Man convicted in March 15 shooting deaths of two dogs

Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,200
Likes
34
Location
Harrison, Maine
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
By Terry Karkos, Staff Writer

Nov 07, 2009

PARIS — A Canton man pleaded no contest Thursday in Oxford County Superior Court to two charges that he shot and killed his neighbor's two dogs March 15 when they got loose and came onto his porch.

Judge Donald Marden found Thomas E. Averill, 42, of Dearborn Road, guilty of two counts of animal cruelty in the deaths of pit bull-mix dogs Keisha, 5, and Ding Ding, 2.

A felony charge of reckless conduct with a firearm was dismissed in the plea arrangement.

Averill was sentenced to a fully-suspended six-month jail term and ordered to pay the dogs' owner, Raymond Banes, $500 restitution by Dec. 5.

Averill was also placed on one year of administrative release, which means he will be monitored by the District Attorney's Office.

Marden also prohibited Averill from keeping any firearms in his house. Additionally, Marden ordered Averill to pay $120 in administrative supervision fees to Oxford County, and to have no contact with Banes.

Averill's lawyer, Walter Hanstein of Farmington, said Friday that he and people involved, tried to fashion a plea agreement that would compensate Banes "and be as easy as possible on everyone."

Hanstein told Marden on Thursday that Averill "wishes he had handled the situation very differently."

According to the Oxford County Sheriff's Office incident report, the two dogs went onto Averill's property on March 15 and chased Averill back into his house.

Averill told police he entered the house after the dogs came onto the porch and were still there when he returned to the porch.

Hanstein said Averill then shot the dogs with a rifle in self defense.

"Mr. Averill was clearly in a position where he did feel threatened by the dogs, and unfortunately, it ended with this result," Hanstein said.

Police determined that Averill should have called an animal control officer instead of taking matters into his own hands, and charged him accordingly.

Banes, however, said Friday that the case wasn't about getting cash restitution. He simply wanted justice done.

"One million dollars couldn't replace my dogs," Banes said.

The Marine Corps veteran, who moved from Rhode Island to Canton five years ago, claims his dogs were killed because he reported Averill to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection last November for excavation work that Banes said damaged his pond and well.

"I just believe the people around here where we live should know what's going on," Banes said. "He gunned down my dogs. "Unfortunately, my dogs got out and he just killed them in cold blood," he said.

Hanstein said that the DEP allegation by Banes had nothing to do with why his client shot and killed Keisha and Ding Ding.

"Clearly, this wasn't a case of the family pet shirking his collar for the first time at all," Hanstein said. "Unfortunately, the dogs were always running loose, and were very aggressive."

"I talked with a number of people who said these dogs snapped at them and chased them into their cars," Hanstein said. "These dogs were very problematic for a number of people, at least according to witnesses."

Canton animal control officer Rick Houghton said Friday afternoon that he had previously cited Banes for having dogs at large after receiving complaints, and did the same on March 15.
 
Maine Revised Statutes
§3950-A§3952
Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS
Part 9: ANIMAL WELFARE HEADING: PL 1987, C. 383, §3 (NEW)
Chapter 727: DANGEROUS DOGS HEADING: PL 1987, C. 383, §3 (NEW)
§3951. Killing for assault permitted

Any person may lawfully kill a dog if necessary to protect that person, another person or a domesticated animal during the course of a sudden, unprovoked assault. [1997, c. 690, §34 (AMD).]
 
Maine Revised Statutes
§3950-A§3952
Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS
Part 9: ANIMAL WELFARE HEADING: PL 1987, C. 383, §3 (NEW)
Chapter 727: DANGEROUS DOGS HEADING: PL 1987, C. 383, §3 (NEW)
§3951. Killing for assault permitted

Any person may lawfully kill a dog if necessary to protect that person, another person or a domesticated animal during the course of a sudden, unprovoked assault. [1997, c. 690, §34 (AMD).]

The statute was revised because of the result of this case???
 
Prestone and meatballs tossed over the fence on the opposite side fixes the problem much more cleanly.
 
The statute was already in place. Defense attorney failed miserably.

It was a plea bargain, not a loss at trial.

The prosecution presented a scenario in which the defendant could take the deal and be guaranteed no jail time and an end to legal fees, or pay tens of $K for a felony trial with a risk of jail. It's hard to conclude that the defense attorney failed, since he was never given the chance to try the case. He explained the alternatives and risks to the defendant and he took the deal.

Plea bargaining gets good deals for people who are actually guilty, but can also be used to coerce guilty please out of innocent people.
 
Also, it was a plea bargain that likely saved him from being found guilty. While I personally see nothing wrong with what he did, he was in violation of the law. He was safely back in his home and the dogs were on the porch. At that point they present no immediate threat of assault. So, he should, by law, have called animal control. Had he been in carrying in his back yard, when the dogs charged him, he would have had more ground to stand on.
 
Also, it was a plea bargain that likely saved him from being found guilty. While I personally see nothing wrong with what he did, he was in violation of the law. He was safely back in his home and the dogs were on the porch. At that point they present no immediate threat of assault. So, he should, by law, have called animal control. Had he been in carrying in his back yard, when the dogs charged him, he would have had more ground to stand on.

That's kinda like I see it.

He f-ed up the moment he came back out to shoot the dogs.

He should have waited a few weeks for things to cool down and then poisoned the rat bastards.

Any dog that snarls and chases me or mine is going to die, sooner or later.
 
That's kinda like I see it.

He f-ed up the moment he came back out to shoot the dogs.

He should have waited a few weeks for things to cool down and then poisoned the rat bastards.

Any dog that snarls and chases me or mine is going to die, sooner or later.

Yup. Like I said, I have no problems with it, but he screwed himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom