Kennel to keep dog awaiting his fate

By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 5, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

February 5, 2008

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

JK writes:

I can see a home owners lawsuit comming from this one. Nerve damage from twisting, come on get real. If that dog wanted to he could have taken a huge chunk out of her. She got a scratch and now the dog is paying for the dramatic victim. It should have ended with "sorry my dog scared you."
February 5, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

LS writes:

Funny how the same people keep logging on with different usernames and referring to the dog's bite as a scratch. This is very much like Retread's snipe-and-hide MO. Gonna run out of alternative email addresses to use pretty soon, hon. And the nah-nah, childish name-calling is sure to follow later on today. JB, wanna wager with me on that?

I hope there isn't a lawsuit either, but it is very possible to suffer a pinched nerve from twisting and lifting at the same time. Anyone who works out with weights knows this. It doesn't even have to be a heavy load.

But let's comment on the article above, instead of interjecting yet another useless and accusatory remark that doesn't have anything to do with the story, shall we?

How nice that Rolo gets free room, board and training. Wondering who is paying the kennel owner and the trainer for that service I wonder?
February 5, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

LS, I wonder about that too. I have my suspicions on exactly who is paying but they are just suspicions.

Some of the posters on here act like they've won the lottery or something. I still believe Ms. Hagan will be found guilty of both charges because obviously she is guilty of the charges.

However, I am glad to see Rolo finally receiving some competent and much needed training. I do fear that if somehow this dog is return to Ms. Hagan, the good work that the trainer might be able to accomplish could be lost. I'm still stumped by the cruel and nasty comments about the victim as well as the concerned neighbors. Now that the Hagan folks have gotten out of TMAC, can't you at least admit the fact that if it wasn't for Rolo's aggressiveness and Ms. Hagan's irresponsibilities, this situation would have never happened?
February 5, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Retread writes:

I would not start personal nitpicking here LS, you do not have the cohones or knowledge to back it up. Pretty simple crapola case here, people who do not know how to act around dogs, people who do not know that there are idiots in the area and own dogs. Add bottom feeding lawyers, and judges with heads up rearends, you have todays situation with Rollo being the only one with a brain.

I see a dog trying to protect a child from a screaming woman, you folks see a neglectful owner, and a vicious dog. I still say you all can live in a world where there are no dogs, you do not deserve the loyality or love they provide.

You do not know me LS, I don't hide from any man or woman, if you have a problem speak out Sonny.
February 5, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"I see a dog trying to protect a child from a screaming woman..."

Ah yeah. Sure. Sounds like you've watched one too many episodes of Lassie.

This case is simple. The dog bit the woman. The owner was an idiot animal lover who thinks their beloved little doggie is just misunderstood, and didn't restrain the ANIMAL. And a city full of animal fanatics get hysterical over the life of a dog, while ignoring the thousands of needy kids they see and ignore every day.
February 5, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

LS writes:

BTP, You make a good point that none of this would have happened if only... Ah, if only the aggressive dog had received constructive and positive attention at an earlier age, for the exception of having its larynx altered because of incessant barking. Complaints to animal control got that done to try to restore some peace to the neighborhood. That speaks volumes right there.

After forcing myself to read the hearing transcripts, the way I understand it is that Arvada dropped the animal at large charge in exchange for a guilty acceptance of the dangerous animal violation which is much more serious.

This isn't about getting rich. Hagan has incited people to harass and threaten the victim, causing her concern for her and her family's safety and well-being. Just look at the vile comments that are made in this blog when posters write comments that these snipers don't like? It is what it is, and that will weigh heavily against Hag an in the future. There is no basis of fact for these people. Just emotional outbursts. There is nothing in the texts, only discussion of medical receipts and the judge delaying action on that. There is nothing of substance to read there. Just what people twist all up in their little brains because they have too much time on their hands.

I am in agreement with you in hoping that the training Rolo receives won't be lost. In all honesty I think that woman isn't really interested or motivated in having a trained dog. Or she would have seen to that years ago.
February 5, 2008

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

LS writes:

Retread. I see a large, unrestrained dog on a public street that attempted to approach a child and a frightened mother picking that child up. Has nothing to do with how to act around dogs. It has to do with motherly instinct to protect her kid. Something you don't have, and hopefully never will. Do us all a favor and get that hysterectomy done soon, will ya?

Neglectful owner? Darn straight. Zealots defending her? Darn straight again.

Vicious dog? I've posted that several times in defense of Rolo, but because of your sorry lack of reading comprehension, you miss that point continually. I don't think he is vicious. You just can't face that you have crap for an argument in defense of that woman, that's all.

You're right about one thing. I don't know you, nor would I care to. I live in a world with dogs, cats, birds, horses and a nice big 3/4 acre koi pond. No problem here but thanks for your concern, Sonny.
February 5, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

LS, your post is dead on, well said. It just irks me to no end that there are so many people that point blame to the blameless and blatently ignore that Ms. Hagan has direct responsibility for this entire mess. Ms. Hagan and Ms. Hagan alone is to blame for the situation. The burden of blame rests squarely and completely on her shoulders. Period!
February 5, 2008

6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Retread writes:

People can speak for themselves, Rolo cannot. I have been around dogs and animals all my life, most of them have better instincts than the people responding to this article. I have had several large dogs in my life, a couple that were very protective of children, anyone coming close to those kids in a threatening manner would recieve much more than a scratched rear end and a pulled back.

My lack of reading comprehension? Are you for real? Just because I disagree with your OPINION, does not mean I hate you, Mrs Hagan, or Mrs Hardin. It just means I see the episode as unfortunate, and a jump to conclusion by all involved. These incidents used to be solved with common sense and cool heads. Now, not a chance. Now everyone has to have someone to blame, there is more to this simple case of blame somebody here, believe me.
February 5, 2008

8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

Gee, how'd I miss this one? Got bored, started clicking on various things and here's YET ANOTHER story about poor Rolo.

BTP: Dead on doesn't matter if there's no sentient target to hit.

Retread: I think that's the point that LS and BTP are trying to impress upon you. Nobody expects the dog to speak for itself. The dog is as much a victim in this as the lady that was bitten. It all could have been avoided in the first place. Clearly LS has repeated that Rolo is the pawn in this. How is it that you are not getting it?

But on a happier note, I just looked at the RNM cutest pets photo contest pictures. A couple of real cuties this month. Go. Relax. Enjoy. There will never be agreement, so go pet your dog and let it be.
February 6, 2008

1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

The reason the injury is referred to as a "scratch" is because that is what the paramedics and animal control officer on the scene said it was.

From the first news report on this case (Mile High Newspapers, Oct 4, 2007):
"In e-mails obtained by Mile High Newspapers, Robert Porec, the animal control officer who responded to the call, expressed misgivings about the case to Reid
February 6, 2008

2:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BTP said, "It just irks me to no end that there are so many people that point blame to the blameless and blatently ignore that Ms. Hagan has direct responsibility for this entire mess. Ms. Hagan and Ms. Hagan alone is to blame for the situation. The burden of blame rests squarely and completely on her shoulders. Period!"

And it irks me to no end that there are so many people that continue to condemn Ms. Hagen despite her having paid her dues and compensated the lady who got scratched.

