SPCA story touches nerves, stirs readers’ emotions
Published: August 30, 2009
Editor's Note: Because the Commentary section in today's paper is printed in advance, the "From the Newsroom" column on Page E4 of today's section does not include the news that the Richmond animal-protection office found that "no willful intent was found" in its investigation of the death of the family pet belong to Richmond SPCA chief Robin Starr. The Richmond Animal Care and Control Program released the news in a statement on Friday evening.
What makes an event newsworthy? Where should we draw the line on free speech?
Our readers often disagree with us, and with one another, on the answers to these important questions.
On Wednesday morning on TimesDispatch .com, we broke the story that a dog belonging to Robin Starr, CEO of the Richmond SPCA, died after being left unattended in her car for four hours on a day when temperatures topped 90 degrees.
Within 48 hours, the story had been read more than 58,000 times, and there were nearly 500 comments from readers.
The first post came from L. Johnson, who wrote, "This woman is evil. She should never be allowed to work around or own animals!"
Critics pointed out that Starr had been outspoken in cases of animal cruelty, and especially hard on Michael Vick when he was charged with organizing dogfights.
Supporters said her devotion to animals was beyond question, and they accused critics, and the newspaper, of making too much of a tragic accident.
"Once again, the media has overstepped its bounds by publicizing a story that should have remained a private family matter," said a poster using the screen name rlongo. "As a result, a tragic accident has been unfairly construed as an act of negligence, and more importantly the reputation of one of Richmond's finest citizens has been compromised. If this accident did not involve Robin Starr, it would have never been published. Period. Shame on
The Richmond Times-Dispatch and all other media outlets that have carried (and undoubtedly will continue to carry) this story."
Comments came fast and furiously throughout the day. Tempers flared, and many posts were deleted because they included personal attacks or profanity.
As a newspaper, we believe in freedom of speech. We do not alter or edit reader comments. We don't filter or censor posts because of the personal or political opinions expressed.
But we do ask readers to avoid offensive language and respect the opinions of others. We reserve the right to remove posts that violate the Terms and Conditions linked at the bottom of every article. Among other things, our policy forbids posts that are "defamatory, harmful, threatening, illegal, or knowingly false."
We provide a link below each comment for readers to report inappropriate posts, and those reports are reviewed by editors to see if they warrant removal.
Some people who saw their comments disappear accused us of censorship or favoritism. Others wanted us to close all critical comments. We chose to allow readers on both sides to express themselves, as long as the conversation remained civil.
Because the dog died a week before our story was published, one of the questions most frequently asked by readers was whether
The Times-Dispatch deliberately delayed reporting the incident.
The answer is simple: No, we didn't.
We got a tip on Tuesday afternoon that Starr's dog had died. We didn't know when, we didn't know where. We had no other details.
After a quick call to Richmond police and prosecutors, we knew there were no criminal charges filed. Reporter Joe Macenka began calling and e-mailing Starr and SPCA spokeswoman Tabitha Hanes.
By 4 p.m., we hadn't received any response. Reporter Jeremy Slayton went to the SPCA. Starr wasn't there.
An hour later, Hanes called back. She wouldn't discuss anything related to the dog but said she and Starr would meet with Slayton on Wednesday morning at 9.
As soon as Slayton left the meeting with Starr and her husband, Ed, he called the newsroom and began dictating a story. By 10:36 a.m., we had a report on TimesDispatch.com.
Another question posed by many readers was whether Starr should be charged with a crime. State law is clear -- it's a Class 1 misdemeanor (animal cruelty) to "inflict inhumane injury or pain on an animal," but only if the act is willful.
Starr said the dog that died -- Louie, a 16-year-old deaf and blind mutt -- was the favorite of her four dogs. Based on her tearful interview with Slayton, there's no indication she intended to harm her dog.
Richmond Animal Care and Control issued a statement Thursday that said "charges are not forthcoming," but the case is still under investigation.
Had this incident involved an Everyday Joe, we likely wouldn't have gotten a tip about it, and we probably wouldn't have written a story in the absence of a criminal charge.
But given Starr's role with the SPCA, her prominence in the community, and her outspokenness about cases of animal cruelty, it became front-page news.
That conclusion is supported by the fact that so many of you read the story, were emotionally affected by it, and felt compelled to share your reactions.
Contact Multimedia Editor John Witt at (804) 649-6824 or
.
Contact News Editor Paige Mudd at (804) 649-6671 or .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I most definitely resigned due to many of the behind the scenes actions of the spca. There is alot the public doesn’t know. You obviosly don’t know anything about the real Robin Starr.
To the obviously disgruntled “former employees,“ did you resign or were you terminated. From the vitrol in your comments my guess would be the latter.
Point blank if you know Robin you know she is a self righteous liar.
I know Robin Starr personally and it is my opinion that she is blatantly lying about not knowing Louie(RIP), was in her car. Robin was probably thinking about some important meeting that morning and not her geriatric blind and deaf dog. Why was she still transporting Louie back and forth to work in his condition is one of my first questions. I also wonder why she held this from the public for a week? To mourn? I don’t buy it, I have never seen Robin show one bit of pure and natural compassion to any human nor animal. In my opinion Robin is just way too proud to step down from director of the spca. I’m pretty amazed she still hasn’t been charged. The public must not back down and insist she be charged as any other person in richmond would be that neglected their dog intentionally or not. Don’t worry it’s not over and things are being cooked up right now to bring her to justice.
