San Ġwann’s husband found guilty of threatening Maltese puppies, golden retriever with pitchfork
ST. JOHN’S, NL – A man from St John’s who told the court that he had deliberately left his unconscious dog with a stick and would not be bothered to hurt the dog again if he was found guilty in court. provincial on Wednesday, 16 February. .
Everett Watkins was accused of threatening the animals after he walked back and forth in his western end neighborhood last July dragging a pitchfork, knocking it to the ground and saying that a neighbor’s dog would hurt if attacked again.
Judge Lori Marshall noted that Watkins’ definition of “attack” included barking and approaching him.
“Although you are not accused of injuring or killing a dog, there has been and is no ambiguity in your intention to hit the dog with any weapon in your hand if you believe you are under attack.” said Marshall to Watkins.
The court was unaware of any information about Watkins injuring the Maltese until he testified in his own trial last November.
Watkins’ neighbor told the court he had come home one afternoon last summer to hear from his partner and children that their seven-month-old golden retriever had come out. and frightened a man. Later that evening, he saw Watkins walking back and forth in front of his house, dragging a wand. The man said he went outside to apologize to Watkins, who told him he was going to kill the dog next time. The man told Watkins to stay away from his family and property.
Another neighbor testified that he saw Watkins walking back and forth in front of the dog owner’s property with a stick, stabbing him with a knife, and later carrying a pitchfork. He told the court he had asked Watkins what he was doing with the pitchfork, and Watkins said he was protecting himself because he had been bitten by the dog and if the dog came out again, they would kill him. The man said he told Watkins he couldn’t do it, and Watkins stabbed the pitchfork to the ground.
The third neighbor testified that he had heard parts of that conversation, and, fearing for his own dogs, had asked his wife to call the police, who arrived shortly afterwards.
Watkins, who was represented by himself, called his wife to testify; she described that she was walking with her husband when a dog, determined to be Maltese, scared her by hitting her and baring her teeth. Another dog, later determined to be the puppy, threw itself from under the trees, barked and made a biting motion at the feet of Watkins’ trousers, though he could not tell if the puppy was in fact don’t lie. She said Watkins had ordered a girl to tell her parents if the dogs would come out again, he would be prepared and have something to fight them and they would get hurt.
Watkins gave the court details of how he hit the Maltese, who he thought belonged to the puppy owner, on another occasion.
“I said that the Maltese came out to attack you, took the walking stick, turned it with a heavy edge and waited. The dog was not listening to your verbal command to get back and got right off your feet. Take your life and stop all activities, “said Marshall, summarizing Watkins’ testimony. “People were shouting, so I turned around and went home. You said to the owner, ‘If your dog comes out again, it will hurt.’ “
Although there was some confusion about the schedule of the incidents, Marshall admitted that they had spurred Watkins to return with the pitchfork.
Watkins denied threatening to kill any dogs, and testified, “I know enough about the law not to be stupid and say I will get dogs. I never said I would hurt dogs. It’s a stern warning and, Your Honor. “The warning is still there. If the dogs attack me, they will be hurt.”
He told the court that he believed that a dog that sailed and approached was the same in a court of law as the bite, and the Animal Health and Welfare Act of the province gave him the authority to he defends himself by all necessary means.
When he found Watkins guilty, Marshall was clear: the law doesn’t work that way.
“If a dog is killing, imagining or following a person, the animal may be shot or otherwise destroyed. It is an extreme authorization available only in extreme circumstances, “said the judge. “It does not authorize threats of injury or injury to an animal and does not apply in a situation where there is no immediate threat.”
There was no evidence that anyone was at risk of being killed or bitten by puppies or Maltese, Marshall said.
Marshall rejected Watkins’ argument that his words were a warning and not a threat, and said she was satisfied that, in addition to his actions, they were intended to intimidate. She noted that Watkins may have been charged with more than one threat. She was concerned about many aspects of his testimony, including his argument that he only carried the pitchfork because he did not have a baseball bat or hockey stick.
Watkins said he intended to appeal the decision, but was having trouble finding a lawyer with experience in similar matters. He asked for a month to prepare for the hearing of his sentence, which is scheduled for March 18.