40 Dead Snakes Found In Greensboro Home, Man Charged

[Muscle Morph Constrictors]

That is unreal... I'd pay to have 5 minutes to teach that loser a lesson...

 

[AcidRainbow]

I only saw one pic of snakes so maybe the rest were too "graphic"...? Of course, I'm speculating, but I seriously doubt they only took one picture... she also mentioned that they "appeared to have been dead a while" which to me seems like more than a couple days. (now obviously, this woman is no snake expert... "no garden snakes"... lol)

No picture of dead snakes is too graphic, lol. You have to have empathy for the creature to be disturbed by seeing it in peril/deceased. Which the public and media just don't have for snakes.

And the snakes probably were dead a while, whatever happened. Whether they'd died in december or not. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[herp_huggs]

No picture of dead snakes is too graphic, lol. You have to have empathy for the creature to be disturbed by seeing it in peril/deceased. Which the public and media just don't have for snakes.

And the snakes probably were dead a while, whatever happened. Whether they'd died in december or not. I think we can all agree on that.

You're definitely right about that. I'm pretty sure it would be a media blow out if this was a house full of dead kittens:..
Of course, that being said, I severely doubt anyone on a kitten forum would defend the last tenant of a house full of dead kittens... even if it could have been an accident or potentially "humane".... That's just the way society works though.

 

[AcidRainbow]

You're definitely right about that. I'm pretty sure it would be a media blow out if this was a house full of dead kittens:..
Of course, that being said, I severely doubt anyone on a kitten forum would defend the last tenant of a house full of dead kittens... even if it could have been an accident or potentially "humane".... That's just the way society works though.

I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm just trying to put the events in context. Based on the condition he left the house and dead animals in, one should imply that he appears to be a sad, lazy, utterly feckless excuse for a slob. Even if something was going on with him, he should have at least gotten someone to take care of his property. But that doesn't necessarily mean he committed acts of animal/cruelty neglect. That was the point I was trying to make.

And people do come upon people with dead cats/kittens in their homes, they're usually called hoarders. It happens. [not to be suggested in reference to this case at all, just pointing out that such events occur]

 

[herp_huggs]

cruelty to animals n. the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death. (See: cruelty)
See the part about "withholding food and water"? I'm gonna go ahead and put my own twist on it, and add "withholding appropriate temperature range required by said species"... in my opinion, this man has in fact, commited animal neglect, or cruelty.

If the animals died in an innocent way (ie disease) then I'm sure charges would be dropped (other than what his landlord sues out of him for damages...)
Honestly though, the police in his area saw what needed to be seen, and decided to charge accordingly.
P.s. a "hoarder" with a house of dead kittens would also more than likely be charged with animal cruelty/neglect...

 

[AcidRainbow]

cruelty to animals n. the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death. (See: cruelty)
See the part about "withholding food and water"? I'm gonna go ahead and put my own twist on it, and add "withholding appropriate temperature range required by said species"... in my opinion, this man has in fact, commited animal neglect, or cruelty.

Since when can you bend the definition of a word to make it mean what you want it to?

Also, the key word here as far as the law is concerned, is inflict [as in cruelty or neglect].

1. to impose as something that must be borne or suffered: to inflict punishment.
2. to impose (anything unwelcome): The regime inflicted burdensome taxes on the people.
3. to deal or deliver, as a blow.

If such events were accidental, in the context of law, he can't be charged with animal cruelty/neglect. The law is pretty straight forward in that to be charged it has to be intentional. I had a friend that had a barn fire kill many of his animals, because he didn't prevent it and wasn't even on his property at the time, should he be charged with animal cruelty/neglect? Come on people.

If the animals died in an innocent way (ie disease) then I'm sure charges would be dropped (other than what his landlord sues out of him for damages...)

But if you consider the idea of an accidental, unforeseen power outage "animal cruelty," what's to stop you from seeing disease [which 99% of the time is treatable/preventable] as animal cruelty as well?

Honestly though, the police in his area saw what needed to be seen, and decided to charge accordingly.

Was he charged with animal cruelty? I must not have seen that part.

P.s. a "hoarder" with a house of dead kittens would also more than likely be charged with animal cruelty/neglect...

You'd be surprised, I once knew a hoarder with a bunch of kids under the age of 12 who had mold growing all over the toilets and walls, trash everywhere, it was pretty much unlivable. She was actually a pillar of the community and many people knew. She never got in trouble. For some reason they never really go after hoarders, and todays society is pretty sympathetic to them if anything. Sometimes animal hoarders are charged, but that wasn't the point, the point was that a house full of dead cats/kittens wouldn't be as unprecedented as you seemed to imply. They probably wouldn't even bother posting it on their forum, they probably wouldn't be terribly surprised or have knee jerk reactions to it. That would usually be an example of animal cruelty but they're not always charged with that, because it's really hard to prove anything. To be charged with animal cruelty, they have to have a good idea of how the animals died, sometimes information about the conditions won't suffice on its own.

 

[scaledverts]

But if you consider the idea of an accidental, unforeseen power outage "animal cruelty," what's to stop you from seeing disease [which 99% of the time is treatable/preventable] as animal cruelty as well?

It's not that the power outage was accidental and out of his control (which it was). It is: he didn't do anything about the animals that were there. He basically said it I'm not going to move them. A responsible owner would have found other ways to keep their place warm until they got power again OR moved the animals elsewhere. There have already been a few good examples of ways to mitigate a power outage posted.

You seem to be coming up with an awful lot of ways to defend this guy!? I mean come on seriously!

 

[AcidRainbow]

Was he charged with animal cruelty? I must not have seen that part.

Nevermind this part, for a second I thought he was charged with something else, it really doesn't make sense that he was charged with this though as the video claims "animal control is still investigating how they died."

So they don't know how they died but they've identified the need to charge him with animal cruelty? Like I said, I'd don't think we've seen much of this story. I'd be interested to know why/how they could do that.

 

[annmikeal]

I think its weird that no one can get a hold of this guy and he doesnt want to comment on the situation... Something fishy is definitely going on???

 

[AcidRainbow]

It's not that the power outage was accidental and out of his control (which it was). It is: he didn't do anything about the animals that were there. He basically said it I'm not going to move them. A responsible owner would have found other ways to keep their place warm until they got power again OR moved the animals elsewhere. There have already been a few good examples of ways to mitigate a power outage posted.

You seem to be coming up with an awful lot of ways to defend this guy!? I mean come on seriously!

But the fallacy in that argument is that you're operating under the assumption that he or someone else that knew they were down there was home 24/7. For all you know, by the time he came home and found that the power was out, they were too far gone. If one month ago I was gone an entire die and my power had shorted out had gone after I'd left, by the time I came home, I'd be willing to bet that my animals would have died out too. Most people don't have someone at their homes 24/7 to make sure they're operating properly.

I'm not defending him, I'm just defending the idea that there are other plausible ways the animals could have died that don't involve "animal cruelty." However, I do believe from the information given, they should charge him with the improper disposal of animal carcasses or some similar charge. But animal cruelty? Just not enough information yet. When/if there is evidence of animal cruelty, I'll be right there with you, but for now, I just can't say there's enough evidence to say it's so.

 

[AcidRainbow]

I think its weird that no one can get a hold of this guy and he doesnt want to comment on the situation... Something fishy is definitely going on???

Any good lawyer will tell you that any time you're charged/accused of something, you don't want to talk about it publicly. You don't want to give the prosecution any information they don't already have under any circumstances.

 

[scaledverts]

But the fallacy in that argument is that you're operating under the assumption that he or someone else that knew they were down there was home 24/7. For all you know, by the time he came home and found that the power was out, they were too far gone. If one month ago I was gone an entire die and my power had shorted out had gone after I'd left, by the time I came home, I'd be willing to bet that my animals would have died out too. Most people don't have someone at their homes 24/7 to make sure they're operating properly.

The house would NOT drop to that low of temps THAT fast. UNLESS he did not have the proper insulation etc. Either way still irresponsible. You can come up with as many scenarios as you think are plausible it doesn't absolve him of responsibility.

I'm not defending him, I'm just defending the idea that there are other plausible ways the animals could have died that don't involve "animal cruelty." However, I do believe from the information given, they should charge him with the improper disposal of animal carcasses or some similar charge. But animal cruelty? Just not enough information yet. When/if there is evidence of animal cruelty, I'll be right there with you, but for now, I just can't say there's enough evidence to say it's so.

You come up with "plausible" scenarios to explain away his blame. How exactly is this not defending him?

 

[herp_huggs]

"Chris Walton was charged with multiple counts of cruelty to an animal after snakes and dead rats were found in a rental home on Larson Street."

Did you even read this article?? I'm not sure what the definition of "inflict" has to do with anything... no one has said he "intentionally" did jack... what he did do is cause the death of over 40 animals that were in his care. (depending on him entirely) I don't really see how this relates to a barn fire unless maybe the person involved with the fire saw it coming from a long ways away and did nothing to remove the animals (which I'm sure is not the case with your friend).

Do you know the man in question or something? Because at this point in time your grasping at straws to defend him is starting to get a little redundant... obviously the man is "innocent until proven guilty" etc etc but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to at least stand before a judge and explain how animals in his care suddenly died (and decomposed to some extent even) and then were left behind for someone else to deal with....
P.s. I did not "change the definition" I posted, I simply stated that in my opinion, letting an animal freeze to death is no better than letting it starve (which is actually included in the definition) and as far as we know, he could have let them starve....

 

[herp_huggs]

"Chris Walton was charged with multiple counts of cruelty to an animal after snakes and dead rats were found in a rental home on Larson Street."

Did you even read this article?? I'm not sure what the definition of "inflict" has to do with anything... no one has said he "intentionally" did jack... what he did do is cause the death of over 40 animals that were in his care. (depending on him entirely) I don't really see how this relates to a barn fire unless maybe the person involved with the fire saw it coming from a long ways away and did nothing to remove the animals (which I'm sure is not the case with your friend).

Do you know the man in question or something? Because at this point in time your grasping at straws to defend him is starting to get a little redundant... obviously the man is "innocent until proven guilty" etc etc but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to at least stand before a judge and explain how animals in his care suddenly died (and decomposed to some extent even) and then were left behind for someone else to deal with....
P.s. I did not "change the definition" I posted, I simply stated that in my opinion, letting an animal freeze to death is no better than letting it starve (which is actually included in the definition) and as far as we know, he could have let them starve....

 

[AcidRainbow]

The house would NOT drop to that low of temps THAT fast. UNLESS he did not have the proper insulation etc. Either way still irresponsible. You can come up with as many scenarios as you think are plausible it doesn't absolve him of responsibility.

A lot of houses do have crappy insulation, especially low grade old southern rentals. You should see my heating bill. The ability to lose heat and not having a back up generator is irresponsible? Well, I guess I, as well as most herp owners are irresponsible then.

You come up with "plausible" scenarios to explain away his blame. How exactly is this not defending him?

You're missing the point, the point is that animal cruelty wasn't the only possibility that had killed those animals as everyone seems to be assuming, it's shady that he didn't properly dispose of them but that doesn't mean he intentionally killed them.

 

[AcidRainbow]

"Chris Walton was charged with multiple counts of cruelty to an animal after snakes and dead rats were found in a rental home on Larson Street."

I already addressed that, it was a mistake on my part, I had assumed that he had been charged with something else, seeing as without a cause of death, charging him with cruelty doesn't really make sense unless there was more to that than the media explained.

I'm not sure what the definition of "inflict" has to do with anything..no one has said he "intentionally" did jack....

It means everything, for it to be animal cruelty he'd have to have inflicted their suffering/death.

what he did do is cause the death of over 40 animals that were in his care. (depending on him entirely) I don't really see how this relates to a barn fire unless maybe the person involved with the fire saw it coming from a long ways away and did nothing to remove the animals (which I'm sure is not the case with your friend).

It's basically the same thing, an unexpected circumstance killed the animals. IF a loss of electricity had killed his animals, it'd be no different than an barn fire killing someone's animals, or a preventable disease killing someone's entire lifestock, etc. If we're going to say a sudden loss of heat killing someone's animals when they weren't home is grounds for animal cruelty, then what's to stop every one who's ever had poor husbandry, accidental or preventable circumstances from being charged with animal cruelty as well?

Do you know the man in question or something? Because at this point in time your grasping at straws to defend him is starting to get a little redundant... obviously the man is "innocent until proven guilty" etc etc but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to at least stand before a judge and explain how animals in his care suddenly died (and decomposed to some extent even) and then were left behind for someone else to deal with....

I don't know this man, I'm simply defending logic and if anyone here is grasping at straws here, it isn't me. I also addressed the fact that a charge of improper disposal of animal carcasses would be fitting based on the information given, but until we actually know how the animals died, we mustn't assume "animal cruelty" when there's no evidence to back it up. As I keep saying, there are other plausible ways those animals could have died.

P.s. I did not "change the definition" I posted, I simply stated that in my opinion, letting an animal freeze to death is no better than letting it starve (which is actually included in the definition) and as far as we know, he could have let them starve....

So you amended it, or added on to it? How is that much different? It's unlikely they starved from the looks of the animals in the bucket, even long dead they still appeared to have had some girth on them.

 

[Cp3_Pythons]

DISGUSTED!!!!!!! plain n simple disgusted didn't want to comment of course he didn't want to comment WHY CALL HIM 40 dead snakes should be 40 counts of animal cruelty and or neglect why didn't they (they being proper authorities) go pick him up and give him a matching pair of braclets???

 

[herp_huggs]

"what's to stop every one who's ever had poor husbandry, accidental or preventable circumstances from being charged with animal cruelty as well?"

I'm gonna have to say "poor husbandry" and "preventable circumstances" (ie, power being out long enough to kill a whole lot of animals) should definitely at least be considered animal cruelty, even if charges weren't pressed.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that these animals didn't die while this guy was gone for work or something... so what happened? Let's say his power was turned off by his evil roommate, then what? He let the snakes die?
It would be one thing if they found lots of empty tubs and maybe a few dead animals, but they found over 40 dead animals still in their breeding tubs. There were even hatchlings in the incubator. The truth is, someone is responsible for their deaths, and its going to be the owner unless maybe he was on vacay and his roomie was supposed to be caring for them (in that case he'd have to admit so, and then his roommate would likely be charged).
I honestly hate to believe that someone with that volume of snakes (especially breeding them) would just "allow" them to die on purpose, but it is a crime and should be tried as such.

This article is incomplete though, I'd love to see an interview of someone other than the landlord (like a reptile expert or the police would be helpful).

Anyone here ever have (or know someone who has) a snake die from a power outage? I'm curious as to how long that would take... I'm guessing at least a couple days...

"It's unlikely they starved from the looks of the animals in the bucket, even long dead they still appeared to have had some girth on them."

We've already determined that they weren't "bones" like the person interviewed had said (at least the one pic didn't depict that). Who's to say that the snakes were living when he moved out? Could easily be that he abandoned them and they died once the power went off. I know the landlord said they'd been "dead for a while" but the pic says otherwise (and she's obviously no expert, so she probably wouldn't know the difference.)

 

[AcidRainbow]

I'm gonna have to say "poor husbandry" and "preventable circumstances" (ie, power being out long enough to kill a whole lot of animals) should definitely at least be considered animal cruelty, even if charges weren't pressed.

Well, I guess we have grounds to hall thousands of people out for animal cruelty then. But it's not animal cruelty, by definition or defined in law, I'm sorry, but you can't choose your own definition for words.

I will agree that the power being out long enough to kill would have been prevented by an expensive generator, that I'd bet 99% of private hobbyists don't own, most of which wouldn't even be able to afford it. Do you own a backup generator?

But now that we can choose to define/consider whatever we want animal cruelty, who's to decide that keeping snakes stacked in plastic tubs isn't animal cruelty? Having them in cages that aren't as long as their length when stretched out? Keeping them in cages at all? Where's the line? That's why it's important, that although the term "animal cruelty" is subjective, that's why the key words "intentional" and "infliction" are so important, because it is subjective, some people believe that owning animals in and of itself is animal cruelty, if you keep defining it however you please with no clear lines. Then what's to stop the HSUS from going up to capitol hill and making every law maker believe that under a now borderless term, wild animal ownership is cruelty and should be outlawed?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that these animals didn't die while this guy was gone for work or something... so what happened? Let's say his power was turned off by his evil roommate, then what? He let the snakes die?

On what grounds are you assuming this?

It would be one thing if they found lots of empty tubs and maybe a few dead animals, but they found over 40 dead animals still in their breeding tubs. There were even hatchlings in the incubator.

Okay, maybe I'll sound like a fool again and wish I could edit this in 5 minutes, but where does it say anything about hatchlings in the incubator? They found hatched eggs but no hatchlings in an incubator to my knowledge.

The truth is, someone is responsible for their deaths, and its going to be the owner unless maybe he was on vacay and his roomie was supposed to be caring for them (in that case he'd have to admit so, and then his roommate would likely be charged).

*Sigh*

I honestly hate to believe that someone with that volume of snakes (especially breeding them) would just "allow" them to die on purpose, but it is a crime and should be tried as such.

But everything aside, this wouldn't make sense. He obviously knew the trade, so he knew they were worth good money and how to buy/sell/trade, why would he let them die on purpose? How does this make sense?

This article is incomplete though, I'd love to see an interview of someone other than the landlord (like a reptile expert or the police would be helpful).

Then why are you basing clear assumptions off of it?

Anyone here ever have (or know someone who has) a snake die from a power outage? I'm curious as to how long that would take... I'm guessing at least a couple days...

If you're so sure it's implausible then why don't you test it by sleeping over at a friend's house tonight and leave your power and heating off before you go? I'll wait.

We've already determined that they weren't "bones" like the person interviewed had said (at least the one pic didn't depict that). Who's to say that the snakes were living when he moved out? Could easily be that he abandoned them and they died once the power went off. I know the landlord said they'd been "dead for a while" but the pic says otherwise (and she's obviously no expert, so she probably wouldn't know the difference.)

Okay, so now you're saying that it's possible a short power outage could kill them? I'm confused. Again, this is just speculation. You claim to not want to believe someone would do this, then why can't you speculate that there are plausible reasons these animals died that don't involve animal cruelty? Or just not speculate at all and wait until we know how the animals actually died.

 

[herp_huggs]

"He obviously knew the trade, so he knew they were worth good money and how to buy/sell/ trade, why would he let them die on purpose? How does this make sense?"

Exactly my point....

"If you're so sure it's implausible then why don't you test it by sleeping over at a friend's house tonight and leave your power and heating off before you go? I'll wait."

Um no... being as I'm not a *bleeping* idiot and would not allow A SINGLE ONE of my animals die of MY negligence... (unlike some....)

No, now I'm simply mentioning the possibility that he moved out, leaving his LIVING animals behind to die.

Overall, this is really a rediculous argument. I don't know one single animal lover that wouldn't agree with me about this. Someone commited animal neglect or cruelty (very different things,neglect almost always being considered "accidental" by some standards not sure if you know that...?). I can't tell you how many times I've seen a bad dog breeder or hoarder on tv, getting away with every bit of it, and hoped so hard for them to get "busted" only to see that they can continue due to laws being in their favor... In this story, the man responsible has at least been charged with an actual crime, that's a fact. (no making it up or "amending" the story here). Someone with the proper authority seems to agree with me....
A little more info:
http://www.wxii12.com/r/27050663/detail.html

"Walton was arrested and charged with 43 counts of animal cruelty."