Man Goes on Trial for Beating Puppy, Claims Self Defense
Why would a grown man, a leader in his community, purportedly beat a puppy (left) so
viciously that the dog would have to be euthanized? The Toole family has been
asking this question since November 2008, when a neighbor repeatedly punched
their six-month-old puppy, Karley, and struck her in the head with a large rock,
shattering her skull. It’s a heartbreaking case that led Jeff and Shelley Toole
to contact the Animal Legal Defense Fund for assistance. We’ve helped them by
drafting legislation that could change the way California courts regard
companion animals.
Authorities have charged Karley’s alleged attacker, Glynn Johnson, with felony
animal cruelty for an assault witnesses say was unprovoked. They testified in a
pre-trial hearing that after the puppy had run across his yard, Johnson, an
assistant fire chief with Los Angeles County, discovered neighbor Travis Staggs
taking Karley to the Toole’s home on the other side of his own property in an
unincorporated area of Riverside, Calif.
The defendant offered to walk Karley
back to the Tooles himself, so Staggs turned the German shepherd mix over to
him. “Then something in his head snapped and he started beating the dog,” Staggs
told the court. He said that Johnson punched Karley with a closed fist about a
dozen times and then beat her with an 11-inch rock, adding that he tried to stop
the attack, but Johnson pushed him away.
Staggs said Johnson finally
stopped hitting Karley after her body went limp; she then managed to stumble to
a nearby ravine. The Toole’s teenage children, Brandon and Heather, rushed
Karley to a veterinarian and later an animal intensive care unit, but her
injuries were too extensive. In addition to her skull being cracked in three
places, Karley lost an eye and suffered a broken jaw, crushed nasal cavity and a
collapsed ear canal. “I’ve never seen a dog come in with that level of head
injury,” says Angela Howard, DVM, one of the veterinarians who treated Karley.
“I’ve seen pets who have been hit by cars and they were thrown by the car and
suffered fractures to the nose or skull, but I’ve never seen a case where their
head was that badly damaged.”
Karley’s Law
Johnson, who could face up to four years in
prison if convicted, claims it’s a case of self-defense: Karley had bitten down
on his thumb, he says, and the multiple blows he delivered to the puppy’s head
were an effort to get her to release him. But Shelley Toole says Johnson has a
history of violence and should be incarcerated. Unfortunately, though sheriff’s
deputies responded to the crime scene shortly after the assault, Johnson was not
immediately charged. “We wanted Mr. Johnson arrested,” says Toole. “One of our
supporters told me about ALDF, and that they had attorneys who might be able to
help. I went on the ALDF website to research what we could do and try to find
answers to legal questions. I didn’t even have to call them ― the resources section on their site had
all the answers we needed.”
Toole says she was shocked to discover that
the law considers animals to be property. “Animals are not chairs or tables,”
she says. “They are living, breathing beings with feelings, and they are part of
a family. Sadly, there is no civil law for the victims of animal cruelty in
California.” She and her family are dedicated to changing that, not only to
honor Karley’s memory, but to aid future victims of abuse. Stephan Otto, ALDF’s
legislative director, worked with the Tooles to draft “Karley’s Law,” a Civil
Right of Action for Cruelty to an Animal, which will give parties whose animals
are subjected to acts of cruelty the opportunity to bring a civil action against
the perpetrator for the full range of their loss. The law won’t change an
animal’s legal status as property, but if a plaintiff prevails, it will give
courts the authority to order a judgment for all actual and reasonable damages
proved, such as the monetary value of the animal, veterinary expenses, emotional
distress, loss of companionship, court costs and attorney’s fees. Karley’s
Law will also provide punitive damages of at least $1,000 for every intentional
act to which the animal was subjected, as well as give courts the authority to
issue restraining orders and other injunctive relief as they deem
warranted.
