Two Men Shown In Video Laughing And Slitting The Throat of a Dog Are Given No Jail Time By Louisiana Judge

downloadWe have previously discussed how the sentencing for animal abuse in some states remains artificially low – destroying any real deterrence impact of criminal laws. That seems to be the case in Louisiana where Steven Sadler and Boots Stanley were sentenced for slitting the throat of a dog and posting the disgusting video of the action on social media. That would seem to easily warrant jail but Judge Carl Sharp gave them both probation.

Both men are from Arkansas and the men are heard on the video laughing.  The dog is first shown trying to stay on the rump of a horse ridden by Stanley.  The men laugh as the dog’s throat is slit, which took multiple efforts before the dog was ultimately killed.

They originally faced multiple charges of aggravated animal cruelty, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $25,000. Nevertheless, Sharp suspended the jail terms in favor three years of probation, a $5,000 fine, and 480 hours of community service. Moreover, by donating $5,000 to the Morehouse Parish Humane Society, the men can cancel half the community service.

So two individuals who not only brutally killed an animal for fun but proudly posted the video will be allowed to walk.  The sentence in my view makes a mockery of the criminal law. If these men do not warrant jail time, I am hard pressed to imagine when any conduct would warrant such a penalty.


16 thoughts on “Two Men Shown In Video Laughing And Slitting The Throat of a Dog Are Given No Jail Time By Louisiana Judge”

  1. There are way too many reports of animal abuse. These men should have had jail time. There is NO amusement to their victim. The judge WILL see these men again. Probably for doing the see thing to another weaker spieces, such as a young child. It is a known fact, that abusers of animals go on to harm humans. All involved, including the judge, should be made to watch their video, to gain their fifteen minutes of shame, for a period of not less than six months. Nothing else but their sick video should be viewed during that time!! They should also be required to attend classes on the value of EVERY life, including that heartless judge!!! Also, they should be forced to work at an animal shelter that takes care of animals from puppy Mills, and they would need to be under CONSTANT supervision, and film while they struggle not to vomit, or cry like that animal they killed!!! That should be the least of their punishment, INCLUDING that stupid, heartless, judge!

  2. What comes to mind when you think of animal cruelty? Jeffrey Dahmer and Kipland Kinkel.

    1. Growing up w/the name “Boots” & parents who inflicted it on him couldn’t have helped.

  3. Disgusting! But Louisiana enjoys its corrupt politics and that’s how
    you get decisions like this. I fear it will never change.

  4. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hopefully some of the so-called “cable news” outlets and “news”papers will run with this story and bring some justice to that poor animal. This is all public record – no speculation – name the judge and criminals and disclose the facts. Public deserves to know about these creeps and cold judge.

  5. This just breaks my heart. I cannot imagine what that poor dog went through at the hands of these depraved individuals. There are people who do not deserve the love or loyalty of their dogs.

    What about the horse? Are they barred from having access to animals for any period of time, or did they go back to the barn and think about ways to torture the horse, too, as well as any other animals, as psychopaths do.

    I hope that they do not allow these men to serve any community service hours around animals, such as at animal shelters or humane societies. It’s not like these men would view the animals in need and have some sort of epiphany on empathy or regret.

    These men needed jail time not only for justice or a deterrent; there is an added benefit that the public would be safe from them while they are incarcerated.

    Who knows what they have done to people, or will do to them in the future. This first reckoning ended up another thing for them to laugh over.

    1. The statute allows for the prohibition of animal ownership, post-conviction, for a period determinable by a judge.

    1. Here, a dog was murdered, far worse.
      The “Stanford Rape Case” was a drunken grope; there was no rape that occurred and the crime of rape was never charged.

  6. Given that it is well recognized that people who engage in this sort of behavior often engage in violent behavior against humans, these types of individuals should be far more severely punished. They should also be put on some kind of a watchlist.

  7. These SOBs should be drawn and quartered and there body parts fed to wolves

    1. What have you got against wolves? Better to just flush what’s left of them down the nearest toilet.

Comments are closed.