Maniac Rottweiler Killer Gets 5 Months
Published on February 29, 2008 by Ryan O'Meara · 4 CommentsIf ever there needed to be a clearer message that some people should not be dog owners, this is it.
A dog killer has been jailed for butchering his Rottweiler in the shower with a sword.
Andrew Davis, 47, launched the savage attack after his pet Roxy bit a child.
The dog died slowly and in “excruciating pain” despite being fed half a bottle of wine and painkillers.
advertisementAfter the attack Davis told police the dog turned and looked at him as if to say: “Daddy, why did you do that?”
Brighton magistrates were told the stabbing was so ferocious that the tip of the ornamental sword was blunted.
As blood pumped from her wounds Davis stabbed the animal again and again until she died.
He then wrapped her lifeless body in a blanket and put it in the back of his van.
He was about to drive it away to bury it when police officers alerted by neighbours arrived.
They discovered a trail of blood where he had dragged the heavy dog’s body from the shower.
Davis, of Brunswick Road West, Hove, was yesterday jailed for five months after admitting animal cruelty.
He is already serving a two-and-half-year sentence for grievous bodily harm after he stabbed a man last year and for intimidating witnesses.
He will have to serve the five months for killing his dog at the end of that sentence.
Davis was also banned from keeping animals for life and will have wait at least ten years before he can apply to get the ban lifted.
David Buck, prosecuting, told magistrates Davis and Roxy were at the Kings House pub, London Road, Burgess Hill, on July 4. (07) Shelley Tucker later told police the black and tan Rottweiler bit her eight-year-old son Kyle on the arm causing it to bleed slightly.
She said Davis asked her if Kyle was alright and as she left she saw Davis punching the dog hard on the nose.
Mr Buck said police were called by Davis’ neighbours at 3am the next day complaining they could smell petrol coming from Davis’ flat and saying they were concerned about his dog.
He told officers he had spilled petrol while filling his motorbike and the dog was staying with friends.
They left but returned a short time later after receiving more calls from worried neighbours.
They discovered her blood soaked body in the back of his white VW van in the basement car park below his home.
Davis told them he decided to kill the animal after it had bitten a child for the third time.
He said he had fed Roxy a cocktail of crushed up biscuits and painkillers in half a bottle of wine to make her go to sleep.
When that failed to work he put her in the shower and soaked one of her toys in petrol in the hope that the fumes would knock her out.
He thought she had gone to sleep when he thrust the sword into her heart, but she yelped with pain.
A vet who examined her body said the attempts to knock the dog out first would only have made her distressed and confused.
Mr Buck added: “The dog would have felt every blow and the injuries to her heart and lungs would have been exruciatingly painful.
“One of the wounds went right through her chest and others were more than three inches deep.
“The vet concluded that the dog had been subjected to a frenzied attack.
“Under no circumstances can this method of killing an animal be described as humane.”
Peter Green, defending, said Davis “loved his dog” and had owned her for seven months.
Time for a dog owner suitability test, now.
Time for us to introduce tougher prison terms for animal abusers.
Time for us to remember, it is far more common that it is people, not dogs, who are responsible for sickening, pre-meditated acts of inhumane violence.
Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!
Tags: Animal Welfare
Why only five months?
This animal…..although it is an insult to animals to compare this evil person to one, should be put in a mental asylum, he is obviously a danger to society as he has also stabbed a person. Keep a check on this guys name, in a couple of years he may have killed a person as well by then!
Throw away the key, why is it that a lot of totally unsuitable people in the UK have dogs (of any type, breed, size or description) and they are totally incapable of caring for and handling them, K9 Magazine is right, it is time for some kind of dog ownership test.
Sadly, and I do mean sadly, It is highly unlikely that any form of ‘dog ownership test’ would have been able to provide a pre-indicator that this awful cruelty would happen. It is a nice thought, but I’m afraid that is all, he would probably have passed and been given licence to have a dog – what has happened would have happened.
You will notice that the defence solicitor, even with all the evidence to hand still presented the concept that this man ‘loved’ his dog. Indicators of that at the time of the test are probably all that an ‘ownership’ test could be established to require. Or is it? The problem is that while an ‘ownership test’ as a concept that has been presented (strongly by the K9 editorial staff) exactly how that ‘test’ would be implemented, what it contians and how it would managed has not.
Truth is the law, in this case, has been upheld and the human deviant involved will spend time in prison. It would be nice to think that that would reform him, but there is plently to suggest that it won’t. At least when he comes out he will be prevented by the law from owning animals again and as long as that can be effectively policed other aninmals will be protected.
I would be loathe to use examples like this to support a ‘dog ownership test’ especially until the exact terms of that test were specified.
The fact that human deviance has been brought to court and the prosecuton has been sucessful may not have prevented the poor animal’s terrible suffering – but it has sucessfully applied legisaltion to the evidence.
Hi Cuthbert,
The formal draft proposal of the dog ownership suitability test will be launched on March 6th. It is essentially the result of 16 months of planning and research and will include details of costs, savings and implementation details as well as benefits to society, dog owners and the economy.
In this instance I would suggest this man’s actions seem to suggest his (highly barbaric and misguided) attempts to destroy this animal were preceded by him wanting to kill the dog humanely. Obviously he failed miserably at that. His attempts were crude and caused suffering and he failed to do anything humane. In a sense, he is not alone in that he has done what some breeders still practice when they drown puppies in a bucket of water rather than seek to have them euthanised humanely.
What I would argue that comes down to is
1) Lack of understanding of the law – did this man realise he was risking 5 months in jail for what he did? If so, would he still have gone through with it?
when
2) Did he have any knowledge of services offered by the likes of the PDSA or other welfare groups who he could have picked the phone up to and made a request for help to have his dog euthanised quickly, humanely and without risk of him having do to 5 months in jail having tortured his dog.
As I say, I’m not convinced it was an act born of instant brutality if he made several, crude, misguided attempts to put the dog to sleep prior to killing it.
So had he sat an ownership suitability test he would have been fully aware of the law and more importantly he would have been provided with information on groups and organisations who he could have instantly turned to in this scenario who would have taken his dog and assessed or euthanised it on his behalf. I would like to believe that small piece of information could have saved this dog from the death he endured.
Obviously it’s our obligation to release the full ((draft)) details of the suitability test in full ((for consultation)) and we shall do that this week. But suffice to say it focuses primarily on compelling all dog owners to a basic level of understanding about the law, about their options in emergency situations and about understanding more about dogs physically and behaviourally. I would still like to think that whilst it may not have stopped this man owning a dog, it would certainly have provided him with just a couple of pieces of information that would have provided him and others like him who have tried makeshift methods of euthanasia with information about alternatives such as the PDSA or other services who would have protected this animal from the slow painful death it endured.
Hi Ryan
I look forward to examining the full draft of the proposals. But over the years have become a realist as to what ‘law’ can achieve.
For example you say:
“had he sat an ownership suitability test he would have been fully aware of the law”
I have just answered an enquiry to the NDWA which is as follows. Someone has told a ‘rescue’ that former owners can lay legal claim to stray dogs ‘re-homed’ by the rescue if they (the rescue) simply reported it to the Local Authority and/or Police (as a ‘finder’) but did not hand them over.
the answer is YES a dog (reported as found) but not ‘seized’ formally by the Local Authority or Police never becomes the property of anyone in the ‘re-homing’ chain as it can never became anybodys property (in law) other than the owner who lost it; a dog formally seized by the Local Authority on the other hand has seven days within which to be claimed after which it formally, by law, becomes the property of the local authority and thence the formal property of anyone they re-home it to.
Now if a ‘rescue’ doesn’t know this law would the people in it pass an ownership test. Would people that not only oppose the Breed Specific Legialation of the DDA but also possess dogs of ‘type’ pass? Who will be the judge and issue the ‘licences’.
I really do look forward to more information in order to realistically assess what this may achieve.