Here is a somewhat harsh, almost cruel way to get through to this person the horror of what they did. Don’t let them initially know what the charges are against them, quietly remove the body of the dog from the house, and wait for him to “come down”. Then bring him shackled to the house, and show him the blood, telling him he was the person that caused such bloodshed.
Let him freak out, and weep, and ponder his own execution, then show him photographs of the dog’s coprse in minute detail, and the implements used. Tell him it was rescued, and did not deserve such barbarity. Then point out to him that he initially tried to subdue the dog’s owner.
Pointing at all the blood, tell him he’s very lucky that the woman managed to escape, because that blood could be human blood, and his punishment more severe. Tell him that he is being prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows in any case, and it’s a stroke of the woman’s good fortune that he did not murder a human. Maybe that’ll “scare him straight”?
I’ll add, when telling him he was the cause of the bloodshed, show him his clothing from that day, and photographs of him being arrested at the house if any exist.
I just want to point out that the “twinkie defense” was not what most people think it is. In the trial of Dan White, from which it originated, White’s lawyers claimed that his consumption of junk food (twinkies) was evidence that he was depressed and that the intensity of his depression was considered great enough to impair his judgement. It was not that he was incapable of making rational decisions because of his having eaten some twinkies, so this case isn’t really analogous.
Oh, and if the guy is judged to have been mentally competent at the time of his torture of that dog, I hope he gets sent away for a long, long time. That’s despicable.
The sad truth is that killing the dog is probably the lesser offense. He’ll be tried for assault and burglary, but will probably get a minimal sentence.
I happen to be the owner and webmaster of http://www.coricidin.org. I found out about this thread from my website referrer logs.
The problem with this story is:
"Smith was apparently upset on Friday over a fight with his girlfriend and
took a hefty dose of a drug similar to Coricidin, Henry said.
“Common in cough and cold medicines, Coricidin is gaining popularity among
drug-abusing youths for its availability, its psychedelic properties and
amphetaminelike effects, according to drug information Web sites.”
I'll ignore the fact that while DXM is obviously a psychedelic, dunno
any DXM sites saying it is much like amphetamine. The problem is exactly
what did he take? A DXM containing cough syrup? Pure DXM powder? Or, perhaps
a lot of Dramamine? The chlorpheniramine in Coricidin is an anticholingergic
drug, like the dimenhydrinate in Dramamine. That is all kinds of vague. I am
going to try to get better information if possible. Finding an e-mail for
Sgt. Tony Henry in Anchorage would likely be helpful here.
Also, for more DXM information, try my other site:
I agree, dextromethorphan is nothing at all like an amphetamine. It’s pretty much the exact opposite. They should have said “similar to PCP.” That would have been more accurate and more scary, all at once!