning the firing of pellet guns. They're also working to create legislation for the state of Vermont that would recognize that companion animals are more than just property.
Those who would like to follow the progress of the case and the new law can visit the family website by clicking here.
Animal Legal Defense Fund
www.aldf.org | Source: ALDF - December 22, 2003
Update posted on Dec 27, 2005 - 7:20PM |
References« VT State Animal Cruelty Map
« More cases in Washington County, VT
|