The blame has ALREADY been laid on Hagen. She apologized (but the apology was not accepted) and has paid all fines and restitution to the lady who got scratched and has implemented corrective measures. So the blame has already been laid, this is not anything new. Let Rolo be allowed to go home to his family.
February 6, 2008

2:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

apparently my first comment about why people are referring to the injury as a "scratch" (because that's how Animal Control and the EMT described it) got partially erased before getting submitted. Let me re-quote the article in question (10/4/07, Mile High Newspapers online):

"...In e-mails obtained by Mile High Newspapers, Robert Porec, the animal control officer who responded to the call, expressed misgivings about the case.... "This case has been bothering me," Porec wrote to Reid on Sept. 7. "The bite was very minor, in fact, the EMT that examined the bite wasn't even sure to call it a bite, as it was just a scratch... "
February 6, 2008

6:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

LiAnne - I'm not talking about what Hagan has already done or not done, I'm talking about the constant vicious statements made by people in the Hagan camp regarding the innocent victim of this crime as well as the neighbors who also fear the dog.

What I'm trying to say is... have you (or other Hagan supporters) seen Ms. Hagan's injury with your own eyes? Have you experienced the pain of the nerve damage that she has suffered? Have you experienced what it was like at the time of and leading up to the attack on Ms. Hagin to live next to or near Rolo and be afraid that he'd leave the yard with the baby-sized fence and come after you? I would venture to say there is nobody posting all the negativity toward the victim and other neighbors that experienced any of those things. So stop degrading the people who were personally and truly impacted by Ms. Hagan's irresponsibility regarding the dangerous situation with her dog.

I don't care if Ms. Hagan handed over thousands of dollars, apologized from the mountaintops, or changed her website to iwaswrong.com. What I care about is the innocent victim and the innocent neighborhood coming under fire by people for simply letting the court know of their concerns and fears. They did nothing wrong, whatsoever.
February 6, 2008

6:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Lianne, as to the FORMER animal control officer my guess is that this FORMER animal control officer and the EMT's on the scene looked at the bite immediately after the event and certainly didn't realize the damage that was done that would take time to reveal itself (just like whiplash after a car accident, no indication until much later). Perhaps Ms. Hardin was in a bit of shock at the time and wasn't thrilled with the idea of showing her rear end to a bunch of strangers. I mean especially since she just saved her toddler from a dangerous animal and was probably shaken up pretty badly. Unless you were present and know the facts or unless you saw the injury yourself, you are speculating about the injury. I am speculating but I'm also giving the situation the benefit of the doubt because it makes sense to me that the true impact of the injury might show up later, the next day or even days later.
February 6, 2008

6:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

dang it I did it again and mixed up the names (I wish these people had really different names lol), obviously it is Ms. Hardin with the injury. Ms. Hagan has not suffered any injuries.
February 6, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Again with this?

LS, PMSXpress and BTP.... you've all said it quite nicely and clearly. I'm starting to agree with PMSXpress that logic just won't work because the people posting in defense of Hagen don't care about logic.

Plain and simple, had Hagen fixed her fence after the first time Rolo got out, we would not be having this conversation and Rolo's life would not be in peril -- Hagen has herself to blame for this mess and no one else.

Anyhow, WAY too slammed at work today to sit and post. Besides, as I said, logic is lost on many of Hagen's supporters who post here.
February 6, 2008

10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BTP, I have not seen Hardin's injury myself, anymore than you have. The fact is, the animal control officer and EMT on the scene described it as a scratch. Saying anything beyond that, one way or the other, is speculation. You are therefore the only one speculating.

You have said over and over how you care about the vicious statements being made about Hardin and the neighbors. I am not denying that the negative statements have gone both ways, but you claim it is only going one way, which is not true. Personally I have been calling for Rolo to be allowed to go home since Hagen has owned up to her mistake, has implemented corrective measures, the canine experts have said he is not vicious and shouldn't be put down, and she has compensated Hardin and taken responsibility for her mistake. Regardless of who is saying negative things about whom. You however said Hagen has taken 'zero responsibility' for her actions. When I pointed out how this is not true and how she HAS taken responsibility, you replied with "I don't care if Ms. Hagan handed over thousands of dollars, apologized from the mountaintops, or changed her website to iwaswrong.com. " Now you have accused me of degrading Hardin. So...where have I said anything about Hardin that is anywhere near as negative and emotional as what you have said about Hagen?
February 7, 2008

6:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Lianne, I responded to you on one of the other stories. Again, only true Medical Doctors who have evaluated Ms. Hardin since the incident can make the call whether or not Ms. Hardin sustained lasting medical injury. I've read that she had extensive bruising, nerve damage and psychological damage from fearing harm to herself and her BABY. You and the other Hagan supporters keep speculating about the scratch. I believe the doctors and not any of the non MD people who think they know anything.

Rolo should never be allowed to return to Olde Town (I won't go into all that again) but its an extremely bad, actually horrible idea to return him to the neighborhood. There is too much risk for everyone. I don't believe Rolo should die but returning him to the neighborhood is almost certainly bound to go badly. The neighbors know how they feel, to the point that they went to court to tell a judge. The neighbors have seen the protests, probably watched the news or heard that annoying Peter Boyles, and so on and so on. DO you honestly think Rolo can go back to that neighborhood and their won't be some further incident of some sort? If there is, I will eat my hat because I am absolutely convinced it would be a gigantic mistake for Rolo to "go home" as you put it.
February 7, 2008

6:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

I have said my peace about this. Anymore conversation is something similar to running face first into a brick building. The Hagan supporters are so determined to lay all the blame for this at the feet of the woman who was attacked and the neighborhood that was in fear of the dog. You people cannot see the forest for the trees. Hagan caused all of this, every last bit of it and her and her supporters continue to victimize the victim. Its really pretty sickening. But my whole body hurts from running into the wall on this one. Ms. Hardin, if you are reading, at least sone of us support you and the other neighbors.
February 7, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

heartfelt writes:

Thank you Ted Terroux for identifying Rolo's potential and taking him under your "wings"...Your wisdom and lifelong observation of dogs will enable Rolo to go on a road of new discoveries, along with his owner Laura Hagan, to whom he plays such an important part in her life.
Thank you judge Mike Graber, for allowing Rolo to be moved and having the opportunity for training instead of wasting away in a small cell. With the five months incarcerated in isolation, Rolo has suffered too long and now has the chance for a new beginning.

Thank you to Paramedics who have made it clear that the "injury" was very minor - a scratch.

Thank you to the newspapers and media, who have kept Rolo's plight in the public eye. Our culture is learning more and more that animals remember, feel, fear and sorrow. Rolo's evaluation by K-9 Police Dog Trainers and experts is very encouraging and all steps taken by Laura Hagan to remedy the situation clearly show how willing she is to have her companion back in her life.
Many people have chosen to listen, to care and to accept that there are alternatives.
Rolo's long incarceration of almost 6 months have taken a junk out of his life. I hope he will find the support of people who understand that killing an innocent dog is wrong. His small mistake is not justification for such severe punishment.
Rolo is NOT guilty.

A big THANK YOU goes out to Peter Boyles for taking time to visit Rolo with dog experts and K-9 Trainers and letting people know about Rolo's and Laura's plight.

Let's all hope Rolo will be freed and can go home to his family, in a new place, NOT ARVADA - to a new beginning. For most of us his ordeal has brought renewed awareness that dogs are family too.

