” As usual your fair and balanced news reporting comes up short again referencing our arrest procedures. Where we (the ECSO) go to great lengths to make sure t’s are crossed and i’s are dotted, your obvious anti-law enforcement bias is displayed once again. Here’s a question for your fearless reporter. Could it be possible there are two sides or opinions to this incident?
Let’s examine the Paul Harvey version that you conveniently left out, comprising the rest of the story. The writer never mentions the fact that there was a second dog involved. Heye discovered that dog #1 was clipped too close (no big deal at the time). Afterwards, Heye delivered her second animal to this masochist groomer. For about an hour, Heye watched the victim groom the other pooch and even commented on how nice the dog looked. But then things changed. After the second dog was finished, and the bill was presented, Heye began to voice her concern of the blatant, horrendous mutilation and amputation of the first dog’s toenail. She refused to pay anything because of the nail problem with the first dog.
Why did she let the groomer take on the second dog when she already knew she wasn’t going to pay! Sort of like eating a seven course meal and then complaining that the appetizer wasn’t up to par.
I’m glad you asked where I got my facts; the same place your writer got his, the public record Sheriff’s Office report which contains all the allegations from both parties. Hey Mattlock, did you happen to ask the poor PTA mom if she had ever had any other prior traumatizing, unfortunate incidents like this before and did not pay?
These are called similar type offenses that indicate a pattern of conduct and it’s all PUBLIC RECORD. (hint – hint) You then solicit a truly unbiased opinion on the state of local law enforcement from a true subject matter expert, Leroy “Quickdraw” Boyd, who comments on using “common sense”. This is the same guy who allegedly pulls guns to solve home renter issues.
Let’s then move on quickly to a group of real knowledgeable defenders of the down trodden, our local ACLU. Aren’t these the same people who sued the boy scouts, defend NAMBLA (North America Man/Boy Love Association), and who believe Christian crosses in vases of urine are protected art forms?
Once again you show your true colors. Try to investigate and just report fairly. After all, we know what a raw deal O.J. got from the system of justice you prefer. Take a few days off, Editor, and enjoy your Memorial Day weekend. I hope my biting remarks didn’t cut you to the quick; after all I didn’t have any intent to harm. “Molon Labe.”
God Bless America.
Ms. Heye reported that she didn’t discover the bloody first dog until after the second dog was being groomed. The bill in question had add-ons upon which she didn’t agree to purchase. Ms. Heye offered to mail a check after she got a handle on what the damage was to her home. The groomer refused to give the mailing address
But, Rex, the fact remains it was a $40 bill!!!! Clearly a civil matter – which is why the state attorney isn’t prosecuting. You insinuate that Heye has a some pattern of not paying here bills. Other than speeding tickets, she has a civil suit involving a contractor which was successfully mediated….Note, Rex, it was a CIVIL suit – probably for more than $40.
My bias is against bad law enforcement.