“As it stands now,” says Otto, “collecting an animal’s market
value ― what it would cost to replace him or her — is generally all that’s
available to plaintiffs in the state, so Karley’s Law would be a real step
forward. It doesn’t guarantee any damages, but it will allow animal guardians
their day in court to argue for the full extent of their
loss.”
Finding Closure
The road from the original
draft of a new bill to the governor signing it into law is a long one, but the
Tooles are happy to see progress is being made. Nevertheless, says Shelley
Toole, they’d like to see more done to protect animals. “How about a law that
requires people who are convicted of animal cruelty to be registered on a
registry, like Megan’s Law?,” she asks, adding that studies show child abusers
and other violent criminals often start off by abusing animals. ALDF has a model
law for just such a registry in its model laws
collection. “We are going to work with ALDF to see that this registry is
established,” adds Toole. Meanwhile, Johnson’s trial is scheduled to begin on January 7,
2010.
Though new laws won’t bring Karley back, they’ll aid future
generations of animals and bring a little comfort to the Tooles. “The Tooles are
the perfect example of individuals who realize that they can do something in
memory of an animal ― something that’s productive and that will benefit all
animals in California,” says Otto.
“The senseless tragedy of what
happened to Karley is still in our mind every day,” says Toole. “Through Karley
and our efforts, maybe other animals’ lives will be saved from cruelty. Maybe
after the trial we can move forward, and maybe in time we will heal, but how do
you ever forget such a horrible act of violence and how much Karley suffered?
The nightmares haven’t gone away.”
The family, which has relocated,
set up a website for Karley and her supporters: www.justice4karley.com.

As I have said before, people who are violent towards animals will eventually become violent towards people. This guy is a creep. My animals are part of my family and I guard them with my life, just as they do me. I have a German Shepherd who will come between me and anyone. Animals have more love and loyalty than people. Yes, we need STRICTER LAWS FOR ANIMAL ABUSE!!!
I TOTALLY agree with you! :D
YOU ROCK!
No excuses should be made for people like Glynn Johnson! A very small man, a coward! God help his children if he has any. There is a special place for people like Mr. Johnson and it is hot hot hot!
If this dog attacked a child and this man did the same thing to the dog, would he still be considered the spawn of satan? The dog did attack this man he has the pictures to prove it. The dog's owners need to be in that same spot in hell. Had they kept the dog in a secured place this would never have happend. I swear there should be an IQ test in order to own pets .
We must all believe Johnson was wrong to over react and was unnecessarily cruel in killing the dog. And, we must all agree the dog should have been controlled by its owner. (That is especially true for me whose friend spent months in a hospital after being mauled by uncontrolled pitbulls.)
If Johnson is convicted, four years in prison is an unreasonable punishment and cost too much: $49,000 x 4 = $196,000 tax payer dollars plus possible costs such as feeding his chilren, losing the taxes he now pays, etc.
If he is found guilty, an alternate sentence like spending every Saturday for X number of years cleaning up poop in an animal shelter would provide some good. Locking him up serves no purpose other than revenge. Our prisons are not working and would only teach him to be a worse criminal and cost us even more once he is released and cannot get a job because of his "record".
RE: "That is especially true for me whose friend spent months in a hospital after being mauled by uncontrolled pitbulls."
I think I'd have to put it this way. Ask your friend if he/she would feel any remorse if instead of spending months in a hospital, and I assume maimed for life, he/she has escaped with minor injuries after bashing the dog's head in with a rock.
No doubt the owner of the pitbull would have viewed your friend as being the scum of the earth had your friend prevailed in such a fashion.
Hopefully I'm not reading too much into what you're saying, but doesn't your argument essentially boil down to calling the winner cruel, i.e., if the dog wins, the dog is cruel, and if the man wins, the man is cruel?
Here's some info from the CDC to put it into perspective:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm
From the above link: "In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required medical care"
I am sorry not to make myself more clear because I'm having trouble following your argument. My friend is an older woman who was walking on the sidewalk of her urban neighborhood when two pitbulls suddendly ran out of an unfenced yard in the dark and attacked her.
I think you are saying that a dog biting someone's thumb does not cause the same degree of damage as two pitbulls mauling an older lady and that is true.
However, owners should control their dogs whatever the breed. There were no winners in either the thumb biting incident or my scenario. The law forced the Human Society to kill the pit bulls and yes, my friend is maimed for life. She suffered a lot of damage including having her breast ripped off.
While I agree 100% that we need better laws to protect pet owners' investment in pets , it seems to me contributory negligence principals of law apply.
As inexcusable as this beating appears to have been, the bottom line is it couldn't have happened if the dog had been properly confined to its owner's property. What if instead, the dog had been hit by a car or guzzled spilled antifreeze? What if it had attacked a child or killed someone else's pet?
I'm probably one of the strongest supporters you'll find when it comes to protecting pet owners whose pets have been injured or killed through no fault of their own, but I have almost no sympathy at all for irresponsible pet owners.
It's your pet. It belongs on your property and NOWHERE else. It is your job to take every measure necessary to make 100% your pet does not leave the confines of your property. There is NO excuse for doing otherwise. If you can't handle even that bare minimum of responsiblity, don't get a pet.
correct, what do you think should be done when a man beats a puppy to death with a rock? Surely you cant condon this behavior just because the animal was out of it's "proper" area.
According to the CDC, over 4 million Americans are bitten in dog attacks each and every year. The injuries range from insignificant to dead, with the majority of serious attacks involving small children .
IMO, calling a six month old German Shepard a "puppy" is a bit of a stretch. That's getting to a point of being a fairly good sized dog.
There was a case in California I read about a few years ago where a jury awarded $30,000 to a pet owner for the wrongful death of his dog. "Wrongful death" isn't a legal theory that applies to pets , but that's about how it comes out - I think they called it "special damages" in that case. I can't recall if an appeal followed, and if so, what the eventual outcome was.
It caught my attention, though, that ADLF didn't pursue a lawsuit in the above situation, which causes me to wonder if that may be because the facts wouldn't support a suit.
I hesitate to jump to conclusions on hearing only one side of the story. No one seems to be denying the man was bitten. If he was bitten, did he over react? It sounds like he might have, but the write up is pretty vague on details. Was there a history of problems with the dog getting out, excessive barking, etc.? The write up doesn't say.
A bad dog owner can make for a very miserable neighbor.
About the best I can say is I don't have enough information to form an opinion on whether or not the man's actions were justified. "Condon" isn't a word I'd use under the circumstances.
As my dad used to say, until I got sick of hearing it, "Two wrongs don't make a right.". While I didn't like hearing it as a kid, as an adult, I can appreciate the principal involved. When everyone is wrong, there's no place to take sides.
A long standing legal argument is, "If not for this, that wouldn't have happened.". That's the essence of contributory negligence, and I'm guessing is the reason ADLF wasn't real gungho about filing a lawsuit. If anyone deserved to get hit in the head with a rock, it was probably the pet owner. If the pet owner had been a responsible person, the incident never would have happened. If the dog did in fact bite the man while he was trying to take it back to the owner, I think it's fair to ask why anyone should put up with that. What if the dog was rabid? How many times should you let a dog bite you before you do something about it?
If you punched a dog several times after being bitten, and it was still coming at you, why wouldn't you grab a big rock if one was handy?
Again, I'm not condoning what happened, I'm just saying there are questions that should be answered before one could make the call.
Good laws to prevent animal cruelty are important, but good judgement should be used to avoid creating a slippery slope in the process. What if you're one of the 4 million victims of dog attacks this year, and were to find yourself facing felony charges for defending yourself? ADLF is well positioned to do some good, but only if they don't allow themselves to become radicalized.
IMO, good animal cruelty legislation would require a well defined element of malace or intent. There's a world of difference between the kind of person who would climb your fence to harm your pet, and a person who harms your pet after being bitten by your pet on their own property.