Don Irwin writes:
“so as to produce…“ would simply have been omitted, and the full paragraph would have read: “(v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner…..“ But it doesn’t. It reads: “(v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering;“.
the clause “so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering” applies to the careless act of negligence that subjected the victim(Louie) to a level and degree of harm (torture and unnecessary suffering)that resulted in his death, the clause does not apply to whether the act was intentional or unintentional by the offender, in this case the Starr’s.
In human terms the charge would be classified as “negligient homicide” (manslaughter) regardless of intent.
Kerri (September 6) apparently is trying to breathe new life into a stale controversy. Her post merits answer only because it contains a plainly incorrect reading of the statute from which she quotes at such length. To answer her question whether examination of the animal cruelty statute resolves the question of intent, the answer is that it does, but not in the way she would prefer. The statute clearly requires legal intent, as can clearly be seen from the actual language cited by her. Intent, which implies at least knowledge of the probable effect of one’s action, if not the direct purpose of bringing it about, is plainly imbedded in the phrase “so as to produce” in paragraph (v), quoted but apparently overlooked by Kerri. That is classic statutory language distinguishing willful, or deliberate, or intentional conduct from inadvertent or accidental conduct. If intent were not an element of the offense (which is apparently Kerri’s suggestion), the phrase “so as to produce…“ would simply have been omitted, and the full paragraph would have read: “(v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner…..“ But it doesn’t. It reads: “(v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering;“. Of course, there is no evidence of such intent with respect to Louie or the Starrs, because there was none. It’s truly time to move on.
Richmond got it Wrong.
Here is the VA code. Note the “;“ and (i) that are used. Also the “or” and “,“ use. Each section is a violation and no sections must be read together.
§ 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty.
A. Any person who: (i) overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, ill-treats, abandons, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether belonging to himself or another; (ii) deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment; (iii) sores any equine for any purpose or administers drugs or medications to alter or mask such soring for the purpose of sale, show, or exhibition of any kind, unless such administration of drugs or medications is within the context of a veterinary client-patient relationship and solely for therapeutic purposes; (iv) willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal; (v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering; or (vi) causes any of the above things, or being the owner of such animal permits such acts to be done by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor
Now, read it like this:
§ 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty.
A. Any person who: (v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering; is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor
No requirement for “willfully” in there. The verbs are in bold. VA law does not require that there be intent to committ a crime. Negligence can get you there.
Here’s the section on child cruelty. Note that they make sure that both willful and negligent are included.
§ 40.1-103. Cruelty and injuries to children; penalty; abandoned infant.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person employing or having the custody of any child willfully or negligently to cause or permit the life of such child to be endangered or the health of such child to be injured, or willfully or negligently to cause or permit such child to be placed in a situation that its life, health or morals may be endangered, or to cause or permit such child to be overworked, tortured, tormented, mutilated, beaten or cruelly treated. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Sure puts a different light on the “Oops what a terrible mistake” defense huh?
In response to tidewatergal’s comment:
Spot on!
This was NOT an accident, an accident would have been leaving Louie safe and secure in his home and the house catching on fire, this was an act of careless irresponsible negligience had this been an unwillful, unintentional act involving a child of the Director of Child Protective Services the person would be facing criminal charges.
The fact that the story was not reported immediately and was only released because a news source was about to go public with it is definitely suspect, as are the explanations as to what happened.
It’s not like Mrs. Starr is a CEO for a shoe factory where killing her dog in a hot car undermines her credibility to sell shoes, everytime she appears at a public function or speaking engagement people will look and wonder about Louie and not revel in how much money she raised last week, last month or last year.
How can anyone possibly believe she will continue to be taken seriously in her leadership role advocating responsible pet ownership. Her public relations image and credibility is damaged, perception is everything and, in my opinion, there is a perception of a cover-up. Mrs. Starr should resign.
It’s too bad that “responders” to this article are using its publication to continue their screeds against Robin Starr rather than responding to the actual article itself. It is inexcusable for them, without a shred of evidence, to continue to impute deceptiveness to the Starrs in their account of the sequence of events in what was, pretty obviously, a purely private, accidental tragedy. One wonders whether factional interests in the animal-rights cause, from persons with an axe to grind against either the SPCA or its remarkably effective head, have overtaken legitimate interest in this sad matter. Now that the government agency charged with investigation of animal cruelty has confirmed the absence of intent to cause harm to Louie, it looks like high time for folks to move on and leave Louie, and the Starrs, in peace.
I have the deepest sympathy for anyone who loses a pet. Tragic, yes. Intentional, of course not. Nevertheless, a dog was KILLED in the Starrs’ care. Savvy damage control for hubby to take the blame. Easier to swallow than the CEO of RSPCA being neglectful. Sure, it could have happened to any one of us & I hope it never does. And I expect that she would come after the person if it did happen as that is her job. Point is, we are not leading the RSPCA.
It is out of the question to think she can still lead the RSPCA with any credibility. A pet owner whose negligence caused the death of her own pet leading the masses? Richmond deserves better. This incident will always come up if Starr stays. She should put the animals ahead of her ego and step down so the stain of this act of neglect & stupidity can fade and the good work can continue. If she truly cares she can continue to help by volunteering, but needs to step down as CEO!
Finally, it is inconceivable to me that Starr’s colleagues think that we should believe that Louie’s death will strengthen her credibility. They underestimate the public’s IQ. Ask yourself, would you leave your beloved pet in their care?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement