Harsh sentence deserved |

Harsh sentence deserved

To the Editor:

A nationally aired article says, “Ulysses S. Zimmerman, Point Marion, Pa., was sentenced to wear a sign for animal cruelty and “endured more than he expected” in abuse from the public. I suppose that the helpless dog was pretty “unprepared” for its own abuse and death due to cruelty and neglect.

The “abuse” (Oh, please!) this man received, compared to the suffering of a helpless animal, seems deserved and the sentence mild. It has been shown time and again, that people who are cruel to animals carry that attitude to the unfortunate people in their lives.

The story goes on to say, “Robin Moore, the Fayette County Humane Officer who devised the sentence, allowed Zimmerman to leave early because of all the abuse passing motorists hurled at him.” “Everybody started screaming at me and cussing me. I got there at 9:30 a.m., but Robin said at noon that she’d heard enough and that I could leave,” Zimmerman said.

Robin Moore had the right idea on the sentence, but dropped the ball when this man was allowed to walk away early. His dog did not have that luxury. Zimmerman deserved every insult, curse word and taunt that he received for the time assigned. He confessed to the crime, remember• He got off too lightly. He needs to be put on a busier street corner to finish the original sentence — or better yet throw him in jail after he pays a hefty fine.

Unfortunately, people like this man usually don’t learn from their actions, as authorities are traditionally too lenient on animal abuse.

Sandra Sue McCoy

South Daytona Beach, Fla.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.