And Thank You to BTP for showing everyone with common sense how you made a fool out of yourself, by admonishing the world with your constant state of dissatisfaction, your invalidating of all decency and feeding off the negative only: You find fault with insignificant things that don't really matter - the only thing that matters is: Rolo is innocent and deserves another chance.
He is NOT guilty - Save Rolo !
February 7, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Heartfelt-
You are the one failing to excersize common sense.

Here is a simple FACT. Had Laura Hagen secured Rolo after the first time he escaped, none of this would have happened -- PERIOD!

Please heartfelt, try to refute that. You can't, because it is a black and white statement and simple fact. Laura has NO ONE to blame but herself for all of this...PERIOD.
February 7, 2008

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BTP, it still remains that since Hardin did not produce medical records in court to substantiate her injuries even when they were negotiating her restitution, and since the EMTs on the scene who actually saw Hardin's injury said publicly that it was minor, that saying anything else beyond this is speculation. It might well be that there was more extensive injury, but at this point there has been no proof of it, at least none that has been substantiated to the public knowledge. The only medical authorities that have come forward to talk about her injury was the EMT on the scene, who described the injury as minor.

You bring up an interesting point when you said, "I don't believe Rolo should die but returning him to the neighborhood is almost certainly bound to go badly. The neighbors know how they feel, to the point that they went to court to tell a judge. The neighbors have seen the protests, probably watched the news or heard that annoying Peter Boyles, and so on and so on. DO you honestly think Rolo can go back to that neighborhood and their won't be some further incident of some sort?"

The way you framed the issue is down to how the neighbors FEEL about Rolo, and not the facts or evidence.

Given the cold hard facts - that the expert dog trainers and handlers said Rolo is not a danger to society, and that Hagen has taken substantial corrective measures, and furthermore since I highly doubt she will want to go through all this again and thus will likely be super vigilant about her dog (probably more so than most dog owners ever would be with theirs) - my answer is that I do think Rolo can go home without jeopardizing the public safety.

However, since you brought up a good point which is that it is down to the neighborhood's opinion of him and not to the actual evidence, therefore in light of that I don't think he can go home and have the neighbors FEEL safe, even if they actually ARE safe.

Nonetheless I feel that the legal option for him to go home should be there otherwise this is saying that a handful of people's FEELINGS and prejudices against you count more than the cold hard evidence in favor of you. What kind of ramifications would this have for future court cases? Would you want the law to operate this way if you were taken to court and the evidence was in favor of you yet the court ruled against you based on prejudices? Knowing the judicial system would operate this way does not make ME feel safe, and I don't think it makes a lot of people feel safe either.

I think it's not a good idea for Rolo to go back to that neighborhood given the sentiment against him. I would advise Hagen to not live in that neighborhood anymore if she were allowed to keep Rolo (and if I were in a position to advise her), even though I do believe that legally he should be allowed to.
February 7, 2008

3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

Heartfelt - I share your sentiment that Rolo can be freed and allowed to go home to his family. Like you, I believe dogs are part of the family.

And despite the anti-Hagen camp continuing to relentlessly lay condemnation on her and continuing to conveniently ignore the fact that she has bent over backwards paying penance and doing everything in her power to right her past mistake, not to mention having compensated the victim, I too hope she and Rolo will be allowed to move on.
February 7, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

LiANne-
What part of this don't you get? The problem is that Hagen did not correct the problem the first time, thus preventing this whole situation.

You say she is so responsible, but then why let the dog escape twice...why wait until he hurt someone to do it?

Clearly she wouldn't be so apologetic if she weren't in trouble... since she wasn't apologetic the first time!
February 7, 2008

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

LiAnne, honestly nobody really knows what has or hasn't been presented in court because as I'm sure you know medical records are not part of the public record, they are personal information about the victim. This case has not yet gone to trial so, until the time that it does, NOBODY can say the extent of Ms. Hardin's injuries. The only reliable, and factual information can only be medical records provided by Medical Doctors (not some EMT giving a quick visual of the injury). With all due respect, the animal management officer's email to the city attorney is not proof of anything and yet that seems to be what the Hagan supporters are relying upon as proof. Go back and read the transcripts, the only person anywhere in the transcript that talks about the extent of injury is Ms. Hagan, otherwise there is no reference anywhere about the extent of her injury. The only people have referred to her injury as a scratch are the Hagan supporters and some supposed email. I still don't think that the email is proof of anything, its one person's opinion of an event (and a non medical person at that). Medical records provided directly to the court is the only real proof here.
February 7, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB, Hagen has already taken/is taking corrective measures, and the professional dog trainers and handlers have said the dog is not a danger to society. Given these two recent developments, how does the past (which you keep harping on) impact the future safety of the public?

Hagen also DID apologize to Hardin, it was in the first news report. (Hardin didn't accept the apology.) So you are actually wrong here, she did apologise.

Yes she was apologetic because her dog injured Hardin. She said so herself in the first news report, in which she also said she didn't think it was right that her dog had injured Hardin, thus she was implementing corrective measures immediately. What's wrong with that? wouldn't you be apologetic if your dog injured someone?

What part of this don't you get?
February 7, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BPT, since the authorities on the scene described the injury as a scratch, I don't see what more there is to say about it. The fact remains that no medical records were presented in the first two court hearings. Therefore, no proof of further injuries.
February 7, 2008

5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

LiAnne!!!!
You are not reading what I am saying. I NEVER said Hagen didn't apologize. I'm saying that she had the opportunity to PREVENT this from happening and CHOSE not to do so! She only took corrective measures AFTER Rolo bit the woman, even though she was aware of his ability to escape BEFORE this happened.

The issue for me is not whether Rolo is dangerous or not, it's whether or not HAGEN is irresponsible and willing to take actions BEFORE problems arise...like she failed to do so this time.
February 7, 2008

6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

LiAnne, how do you KNOW what medical records have been presented? The case is set for a brand new trial, right? That means anything could have happened since July or August and you don't KNOW what records have or have not been provided. None of us are a party to this case so none of us have any actual knowledge or proof. The only person who ever used the word scratch was an animal control officer in a PRIVATE email with the animal officer saying what the EMT's supposedly told him. There is no proof or actual true evidence of the report of a mere "scratch" anywhere.
February 7, 2008

7:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

DA writes:

JB,
You state repeatedly in your posts for this article and other articles regarding rolo that had Hagan fixed the fence when Rolo first got out that there wouldn't have been a problem.
Well, I assume you've read the court transcripts from the first two hearings. Surely 5 pages isn't too much for someone with such an outspoken opinion on the case.

Plain and simple, the only time the fence was mentioned in the transcripts was when one of Hagan's neighbour's husband said that Rolo charged the chain link fence and barked at him whenever he went near the fence (strange that he'd be upset with the barking of a dog with no larynx). The neighbour stated that her husband said that IF the fence ever fell down, he believed that the barking dog (with no larynx) would attack. (I'm amazed that the third hand testimony by someone who wasn't even present in the courtroom to be cross examined seems to be so relevant to you.)
If anything, the testimony shows one of two things:
1. the fence was effective in containing an agitated dog
2. the dog is not viscious or else he would have run through the sub par fence and attacked the man

"Plain and simple, had Hagen fixed her fence after the first time Rolo got out, we would not be having this conversation and Rolo's life would not be in peril -- Hagen has herself to blame for this mess and no one else."

Maybe you should read a little about the case before giving your opinion.
February 7, 2008

8:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

heartfelt writes:

JB: Laura did apologize right away. First you write this:
"Clearly she wouldn't be so apologetic if she weren't in trouble... since she wasn't apologetic the first time!" Then you write this: "I NEVER said Hagen didn't apologize" -

Do you remember what you write or think here ? Are you just confused and like to argue and have the last word ?

When Rolo got out, he didn't go out thru the fence... Laura was taking her dogs for a walk and switching leashes... Why are you so fence-fixed ? And yes, Rolo got lose from the leash for a moment.. if some other normal person was walking by, not the hysteric Hardin who startled the dog, we wouldn't have this conversation.

It is not the fence JB. The fence has very little to do with it.
It was just a measure taken after to remedy the situation. Yes JB, AFTER !! No one ever denied that, so why do you keep rambling on about the fence ?? According to BTP the neighbors FEEL unsafe.. so a fence was built. Still not happy ??
JB you really think highly about yourself. Profiling you one gets blinded from your halo. Please come with some relevant opinions, not irrelevant ones. Since a dog does not have wings and cannot fly (then again, your's might) a dog comes out thru a door most time. I doubt Laura was climbing the fence over her yard to go on a walk. So Rolo got out for a moment, which can happen to any dog -(unless of course the perfect JB handles him - do you keep your dog in a stray jacket ?) and you keep fussing over the fence...

DA: Good point - I think JB needs to think of a new chapter in his fence thriller. If the fence was of such concern before the incident, then why on Earth did no one report it ? If it was containing such a danger that might break out ? Are there records of it ? JB you seem keen in your own way... can you find those records ? After all you are the fence expert. Please let me know when you find them.
February 7, 2008

9:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BTP, you are right that I do not know what medical records have SINCE been provided. Anymore than YOU do. I do know for a fact that no medical records were presented at the first two hearings, because this is on the public record, and that is what I said before. The information I have been repeating is that which is out in the open.
February 7, 2008

9:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Actually, according to the transcript the judge must have had $689 worth of supporting documentation when he ordered restitution to Ms. Hardin. He also references on page 4 of the transcript that Ms. Hardin has $689 of expenses SO FAR and could have additional expenses. THAT is what is on the public record. I don't see anywhere that the judge says there is no supporting documentation. The only thing he wouldn't agree to was daycare expenses, lost wages, and other intangibles. The medical expenses which as of the date of the hearing was $689 were ordered as restitution by the court. Look through that transcript again and find where it says the injury was only a scratch and find where the judge says no invoices or medical records have been provided. You'll have to look really hard to support your position on those two points because neither of those things are part of the real official record (i.e., the transcript) of the hearings. Again, the speculation by the former (meaning no longer employed) animal control officer of what he may or may not have heard from the EMT's is not part of the record (neither the animal management officer's NOR the EMT's testimony show up on the transcripts of the hearings).
February 7, 2008

10:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB!!!!

You said, "I NEVER said Hagen didn't apologize. I'm saying that she had the opportunity to PREVENT this from happening and CHOSE not to do so! She only took corrective measures AFTER Rolo bit the woman, even though she was aware of his ability to escape BEFORE this happened."

One of the neighbors said that Rolo had got out before and had attacked another dog and that a letter was sent to the City about it. But Hagen denied this and said the incident with Hardin was the first time he had been out without a leash or had any other "incidents". This is the extent of the information on the public record of how many times Rolo has been out of the yard or how many incidents he has had. It's a 50-50 tie.

Maybe the neighbor is indeed right and there was a previous time that Rolo was out of his yard, or maybe Hagen is right and perhaps the neighbor mistook another dog for Rolo, we don't know.

So unless Hagen was outright lying in court (which would be a pretty strong accusation to make...) all that you and I know is that someone said the dog was out a previous time and Hagen denied it. Therefore the issue of Rolo having had a previous incident is inconclusive and thus is shaky ground on which to be basing an entire argument and judging Hagen's right to own the dog.

You said, "The issue for me is not whether Rolo is dangerous or not, it's whether or not HAGEN is irresponsible and willing to take actions BEFORE problems arise...like she failed to do so this time."

I agree that being responsible involves taking preventive measures before problems arise. I certainly try to do that as much as I can, as I'm sure you do as well. But as we all know, unforeseen accidents can happen even to the best prepared and most responsible people. Even responsible people can have occasional lapses in judgement since everyone is human after all. And since it is not certain if Rolo did in fact have a previous incident prior to Hardin (again, in court one neighbor said he did, Hagen said he didn't, so since there's no further information made available to us it's a 50-50 tie), it is not possible for you or me to judge her entire "responsibility" solely on this specific issue.

What IS known to us is that she did put up a second fence after the incident with Hardin, even before the court told her to, this would prevent future incidents from happening. Now THESE facts suggest that she is a responsible citizen.
February 7, 2008

10:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

That's right, BTP. That is what the transcript says about the amount of restitution. The animal control officer and EMT don't appear on the court transcripts (or if they were present the judge didn't address them). So that's probably why the word 'scratch' wasn't used in the transcripts. However, those authorities did say in the news report that they call the injury a scratch, that's what I was referring to. I have not seen any more recent news reports in which Medical Authorities (since you said that only medical authorities should be qualified to describe the injury and I agree with that) say the injury was more serious. So it still stands that the public statements from Medical Authorities in this matter are those describing the injury as such. If a news report comes out tomorrow in which another Medical Authority describes the injury differently, then that would change things. But as I am not privy to what's going on behind the scenes, we (or at least I) can only talk with any certainty about whatever information has been made public.
February 8, 2008

6:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

LiAnne, there is no public statement as you state. Neither the animal officer NOR the city attorney to whom the email was written actually gave ANY statement WHATSOEVER to the media. The EMT who supposedly made the comment to the animal officer didn't give a statement to the media either. These people were never interviewed so I wonder about the truth of the supposed email where did it come from and was it ever validated by ANYONE? If the reporter from Jeffco News interviewed the ACTUAL WITNESS and the ACTUAL WITNESS said something that is different but this is vewry plain and simply NOT PROOF OR EVIDENCE and yet it is one of the primary focuses of the Hagan camp and quite honestly its rediculous. A leaked personal email is not proof, it probably is not even a real email, I mean how does anyone really KNOW that it is? Because it has never been authenticated by the sender or the recipient it is nothing.
February 8, 2008

6:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Oh and as to REAL medical authorities making statements to the media, THEY CAN'T. And not only because of the gag order but because you know darn good and well, medical providers are prohibited from discussing their patient's personal health information. Do you really think Ms. Hagin's doctors, etc. are going to call some reporter and comment about her injuries?

Maybe the best thing is to wait to see what the jury of Ms. Hagan's peers say. I believe the case is very simple (dog at large (DUH Hagan herself admitted to the dog being off leash), dangerous animal (DUH Hagan herself and other witnesses at the scene saw Ms. Hagin get bitten and Ms. Hagin has proof of her injury). When the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, then everyone will know that Ms. Hagan is guilty of the charges on the ticket(s). Then the judge will do whatever it is he is going to do about sentencing Ms. Hagan and Rolo. The sentence is all that is in question, not the guilt of Ms. Hagan.
February 8, 2008

6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

To correct my earlier post, Ms. Hardin is the one that got bit. and Ms. Hardin obviously is the one with proof of her bite injury.
February 8, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

LiAnne-
I wasn't referring to earlier accusations of Rolo attacking another dog. I'm referring to the previous citation Hagen recieved for Rolo being "at-large." THIS is a matter of fact and public record. The incident with Hardin was the SECOND time Hagen was cited for dog at large... THAT is my problem with trusting Hagen's responsibility.
February 8, 2008

8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

heartfelt writes:

Has anyone found the fence concern records yet ??
February 8, 2008

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

DA writes:

BTP,
The following is from an article from October 4, 2007 by Jeff Francis for the Jeffco News.
Here's the link:
http://www.jeffconews.com/1editorialb...

In e-mails obtained by Mile High Newspapers, Robert Porec, the animal control officer who responded to the call, expressed misgivings about the case to Reid Betzig, an assistant city attorney.

"This case has been bothering me," Porec wrote to Reid on Sept. 7. "The bite was very minor, in fact, the EMT that examined the bite wasn't even sure to call it a bite, as it was just a scratch…

JB, you said, "Neither the animal officer NOR the city attorney to whom the email was written actually gave ANY statement WHATSOEVER to the media."
Soooo, why don't you ask Jeff Francis and his editor about their fact checking requirements. I'm sure that they're more stringent than the requirements for your posts.
February 8, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

DA-
I never said that! I think you meant to address BTP.
February 8, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

DA, the story says "in emails obtained by Mile High Newspapers..." it doesn't say "Robert Porec is quoted as saying..." or "Reid Betzing is quoted as saying..." so this is not direct proof of anything. Its an email that may or may not be legitimate, we don't know since it hasn't been authenticated by either the sender or recipient. If Ms. Porec or Mr. Betzing were interviewed DIRECTLY and were quoted as saying these things, that might be different but even then it isn't proof as far as the court case is concerned. Remember, a news story is NOT the same thing as proof in court. A news story is that.. simply a story.
February 8, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

JB, why are they confusing us with each other? I guess its because we are reasonable, non-emotional people who are looking at this logically and reasonably.
February 8, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

heartfelt writes:

BTP and JB:
""(dog at large (DUH Hagan herself admitted to the dog being off leash), dangerous animal (DUH Hagan herself and other witnesses at the scene saw Ms. Hagin get bitten and Ms. Hagin has proof of her injury).""

I think you are the ones confused, you cannot even distinguish HAGAN FROM HARDIN.... Wouldn't it be at the least reasonable to learn their names correctly ?
February 8, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Heartfelt-
I've never confused the names thank you...feel free to double check ANY post I've made on the topic.

If you care to refute my logic, please use accurate facts to do so.
February 8, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

I'll make a deal with you, I'll learn the names when you learn the facts of the actual incident and not base your entire knowledge base strictly what you've only seen in the media or on rolo's website. Thank goodness that is why there is a jury and a judge, they can evaluate ALL evidence presented to them before making up their minds. Its too bad the Hagan supporters have made full judgments based on only one, lopsided bit of information.

You are right on one point even though I disagree with you on just about everything else, I have gotten the "H" names mixed up, and I apologize to Hagan and Hardin for my typos.
February 8, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

The amazing thing to me is how the posts and the focus has morphed away from saving Rolo's life to crazed, emotional posts that have more to do with attacking people than discussing the situation.

I haven't seen anybody on here recently other than some trolls early on who are even in favor of the dog dying. And if anyone tries to discuss the facts of the attack or the various events that have transpired since, the attempts for those types of discussion are considered frivolous and rediculous by Hagan supporters.

The common-sense posters have just tried to look at this situation objectively and discuss the other side of the situation because there are two sides to this, there are always two sides and frankly we haven't heard much of anything other than Hagan's side.

Everyone should remember that the people really impacted by this are people. They live their lives, they try and do the best they can to protect their families (whether their families consist of parents and children or people and their four-legged children). Perhaps if we try and walk in someone else's shoes it would help. Put yourself in the position of the other side (whatever your thoughts are on this, for a minute put yourself into the shoes of the person on the other side) and imagine yourself in that person's role, what would you do, how would you react, what would you differently than has been done here. For this particular situation, I'm not talking about the judge's order because most everyone can agree that the judge's order for euthanization is being reconsidered by a judge, assuming the jury comes back with guilty verdicts. Anyway, I'm only talking about the people directly involved in the actual incident (Ms. Hagan and Ms. Hardin). I just think its best to try and open your mind to everything rather than getting an idea jammed into your head and not even considering the flip side of things. I'm not a saint by any means, I have my opinion of this matter, I can be pretty stubborn about things and I have definitely been vocal about it on the various stories about this situation but that doesn't mean that I don't feel for everyone involved, especially the victim, Ms. Hardin but I feel even for Ms. Hagan. Can any of you emotional charged-up Hagan supporters say you have any kind of feeling or understanding for Ms. Hardin and what she has been through?
February 8, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB, where is the citation about Rolo being at large previously (and which is a separate time from what I was referring to), talked about?
February 8, 2008

7:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BTP, if you want to dismiss the words of the EMT and animal control officer about Hardin's injury that's up to you. It remains that these are still the only words from any "authorities" that we have to go by on what Hardin's injury was. If you want to assert that the EMT's and animal control officer's words are somehow untrue then the burden to prove it is yours. And unless you are an investigator, or if you contact the newspaper that published that story and ask them how they verified the EMT's/animal control officer's words and determine that they did it wrong, I don't see how you can determine if their words are false.

basically early on in this thread some people, including you, made a big deal about others (including me) referring to Hardin's injury as a scratch. I pointed out that it was the EMT and Animal control officer on the scene who called it a scratch in the news reports thus it's acceptable for anyone else to repeat it in public. Unless you have a personal connection with the parties involved, we can only go by what has been reported, correct?? There could well be more extensive injuries, I am not denying that, but since you said only medical authorities should be in a position to comment (and I agree about that), we can only wait for some other medical authority to say more publicly to settle this. It could be that after the trial, if more details are revealed to the public, we would be having a very different conversation. But until then, stick to what we do know, rather than speculating about what we don't know, or speculating about whether we really do know what we think we know and so on and getting all convoluted. You protested, saying only medical authorities should be believed (and the EMT is a medical authority....), and that only people who have seen the injury should have the right to describe it (didn't the EMT and animal control officer see the injury?), and then now you are downright questioning the truth or validity of the EMT's/Animal control officer's words in the first place, and about whether an e-mail was authenticated by the sender, and whether an EMT is even qualified to say anything about an injury. Is it any wonder the posts are not about saving Rolo's life anymore?? I do however, sense some frustration (what with all the capital letters in your recent posts) so if you want to give it a rest for now, I will to. How about that?
February 8, 2008

7:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

BTP: That post at 11:40 was really good. Clearly though, some people are not or will not able to step outside of their own views and try what you suggest. Scratches or bites, she said or he said or they said... loose dog story that is way over the top. Criminy. I'm to the point that I barely surface skim the postings of certain posters because of the redundancy.

Glad for the dog's reprieve, don't think Hagan will receive same though. Oh well. Life goes on.
February 8, 2008

7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Lianne, I'm not saying whether the email is valid or not. I just don't see an email that a reporter "came into possession of" as being proof of anything. I'd rather wait until the trial and just see what the animal officer, EMT and other witnesses say in court. I can't find anywhere in the transcript that these people provided any testimony, so until they do, there hasn't been any real evidence from them. Plus in the email, the animal officer only said what he heard from the EMTs, which is complete and total interpretation. In essence, the animal officer put words in the EMT's mouths. Sorry but a reporter's story is a story, and very likely not a factual account of the event. Again, you Hagan supporters can believe what you want but I guess I need to hear things directly from a source instead of a second or third hand account. I typically don't believe every thing I read in a newspaper, but that is just me.

Oh, I cap for emphasis since it appears points get missed pretty regularly. Including my long email trying to state how I am making efforts to look at this from all sides. I wish the Hagan people would do something remotely similar as to even attempt in some small way to understand that there is another side to all of this and none of us know everything about this, not me and most certainly not you!
February 8, 2008

7:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Thanks PMSXpress, it truly is amazing. Apparently, thinking outside of whatever box a person is in is too much for some.
February 8, 2008

7:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

One more thing to respond to Da's post on Feb. 7 at 7:45. The dog was aggressive at the fence. A dog need not bark to posture aggressively. In fact it's the ones that DON'T bark that you need to worry about, quite frankly. Fear biters are the worst cases, and they generally will not bark. Generally people instinctively sense when a dog is threatening. And also, an altered larnyx will not silence a dog entirely.

And the neighbor indeed was worried enough about his safety to mention it to his wife. Why would he do that otherwise? What would he have to gain at that point in time, and before Rolo's little adventure? Fortunately the fence was good enough in the back of the property. It was a side gate that he escaped from.
February 8, 2008

9:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

BTP, I am not professing to know everything about this case, though you repeatedly claim I am. I thought we were having a rational dialogue about this case, based on information that has been made public and not on wild speculation and assertions. I have acknowledged that there could very well be important details we don't know about that would change my position dramatically. But, until those details are made known to us, we can only go by what has been reported.

You have completely dismissed the EMT's/Animal control officer's description of Hardin's injury, now you also dismissing the reporter's story. What are we left with so that we can talk about Rolo's situation sensibly - we are left with nothing but speculation and empty assertions. You say you are looking at this from all sides, yet you are dismissing left and right the closest thing to "evidence" that you and I have access to. In light of that, the only logical position would be, that none of us can support any position, either for or against Hagen.

You said to me, "you Hagan supporters can believe what you want but I guess I need to hear things directly from a source instead of a second or third hand account. I typically don't believe every thing I read in a newspaper, but that is just me."

So I guess you will not be discussing this case anymore until you have talked directly with Hardin, Hagen, the EMT's, the neighbors, etc.? Come on. What if tomorrow a news report came out in which a medical authority who has since treated Hardin's injury, was quoted as saying the injury was in fact really bad. Would you dismiss that the same way you dismissed the EMT's words?

But you are right that the EMT and animal control officer are not anywhere in the transcripts, they did not provide testimony in the hearings. So Rolo was sentenced to death as being too dangerous to live, without testimony from the medical authority and the animal control officer, in fact without testimony from anyone except Hardin and the neighbors. That was a pretty biased courtroom that day, wasn't it?

Anyway I agree that if you go to the trial and hear what the parties involved have to say, then that would be first-hand accounts which are more accurate than second or third hand accounts. Until then, we only have second and third hand accounts to use in our dialogue. So we can either use them, or not, but if we don't use them then we don't have anything to talk about except speculation again. That's fine if you want to do that, there's nothing wrong with speculating about what could have happened or may be happening behind the scenes, which is fine and that's what these forums can be used for, but that's a very different type of discussion and I didn't think we had set out to do that.
February 8, 2008

9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Lianne, the reason I have evaluated the tone of my posts as well as many of the others and have decided to step back and ignore most of everything is because nearly everything out there so far is speculation and opinion. Its easy to get caught up in specualtion and opinion and none of us know the total truth of this and probably never really will even during the course of the trial. And I stand by my opinion that nothing should be called fact or evidence until it is declared to be fact or evidence by a judge/jury.

I continue to be interested in this situation because these types of things can happen to anyone and the way this has gone has really been unique and disturbing on many levels.

A couple of the disturbing events in my opinion include the one you listed, the court hearing where Ms. Hagan was expecting one thing (restitution hearing) and something very different happened (order to have the dog put down).

The trial and conviction by petition, media, radio talk show, etc. where Ms. Hardin's concern for her child, the injury she sustained, the concern of various neighbors were not only minimized but I've seen some very cruel, insensitive, name calling type comments made about these people.

I hope everyone involved in this learns something here, whether they are a party or witness to the case, a friend/family member, a concerned neighbor or even an observer.
February 9, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

heartfelt writes:

I hope Ms. Hardin will learn something. That one cannot deceive the public and neighbors. That one should take her OWN responsibility and not point fingers at a voiceless creature.
That she will learn how to not startle dogs.
And I hope that everyone will learn that Rolo was incarcerated in hell for 6 months, because our pathetic system allows this to happen.
I also hope society will learn that there are many more Hardin's out there and that our system might not change in the near future, so however the outcome is at trial, you watch your dog and yourself - because whomever you walk by on the street might be another very concerned, creative and unscrupulous person who will eat your dog and your life at any given chance.
February 9, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Gosh once again an attack on the victim. How rediculous that she can't walk down her own street with her baby. First an unleashed dog attacks her and now a bunch of strangers are attacking her again. How could she possibly have provoked the attack? My screaming... wouldn't anybody in that situation where they and their very young child are just about to be attacked also scream? Its not like she went up to Rolo and asked for this. She was simply walking down her own street, minding her own business when a dog came upon her and bit her.

This type of logic where the victim is blamed for the attack reminds me of people who blame rape victims for being raped or a bank teller deserves to be robbed simply for having the bad sense to work at a bank. I just don't get it and I never will. Why blame a victim for being victimized?
February 9, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

I'll be out of town for awhile but I imagine once the trial is over there will be more conversation about this. Have a nice Valentine's Day everyone and I guess I'll talk (and probably argue) with some of you later this month.
February 9, 2008

5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

The issue is not how minor or major the injury was. Rolo could have torn her pant, or chewed her face off... the issue here was why was Rolo at-large, for the second time???

Heartfelt-
You are right, Rolo has been in hell for 6 months -- but that is LAURA'S fault!!!! Had she simply been responsible after his first escape, non of this would have happened to him. Plain and simple.

Also, everything else you've said on all of these posts is pure senseless, paranoid drivel. Seriously. You have not made a single intelligent argument. You sound like one of those "down with the government, the world is out to get us, I'm always a victim" types. You should take a look at LiAnne's posts. At least she makes a decent case, considers the facts and formulates her opinions with some logic. Sorry to be so blunt, but I feel like it needed to be said, especially because supporters like you are going to do more harm for poor Rolo than you will do good.

LiAnne-
The mention of the previous citation is in a few of the early news reports when this case first came to light. It's also available from the city of Arvada via a public records request.
February 9, 2008

5:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

DA-
I apologize. I missed your post from 2/7. What I keep referring to is the first citation Laura Hagen got for Rolo being at large. The fence issue come into play because Hagen and her supporters keep pointing to her improving the fence as "evidence" of how responsible she is...sadly, she fixed it after the SECOND instance of Rolo being at large.

