Quote:
Originally Posted by astrokahn
I reposted because details were left out that explained the state of the animals.
The whole thing w the caretaker sounds like a flat out lie in light of there being three separate incidents, two which resulted in arrest. Could I buy it if it was once? Sure maybe. Can anyone prove it was a lie? Guess not. Is it telling that he "took responsibility?" It is to me. Is it fucking weird that a millionaire would hire someone to care for multiple animals who clearly isn't capable of keeping them off the brink of non-existence? Yes.
Also how is keeping puppies in cages TOO SMALL FOR PUPPIES not violent? If that's confusing, then we absolutely do live in that world.
|
K. Since we are speculated and stating what we believe did or didn't happen. (this is actually fun)
Here is my belief on the animal cruelty arrests:
Turns out the1999 and 2002 arrest are the same. The incident happened in 1999 but he didn't get the plea deal til 2002. Both Wikipedia sited sources detail the same event.
He probably bought the crates when they were small and didn't size up the way he was supposed to. Terrible for the dog's spine. Violence? Idk, that requires some reworking of the definition of the word. I think more like neglect. Apparently he had been high on crack for a week so that might have something to do with it.
He plead guilty and did animal cruelty PSAs.
The 2008 incident. I honestly think he probably paid a cousin or a homeboy to come over and pet sit or something while he was away. Person wasn't responsible. Probably also an addict. He held himself accountable cause they are his dogs and turning himself in and taking responsibility seems to be a thing he does when he isn't too high to move.