The State Post reported that the story is as follows: In January this year, Beth Richardson, a female police officer in Duxian District, and her colleagues received a report that a woman was taking drugs in a house in Oshawa town for several days, but was unconscious and rushed to the scene. Richardson found a kitten trembling under the table in the house, so he carried the kitten out to the animal shelter, but the shelter was closed. Richardson was sensitive to cat hair and asked the kitten to his friend for one night and handed it over to the animal shelter the next day.
Unexpectedly, the boyfriend of a drug-addicted woman reported the case to the Duxian District police, saying that Richardson stole the kitten. The kitten was then returned to the owner, and the owner did not intend to prosecute him, but the prosecution refused to give in and sued Richardson to the disciplinary court on the grounds of "broken act of trust", saying that she did not go through the necessary written procedures during the law enforcement process.
On December 7, Richardson appeared in the disciplinary court for hearing, which aroused anger of more than a dozen animal protection personnel from the animal protection organization, hoping to intervene in the court trial, and was worried that once Richardson was punished, the police would never dare to rescue small animals casually in the future. After one hour of talks between Animal Justice, the two sides hurriedly reached a written joint statement. Through the statement, Animal Justice learned that the case was about police execution procedures and gave up continuing to intervene in the trial.
The prosecutor's attitude changes. The prosecutor admitted in his statement that the police's duty is to protect all lives, including animal life. This attitude not only satisfies animal protectionists, but also shows that no matter what the result of the case will not disappoint the police across the country. The prosecutor said that the prosecution of Richardson was not because of her rescue of the kitten, but because of her wrong way of handling the problem. During the rescue of the kitten, he failed to comply with the law enforcement procedures, did not make records, did not submit a report, did not notify the boss or inform the kitten owner.
Richardson's lawyer Joseph Markson was very surprised and accused the prosecutor of changing the statement. He initially said that Richardson took the kitten away without the consent of the cat owner, violating the "broken conduct" regulations. Later, he changed his words and said that she did not go through normal written procedures afterwards.
In response, the prosecutor refuted that the prosecutor's position has never changed, and Richardson's behavior is the same as taking away the child trapped in the house without notifying his parents and superiors. In response, Maxon refuted that when Richardson enforced the law on the spot, the cat owner was sucking too much poison and was completely out of control. At this time, she asked her if she could take the cat away, which was completely playing the piano against a cow.
It is reported that the case will continue to be heard on February 7 next year.