Is this cruelty?
 

I was wondering if anyone had a take on this.

Sad all the way around...

http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_14122643

Not enough info to go on, but something about the horse seeing one vet and taking medication given by another doesn't add up.

The case is quite similar to what Dave Jacobson went through 28 years ago. He was trying to save Hugable Tom who was foundering, and followed a treatment path that some vets argued against. When the horse was ultimately put down, Jacobson faced cruelty charges brought on by the NYSRWB, and had the same attitude about how he was treating the horse as Kriple.

It's hard to believe that any state prosecutors would have any understanding of the nuances involved in these situations. As was the case with Jacobson, it seems Kriple felt he was doing the right things to try to save his horse. It's also a little tough to believe that anyone with horses at the track is engaging in criminal cruelty considering the parade of people around the barns and the help that would materialize if such a situation was developing. Just look at what the Turfway trainers did with the Clermont County horses that weren't even on the track...

not enough to tell but i kind of side with Kriple. this guy lives with his horses, i'm guessing he really loves them. the horse may be hurt and suffering but hes trying to save it. are they charging the owners of kip deville for keeping him alive? this story kind of smells funny but theres not enough to tell. whats amazing is how they prosecute people like this but some guy hiding on a farm not even feeding his horses gets away with it for years. The "justice" system for animals is as big a joke as the "justice" system for humans.

I think the person closest to the horse knows whether it's cruel or not, my mare had a severe bout of lamintis 5 years ago, she spent most of her day lying down on a heavy Bute regimen, I was just waiting for an appointment for a specialty hospital, BUT, my mare still had a bright expression and would nicker every time I came in her stall for her peppermint, she wasn't showing me she wanted to give up, and believe me they do, I finally got her into the Clinic where they informed me her chances were not good, I still insisted on surgery and after a long, long rocky road she is now a happy horse that can run and be turned out in her paddock every morning and enjoys her life. I know there are people who would have considered her early condition cruel, but I knew she wasn't ready to die and we fought and won.

great post, i kind of felt kriple felt the same way but the story does not dig deep enough. people are too quick to give up in my opinion. it should be a very ,very grave situation before they charge a guy like this. we just don't get enough out of this story, which gives me the feeling that "someone" was after this man because hes different. animals and people are resilient, recoveries are sometimes unbelievable, maybe he saw this horse still had the will to live.

As others have stated, I don't think we have enough information to really have an informed opinion. But if I had to guess just based on the information we have, I doubt this guy would have been prosecuted and/or convicted if he had a legitimate defense.

If this guy did the minimum that any caring person would have done, I don't think there would have been any case against him. The minimum, in my opinion, would have been to have a vet check the horse regularly. I can guarantee that if this guy had a vet checking this horse regularly, the state would have had no case. If he would have been consulting with a vet regularly, there is no way that any jury would have convicted him because if a guy is constantly having a vet look at the horse, this would show that the guy cared and was trying to do the right thing.

As I stated before, I don't have all the facts so I could be totally wrong.

I just wanted to add that if this was simply a case of a judgement call (of whether or not to give the horse more time to recover) on this guy's part, I highly doubt any jury would have convicted him. This jury must have determined that this guy did not provide even a minimal standard of care for this horse.

We may not have all the facts, but the jury did have all the facts and they unanimously voted to convict this guy. Not a single juror thought there was a reasonable doubt.

Respectfully, this means nothing to me.

The legal system is so screwed up and it's all about who has which attorney... I'm not slamming you and I'm sure you know that.

I think all the jurors, or some of them, needed to hear was "animal cruelty" and an assumption was made. Maybe people want so desperately to do what's right that they go into deliberations with a preconceived notion without even realizing it.

Anyway, here's an update. The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_14135913

"Mr. Kriple is guilty of embracing the idea that this horse should not be put down,"

I choose to believe that.

There are cases where juries get it wrong. We hear about these cases sometimes. But these cases are the exception to the rule. Juries get it right 95% of the time. When they do err, it's usually on the side of acquitting a guilty person. They will rarely find an innocent person guilty and when they do it's usually a case of mistaken identity.

By the way, when does a guilty person ever admit that they're guilty? Just because we have heard a few quotes from this guy proclaiming his innocense, that hardly means a thing. Guys always proclaim their innocense.

Every person that heard the facts of the case, came to the same conclusion, every single person from the CHRB investigators, to the prosecutor, to the judge, and to the jury. I highly doubt all these people got it wrong. It's possible but it's unlikely.

If you read the judge's quote, he never said that the horse should have been put down. The judge's simply said, "He should have done something with the animal." That is the point. Nobody would convict this guy for making a judgement call that it wasn't time to put the horse down. This guy got convicted because he was doing nothing to care for this horse. If he wanted to give the horse more time, that would have been fine as long as he was properly caring for the horse which he obviously was not.

Let's not forget that this guy has a pattern of neglecting his horses. In an interview last week, Mrakich (the prosecutor) said Kriple "has a pattern of extreme negligence when it comes to taking care of horses."

Mrakich cited a case in 2002 in which Kriple failed to care for a racehorse that suffered a fractured knee at Los Alamitos.

In the 2002 case, the California Horse Racing Board "found that (Kriple's) conduct was detrimental to horse racing," Mrakich said, but they did not suspend his license to train horses or forward the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges.

Wow. Are you an Illinois prosecutor? They make a living out of interviews that have 0 to do with the law.

This has everything to do with the law. If this guy has a pattern of this type of behavior, that would be quite relevant to the case and that is why patterns of behavior are usually admissible in court.

By the way, not all cases of cruelty to animals involve intentional cruelty. Some of the cases simply involve such gross negligence that it rises to the level of cruelty under the law. I've seen a number of these cases on the news over the years. I would put this case in that category.