i found this at another place.
MEDIA RELEASE
District Attorney, Rob Hudson, announced today that no charges for animal cruelty will be filed against Rodney Luckinbill relating to Luckinbill's shooting of 5 dogs on April 22, 2008. Hudson said "the State of Oklahoma would be unable to meet the burden of proof required by law to obtain a conviction". Hudson stated that after carefully reviewing the facts contained in the police reports, personally visiting the scene, researching the laws relating to animal cruelty, farmers/ranchers right to protect their livestock and cases relating to assertions of self defense, it is my opinion that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Luckinbill was guilty of animal abuse. Moreover, a jury would be instructed by the Judge on the affirmative defense of "self defense".
The following is both an explanation of my analysis as well as a position statement pertaining to this very emotionally charged incident:
We have in the past, and will continue to in the future, file cases of animal cruelty against defendants in cases where we can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
Here are some facts which came to light in the investigation and of which the public may be unaware. These significantly affect the prosecutability of a criminal case:
A). The Officer at the scene said he observed approximately 10 to15 dogs (the media has only heard of and reported about 5 which were killed);
B). Approximately 3 or 4 of those dogs were Pitt Bulls, or a mix thereof, which gives credibility to Luckinbill's call to police, before he shot any dog, that his cattle were being chased by a pack of Pitt Bulls;
C). The dogs were released from a trailer by the dog owners less than 100 feet from Luckinbill's barbed wire fence line where his cattle graze;
D). One of the dog owners was armed with a pistol which was on his waist;
E). A veterinarian who inspected the cattle after the incident would testify that the injuries and wounds to Luckinbill's cattle were consistent with an attack by a group (pack) of dogs. He would further state that some of the wounds were likely bite marks and some were likely received from being chased through trees and a wooded area;
F). Luckinbill would present evidence and testify that 8 calves had been previously killed by dog attacks.
G). The dog owners admit they have taken their dogs to this area "quite often".
The Oklahoma Law (Title 4 Section 41) provides that it is lawful to kill dogs that chase livestock, therefore Luckinbill would have that statutory defense relating to the first 2 dogs he shot. There were no eyewitnesses to controvert his statement that he observed the dogs chasing his cattle. In actuality, his statement is corroborated by the 911 call when he requested the police to come out before he had shot any dog;
Luckinbill claims that when he got out of his truck where the other 3 dogs were shot, that they "approached him in an aggressive manner." "Luckinbill stated he believed his life was in danger and shot all three dogs with a 12 gauge shotgun." This claim is uncontroverted since no one else witnessed this. Luckinbill's assertion gives rise to the legal defense of Self-Defense which would justify him defending himself by killing those dogs. Further facts which corroborate Luckinbill's claim of self-defense:
- there is physical evidence (veterinary exam and report) that the cattle had indeed been attacked which would arguably justify his fear of the dogs coming at him;
- it is common knowledge that dogs which hunt or run in a group or pack are very dangerous;
- these 3 dogs were killed within 2, 5 and 6 feet, respectively, from the door of Luckinbill's truck evidencing the dogs came up to Luckinbill at his truck.
I realize Luckinbill's statements are self-serving, but they are no less or more self serving than the owners of the dogs who state that their dogs were not chasing Luckinbill's cattle. Remember that the owners of the dogs admit their dogs had veered off for approximately 15 minutes and they had lost visual contact with them.
I am not opposed to hunting. I am a hunter. Also, I am not opposed to hunting raccoons and hogs/pigs. It is lawful to do so subject to certain rules and restrictions. However, Oklahoma Law also provides that a person whose occupation and livelihood are derived from being an animal husbandriman which includes raising, caring for, nurturing and protecting his livestock , is authorized to kill a dog or dogs that chases or injures or kills his livestock. When these 2 issues collide (raising livestock versus hunting with a group or pack of dogs), the law sides with the livestock owner.
I grew up on a farm and I know both farmers and hunters alike. If this incident, i.e. the chasing of cattle by a pack of dogs, happened to any farmer I know, that farmer would have done the same thing. We cannot prosecute every farmer that kills a dog(s) that chases his cattle. On the other hand, I'm not insensitive to dogs or dog owners (I am a multiple dog owner myself) and I realize that Luckinbill was obviously upset, mad and possibly enraged, but it appears to me that many people who are upset with Luckinbill for killing 5 dogs who chased his cattle are on the wrong side of the issue. Luckinbill was protecting his defenseless cattle from dogs that kill other innocent animals. I have never hunted pigs, but encourage you to ask someone who has. Ask them what roles the Blue Tic's and the Pit Bulls play in tracking down their prey.
Lest it be concluded that I'm condoning Luckinbill's actions, I realize it is possible his actions went too far. Nevertheless, his actions did not go so far as being "criminal" under the facts and circumstances I have carefully reviewed. If his actions were excessive (the shooting of the 3 dogs which he claims came at him in an aggressive manner), such can be litigated by the parties through civil court for monetary damages. The burden of proof in a civil case is "by a preponderance of the evidence", which means "more likely than not" as opposed to the criminal law's burden of proving a person guilty of each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the allegations that Luckinbill pointed his gun at Mr. Bowen, it is troublesome that Mr. Bowen did not mention this to the officer at the scene. That allegation was made by Mr. Bowen in a later interview. Clearly, the evidence is that Luckinbill had a shotgun, but Mr. Bowen also had a handgun. The one thing that can be concluded as true and accurate is that this was very intense meeting between Mr. Bowen, who had just lost five dogs which he loved and cherished, and Luckinbill, who was also upset about his cattle. Again, when taking all the facts and circumstances into account, there is insufficient proof to meet the State's Burden of Proof that Luckinbill feloniously pointed a gun at Mr. Bowen.
As to having guns in the City Limits, both Luckinbill and Bowen may be in violation of the law, but those are violations of municipal ordinances, for which the jurisdiction lies with the Municipal Court.
[COMMENT] The criminal statute relating to animal cruelty is a difficult one to use in many fact scenarios because it contains no "misdemeanor" provision. Animal cruelty is always a felony as the law is now written in Oklahoma. This is odd when compared to the domestic abuse statute which provides that if a person beats his/her significant other, such is a misdemeanor for the first offense. This doesn't seem fundamentally right in that an animal is afforded more protection than a human being? Is that the way it should be? I advocate a change in the law for a misdemeanor provision for the first offense with a felony option for the more severe cases which involve torture or inhumane treatment. If this were done, it is likely that more animal cruelty cases would be filed. DA's, as they should be, are reluctant to file any charge which they don't believe have sufficient facts to sustain the high and heavy burden of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", especially felonies. (This comment does not pertain to the fact scenario in this case for the reasons explained hereinbelow, but does warrant inclusion since the topic of enforcing laws relating to animal abuse will clearly be a hot topic as this case is discussed among citizens) ;
The bottom line is that there is insufficient evidence to prevail in the prosecution of this case and I believe to prosecute a case that cannot be won becomes an act of persecution. I encourage everyone to remember that the Constitution requires a prosecutor to prove a defendant committed a crime BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent, not the other way around.
I ask you to consider that I was elected as your District Attorney to make decisions based upon the law, to protect the citizens from criminals, to exercise sound discretion in the use of the power to charge a person with a crime. These decisions MUST be made from analyzing a case from a legal standpoint instead of from an emotional standpoint.