Heartfelt-
Again, you fail to grasp the construction of a simple sentence. (again I missed the 2/7 posts) You posted to me:

"Clearly she wouldn't be so apologetic if she weren't in trouble... since she wasn't apologetic the first time!" Then you write this: "I NEVER said Hagen didn't apologize" -

Do you remember what you write or think here ? Are you just confused and like to argue and have the last word ?

The "clearly she wouldn't be so apologetic..." indicates that she is in fact, being apologetic. However, the rest of the statement doubts the motive for her apologies...never doubts that she apologized.

Again heartfelt, this is a simple grammatical construction. Nothing tricky about it.
February 9, 2008

5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

heartfelt quote: "That she will learn how to not startle dogs." Here we frickin' go again. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? The burden of safety is not on the person walking down a public street. A person living in this country can walk on public property where ever they choose. And also, what might startle one dog, won't affect another at all, particularly if the dog was or wasn't socialized properly at the right age as a young pup.

heartfelt, why don't you come on over to my place here in Berthoud and we'll put you on this rank Paint stallion that I brought in beginning of Feb. for temporary board? When he runs you through the fence and stomps you into a pulp, I will smugly blame you because you didn't know how to behave around an unaltered male horse with unfortunate dominance issues. You know, read and understand his body language so as not to startle him. Right?! Do you understand the point I am trying to make here?

The lady screamed in fear for her baby. Big dog approaching them. Big dog with apparent neighborhood reputation (undeserved or not is a matter of opinion, but nonetheless...) would be enough to make anyone's heart thump a bit faster.

The rape analogy is excellent BTP. Pretty sure the point is lost though.
February 9, 2008

5:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

JB: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
February 9, 2008

10:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

PMSXpress...
Yes, I'm pretty sure I am...sadly!
February 9, 2008

10:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

heartfelt writes:

PMSXpress:
Why would a person in his right mind ride a stallion such as yours who obviously sounds traumatized or not well socialized ? I agree that handling a stallion can be dangerous for an amateur horse caretaker, specially when a mare comes in season, there is little that will stop him from getting to her… He might hurt you or anyone in his way. Maybe your Paint stallion does not have a calm temperament. Is he traumatized ? Although with horses, the unexpected truly does happen at any time, they are a product of their environment or whatever they are taught by humans. Not just specific training, but interaction. However, if poorly treated, they can become dangerous and destructive.
Stallions have the reputation for being dangerous and wanting what they want… which is wanting to mate with any mare in sight, whether there is a human in the way or not… Why would anyone in his right mind step into the way of such a situation ? I am not a mare trying to join the herd or pecking order… So the burden of safety is not on the person going near a stallion, the risks are clear.
Since Equine negative behavior stems from fear and not from meanness, acting harshly will only get a misunderstanding… a spirited response can be provoked. Just like with dogs. The level of panic induced depends on the horse/dog, assessing the threat. Usually they feel a deep fear brought on by the sight of predators, or a narrow escape (flight animals). Just like you write, one thing can startle one dog, won’t affect another. Same with horses. If you learn how to use Equus you could even have a stallion follow you around as if you were the matriarch. But first you have to learn to listen to horses. Same with dogs. Large dog approaching ? Staying calm and slow moving is your best chance.
Screaming and moving quick is one way to get a reaction from the dog – but in moments of fear we do not think rational, specially not knowing the animal in question. Therefore it seems to be reasonable to learn more about canine minds, since people do walk on public property wherever they choose, and a run-in with a dog could happen any time, anywhere, maybe even in Berthoud.
Just like we can make sense of a dog’s physical language we can make sense of a horse’s. I always felt drawn to understand both. Harsh, overreacted behavior (whether it is a scream with a dog, or approaching a horse from behind) can trigger a reaction. Even when we are scared of something, it is our behavior in the situation that will likely have a deep impact of the outcome.
If you’d like to learn more on Equus or Join-Up, I can recommend the clinics of Monty Roberts at Flag Is Up Farms in California. By the way, since you seem to offer stallion services, do you also offer LFG ? Just wondering.
February 9, 2008

11:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB, you said,"The mention of the previous citation is in a few of the early news reports when this case first came to light. It's also available from the city of Arvada via a public records request."

So let me clarify - are you saying that the previous time that Rolo was at large (before the Hardin incident), is referred to in the early news reports? Is it the same event as where Rolo allegedly attacked another dog and a letter was sent to the City about it?
February 10, 2008

2:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB, you also said, "...Rolo has been in hell for 6 months -- but that is LAURA'S fault!!!! Had she simply been responsible after his first escape, non of this would have happened to him. Plain and simple."

Actually blaming only one person for Rolo's 6-month incarceration at the shelter (since you are so obsessed with condemning Hagen) is a bit simplistic because other factors were responsible too. Those at fault are:

1. Obviously Hagen does bear some responsibility for Rolo's incarceration because had he not slipped out the rest wouldn't have happened. But slipping out didn't in and of itself have to lead to a 6 month-long quarantine in a tiny cage....

2. Hardin. Whether or not you feel she had every moral right to scream (that is a different discussion altogether), the fact is that it WAS her screaming that caused Rolo to react to her. I am not making a moral judgement on Hardin or on whether it was reasonable for her to scream or not. I'm simply stating the fact that had Hardin not screamed (there are people who don't scream when they see big dogs around, you know), then Rolo would not have then reacted to her and injured her. However, I don't consider this a major contributing factor to the length of Rolo's incarceration (that's just my opinion) since there were stages in the legal process at which his quarantine could have been avoided or shortened, yet it wasn't.

3.The first municipal judge who ordered Rolo to be euthanized based on one-sided emotional testimony rather than evidence, and for not giving Hagen a chance to defend Rolo's life. Had the judge given Hagen a chance to defend Rolo's life at the second hearing, the dog might not have been sentenced to death, thus he might not have ended up being incarcerated at all except for rabies evaluation.

4. The District court that pushed Hagen's appeal back down to the Municipal court, thus prolonging the legal process and dragging out Rolo's state of limbo.

5. And then the trial in municipal court was postponed from Jan 11 to Feb 25, thus dragging out Rolo's incarceration even longer, until the new judge earlier this week allowed Rolo to be moved to a private kennel.

Thus, Rolo's suffering was not solely Hagen's fault, in fact it seems to me that the court system and other red tape is more to blame by causing what could have been a short quarantine to drag on and on. I have heard from some shelter volunteers that other dogs have been incarcerated for YEARS while waiting for the long drawn out court cases to decide their fates. Clearly something needs to change about the way dog-related court cases are processed.
February 10, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

LiAnne-
I'm not sure about Rolo attacking another dog...I hadn't heard that. All I know is that Hagen had previously been cited for dog-at-large, and paid the fine...

As far as the other things you mention that contribute to Rolo being in the kennel....sure, they all contribute to the length of time, however - had he not escaped, none of them would have come in to play.
February 10, 2008

8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

heartfelt: SLOW DOWN hon. First off, the horse is not my horse. He is in my barn because the owner is going through a divorce. He hasn’t had enough time spent with him. That’s a scenario that is possible/probable with any young, green horse, regardless of sexual status. Sonny is a rig and very approachable to those he knows. But to a stranger he is right-brained and aggressive. A stallion’s role in a herd is to protect it from predators, so he is just doing what his gonads are telling him to do. Horses don’t socialize in the same manner or for the same reasons as dogs do. Horses are prey animals, dogs are predatory. Horses respond positively based on conditioned response training and an understanding on the part of the human of its body language. A dog responds because it wants to please its human and be part of its pack. Domestic evolution of a predatory animal, began as basically a food source.

Point is I wouldn’t expect you or any person out for a walk on the county road to know how to behave if he were to get out. If he were advancing on you and you screamed - well, I wouldn’t blame you. I sure wouldn’t turn the tables and say something like, “Well, if you hadn’t of screamed, he wouldn’t have bitten you. You startled him, so it’s your fault.” I don’t expect you to go out and learn how to act around horses or even stallions and you shouldn’t expect others to either, regardless of the type of animal we are discussing. In horse circles, stallions are not dangerous unless they are in inexperienced or aggressive hands. Same could be said for a large breed of dog, no? Pit breeds come to mind.

You wrote, “Harsh, overreacted behavior (whether it is a scream with a dog, or approaching a horse from behind) can trigger a reaction. Even when we are scared of something, it is our behavior in the situation that will likely have a deep impact of the outcome.” Agreed. You can’t expect everyone to know that just because you do though.

You really don’t have to go into a diatribe about suggestions for horse handling, thanks anyway. I’ve spent years studying and using natural horsemanship techniques. Best stress therapy ever. Roberts’ is a good guy and I’ve enjoyed his books, however John Lyons and Mark Rashid are more my cup of tea. And they are both in Colorado if you’re looking for good programs.

Sonny is not a breeding stallion. He is a 4-year-old rig. He will be castrated as soon as his owner can come up the additional expense of having it done, due to the physical circumstance. He isn’t any more vicious than our poor Rolo. He just does what his instinct tells him to do.

Why are you wondering about a live foal guarantee? Every single owner of a good stallion already offers this. It isn’t anything unusual. Hopefully you’re not looking to breed a backyard mare though. There are already too many sad stories involving too many unwanted horses stemming from the slaughter legislation.
February 10, 2008

8:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

LiAnne: Those are all good points. But in all fairness to JB, those making judgments that kept the dog incarcerated as you put it, were merely cogs in the bigger wheel that got started turning from the bad choice (or choices) that was made by one person. JB isn't saying what the courts decided upon is justified. Or at least I didn't read that from the posts. There have been so many now, maybe I missed it. Yeah, maybe Hagan had other incidences. I don't know about that. But if so, that should have been a wake-up call. No?
February 10, 2008

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB- one neighbor said that Rolo had been out once previously before Hardin, and had at that time had attacked another dog and a letter was sent to the City about it. This is also referred to in the early news reports. Thus I'm pretty sure they are the same event. If so, this is what I was talking about in my post from Feb 7, 10:23 PM, so I still stand by the points I made in that post. Meaning, that it still seems that the issue of whether Rolo was out ONCE versus TWICE in his entire life, is inconclusive and therefore shaky ground on which to base the entire character assassination of Hagen. And especially given that the corrective measures she's taken, and owning up to her mistake and apologizing and having compensated Hardin and cooperated with the courts etc etc. etc., all of which I've brought up in this discussion, were completely dismissed by the anti-Hagen group on here as having any weight for considering her a "responsible" enough citizen to be allowed to have her dog back.

JB and PMSXpress, I agree that Hagen's mistake in letting Rolo slip out was the first in an unfortunate chain of events that led to Rolo's suffering. I agree that if she hadn't made that mistake that fateful day, the rest wouldn't have happened at all and we won't even be talking now. But I still think that her mistake is not solely to blame for his suffering because his incarceration could have been ended earlier by the court system or the city, but wasn't. And that this raises grave concerns about how dogs who have "incidents" which go to court are treated (even if it's a first incident). what if one day my dog, or even your dog, has some type of "incident" - that's what concerns me.

My position has always been that Hagen had owned up to her mistake from day one, and paid her dues to the court and to Hardin, and implemented corrective measures. And, Heartfelt has mentioned (can't remember if it's here or on the other article from recently) that Hagen's house has a "for sale" sign on it now, so that probably means she's not returning to that neighborhood anyway. her neighbors will feel safe no matter what the outcome of the trial is. thus, shouldn't she be given a chance to move on rather than suffering even more extreme punishment (such as having her dog put down, or having him permanently taken away from her as some here are calling for because she is deemed too "bad" to keep him). if the jury determines that such extreme penalties are called for then so be it, but I hope that they will show her some leniency.
February 11, 2008

12:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

oh dear, I just realized I've been misspelling the defendant's name all this while! I've been spelling her name as "Hagen" when actually it is "Hagan." My biggest apologies!
February 11, 2008

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

LiAnne-
This was Rolo's second offense. Hagan plead guilty (by paying the fine) the first time Rolo got out. There was also a quote in one of the earlier stories where she admitted that he had gotten out at least once before. I'm fairly certain that the instance where a letter was sent to the city was a different offense.

That said, this is what I am basing my opinion on. 1st strike... mistakes happen...2nd strike, time to accept the consequences. And clearly, by allowing it to happen a second time, Laura showed her lack of responsibility.
February 11, 2008

9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

Okay guys. Enough is enough.

Yes LiAnne, the bureaucratic crap - animals are held far too long in limbo while cases involving dog bites and such is wrong and needs serious revision. You seem tenacious enough to go after it. Go for it. I worry though that if things are sped up too much then dogs (like Rolo) wouldn't have enough time to have his case defended in the public forum. So keep that in mind.

From this story spouts good things for people to (hopefully) learn on both sides of the debate.
February 12, 2008

9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

JB, I was going to point out another flaw in your facts, but since PMSXpress has said "enough is enough" and written what seems like a sincere and unbiased request for the debate to end, I'll take the hint and leave.
February 13, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Lianne-
I think it's ok. Just be civil. I usually don't make a lot of mistakes when dealing with rhetoric and logic, so if I have, I truely would like to know what it is.

However, if it's a flawed fact, then I NEED to know, since an entire logical argument is predicated upon having sound facts on which the formula is based.
February 13, 2008

9:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

JB and LiAnne: Hey, I didn't mean it that way. You guys hash it out as you see fit. You've both made good points and it has been interesting reading. Sometimes the comments are better than the stories.

For myself, I just see it as beating a dead horse at this point. There will different angles to debate after the court date, maybe.

Good luck on bringing change to those ordinances LiAnne. Sounds like a worthy cause.
February 17, 2008

8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

BTP writes:

Hello all. I'm back after a week out of town. Heartfelt, no, there wasn't anything in Lianne's post that ran me off. Lets just see how the trial goes. Once the evidence is in, the jury decides on verdicts and the judge makes a decision, it will be interesting to see where everything ends up with this case.

If I were a betting man, I would predict that the jury will find Ms. Hagan guilty of both counts. But that the sentence won't be much more than what penalties she has already paid. My only wish is that the dog isn't returned to Ms. Hagan.
February 28, 2008

3:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

LiAnne writes:

Rolo has now been allowed to live and to be returned to Hagan, on condition of several strict and long-term stipulations and a one-year probationary period. I am happy with outcome of the ruling. Reason and logic prevailed in the court room this time, thank goodness.

However, I hope Hagan moves out of that neighborhood as soon as possible.

Home › News › Local News

Kennel to keep dog awaiting his fate

By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 5, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs