Vet student accused of pulling tragic con on horse owners

[Caia]

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/i-team/vet-student-accused-of-pulling-tragic-con-on-horse-lovers

This is remarkably sad.

I am happy to see that Tuskegee is waiting for firm proof before taking action, however. The one silver lining.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/i-team/vet-student-accused-of-pulling-tragic-con-on-horse-lovers

This is remarkably sad.

I am happy to see that Tuskegee is waiting for firm proof before taking action, however. The one silver lining.

hmm. wow. I have mixed feelings on this. The horses are the real victims here.

I'm not defending the actions of the potential criminal here, what she may have done is complete ****, but are animal people still not aware of what might actually happen to any animal given away for free online? If it wasn't this vet student, it would have been the next person looking to make a couple bucks at auction (or in dog fighting, or the people who torture/kill animals to get their rocks off). I hate to say it, but if you're going to say you were "trying to do right" by your animal, wouldn't you at least want to see his forever home firsthand and tour this woman's property/see how she cares for the horses she claims are in her care? Talk to her veterinarian yourself? Anything? A few articles I read made it sound like she came to pick up every single horse, too, which is a red flag. Maybe I'm just being idealistic...but it's fairly accepted that it's not a smart idea to give dogs/cats away for free anywhere (online or in a box in your trunk). You'd think horse people would be a bit more wary about this sort of thing, idk. I do feel bad for these people, but I can't find a single source online that mentions any of these horse owners thoroughly checked out this girl and her claims. It doesn't excuse her of what she's accused of, I get that.

 

[DVMDream]

hmm. wow. I have mixed feelings on this. The horses are the real victims here.

I'm not defending the actions of the potential criminal here, what she may have done is complete ****, but are animal people still not aware of what might actually happen to any animal given away for free online? If it wasn't this vet student, it would have been the next person looking to make a couple bucks at auction (or in dog fighting, or the people who torture/kill animals to get their rocks off). I hate to say it, but if you're going to say you were "trying to do right" by your animal, wouldn't you at least want to see his forever home firsthand and tour this woman's property/see how she cares for the horses she claims are in her care? Talk to her veterinarian yourself? Anything? A few articles I read made it sound like she came to pick up every single horse, too, which is a red flag. Maybe I'm just being idealistic...but it's fairly accepted that it's not a smart idea to give dogs/cats away for free anywhere (online or in a box in your trunk). You'd think horse people would be a bit more wary about this sort of thing, idk. I do feel bad for these people, but I can't find a single source online that mentions any of these horse owners thoroughly checked out this girl and her claims. It doesn't excuse her of what she's accused of, I get that.

There is much more to the **** storm this girl did than what is being revealed by the news, including falsifying health certificates. She is in a whole heap of federal legal trouble and the taking of the horses under false pretenses is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

There is much more to the **** storm this girl did than what is being revealed by the news, including falsifying health certificates. She is in a whole heap of federal legal trouble and the taking of the horses under false pretenses is just the tip of the iceberg.

Right now, she's just being charged for the false pretenses though right? That's what she was arrested for according to what I found

 

[DVMDream]

Right now, she's just being charged for the false pretenses though right? That's what she was arrested for according to what I found

Right now, no official charges have been released to the public.

 

[DVMDream]

And it may take some time before all charges are officially filed. There are at least 32 cases for them to be searching and looking into.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

And it may take some time before all charges are officially filed. There are at least 32 cases for them to be searching and looking into.

Like I said, I'm not defending her and I'm not surprised that there are more charges on the table.

 

[DVMDream]

Like I said, I'm not defending her and I'm not surprised that there are more charges on the table.

The other thing is that giving a horse away or selling a horse to someone else is vastly different than giving away a dog, cat, rabbit, etc.
I know at least one of these people had drafted a contract with her and if she broke that, there is another charge.
Not to mention, she is in veterinary school, if she is willing to lie to people about what she will do with the horses they give to her, what is she going to do as a professional veterinarian. You don't stop being a lying scumbag just because you obtain a degree. Hopefully the school kicks her ass to the curb and she will get charged appropriately.

It isn't illegal to not check out where you are sending your horses, just perhaps poor judgement. It is illegal to do what this veterinary student did. But no one would expect this behavior from someone who is supposed to be a veterinary professional. So I can't necessarily fault these people for trusting her. We ask the public to trust us because we are supposed to be trustworthy but then admonish them for "not checking out this person's set-up and seeing where the horse is going". And maybe she did show them those things for all we know. The vet student does have a farm that can hold horses (as was seen in the news clip). Maybe she had pictures for them, etc. And a few of these people were suffering tragedy.. one lost their home in a fire, another had a heart attack; their thought probably never went to "maybe I should make sure this vet student will take good care of my horse" they were probably thinking "thank goodness, a vet student loves animals and would definitely care for my horse well."

We can't have it both ways as profession, expect trust and respect but then demand people to "look into us" before trusting us.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Also was thinking how this isn't going to help the whole vets

The other thing is that giving a horse away or selling a horse to someone else is vastly different than giving away a dog, cat, rabbit, etc.
I know at least one of these people had drafted a contract with her and if she broke that, there is another charge.
Not to mention, she is in veterinary school, if she is willing to lie to people about what she will do with the horses they give to her, what is she going to do as a professional veterinarian. You don't stop being a lying scumbag just because you obtain a degree. Hopefully the school kicks her ass to the curb and she will get charged appropriately.

It isn't illegal to not check out where you are sending your horses, just perhaps poor judgement. It is illegal to do what this veterinary student did. But no one would expect this behavior from someone who is supposed to be a veterinary professional. So I can't necessarily fault these people for trusting her. We ask the public to trust us because we are supposed to be trustworthy but then admonish them for "not checking out this person's set-up and seeing where the horse is going". And maybe she did show them those things for all we know. The vet student does have a farm that can hold horses (as was seen in the news clip). Maybe she had pictures for them, etc. And a few of these people were suffering tragedy.. one lost their home in a fire, another had a heart attack; their thought probably never went to "maybe I should make sure this vet student will take good care of my horse" they were probably thinking "thank goodness, a vet student loves animals and would definitely care for my horse well."

We can't have it both ways as profession, expect trust and respect but then demand people to "look into us" before trusting us.

I mean, legally speaking, property is property, right? Unless these states have a caveat that classifies a horse as specifically different than any other animal, how exactly can you say giving away a horse is different than giving away a dog? Unless you're referring to differences in husbandry requirements, there isn't a difference. Both are animals/property.

And like I said, I'm not defending her actions at all. I don't doubt that she did any of these things and I get that a few of these people had fallen on tough times. There are just likely a lot of details we don't know and that will probably come out in court, especially when it comes to what she actually claimed vs. what everyone is accusing her of, what is being spread in horse groups, etc. Right now there are screenshots floating around of her supposedly admitting to slaughtering some horses, but also saying that some horses were impossible to deal with so she got rid of them. Who knows what's photoshopped and what's not. I just find it ironic that there are rescues that require a home visit to adopt a hamster, but horse owners (whose stereotype we are familiar with) are giving horses away for free on Craigslist. Even the organization in charge of organizing the previous horse owners against this student is now publishing posts about why you shouldn't give your horse away like this. I feel for these people and I can appreciate the guilt they must feel, but they got scammed either because she was that good at covering every single detail (unlikely), or because they saw a vet student and instantly assumed she was okay like you said.

Although tl;dr, breaking the contract(s) is illegal (even if there is just that one), but I don't think selling your property is. What she did is shady/unethical af but it's not illegal to sell your horses (which yes, they were hers) to slaughter. Hence the mixed feelings. Given that the value of these horses probably isn't all that great, there may not be a ton of hard evidence, etc, I'll be watching to see what is decided legally. Sad case all around, anyways, especially since the individuals in the case may not be able to afford legal representation given the stories they are telling to the media about themselves right now.

And fwiw, maybe you wouldn't look into a doctor before seeing them (or an owner wouldn't look into a vet before seeing them), but I would definitely do my homework if I was giving them my animal.

Also further edit: I know people like to throw around the term 'contract' a lot, but in some situations, a 'contract' doesn't even need to be written. Which means no proof of the transaction requirements. Idk how far pictures of online communication would go in court, I guess we'll find out.

 

[DVMDream]

Also was thinking how this isn't going to help the whole vets

I mean, legally speaking, property is property, right? Unless these states have a caveat that classifies a horse as specifically different than any other animal, how exactly can you say giving away a horse is different than giving away a dog? Unless you're referring to differences in husbandry requirements, there isn't a difference. Both are animals/property.

And like I said, I'm not defending her actions at all. I don't doubt that she did any of these things and I get that a few of these people had fallen on tough times. There are just likely a lot of details we don't know and that will probably come out in court, especially when it comes to what she actually claimed vs. what everyone is accusing her of, what is being spread in horse groups, etc. Right now there are screenshots floating around of her supposedly admitting to slaughtering some horses, but also saying that some horses were impossible to deal with so she got rid of them. Who knows what's photoshopped and what's not. I just find it ironic that there are rescues that require a home visit to adopt a hamster, but horse owners (whose stereotype we are familiar with) are giving horses away for free on Craigslist. Even the organization in charge of organizing the previous horse owners against this student is now publishing posts about why you shouldn't give your horse away like this. I feel for these people and I can appreciate the guilt they must feel, but they got scammed either because she was that good at covering every single detail (unlikely), or because they saw a vet student and instantly assumed she was okay like you said.

Although tl;dr, breaking the contract(s) is illegal (even if there is just that one), but I don't think selling your property is. What she did is shady/unethical af but it's not illegal to sell your horses (which yes, they were hers) to slaughter. Hence the mixed feelings. Given that the value of these horses probably isn't all that great, there may not be a ton of hard evidence, etc, I'll be watching to see what is decided legally. Sad case all around, anyways, especially since the individuals in the case may not be able to afford legal representation given the stories they are telling to the media about themselves right now.

And fwiw, maybe you wouldn't look into a doctor before seeing them (or an owner wouldn't look into a vet before seeing them), but I would definitely do my homework if I was giving them my animal.

Also further edit: I know people like to throw around the term 'contract' a lot, but in some situations, a 'contract' doesn't even need to be written. Which means no proof of the transaction requirements. Idk how far pictures of online communication would go in court, I guess we'll find out.

Livestock/equines and movement/exchanging ownership of these animals is different than that of dogs/cats. Due to different diseases, zoonoses, etc. It is a different ballgame in which there are specific rules, codes and regulations that must be followed. And are much stricter than those for dogs and cats.

Yes, property is property. But giving someone your old TV has much different expectations than giving them your old car, boat, etc.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Kelsey Lefever: ‘Every One of Them Is Dead’ - Horse Racing News | Paulick Report Long read but basically goes to show you that there are people that make a living off of picking up unwanted horses and selling them elsewhere. Maybe another big case like the one in this link will change the tide and people will be more aware of the possibility.

Like I said earlier, it's fairly well accepted that giving away a dog for free is often just sending it to be a bait dog in a fight ring. Coming from Detroit, you can't even leave your dog outside in a fenced yard unattended in some neighborhoods because the dog fighting rings are so bad.It sounds like horse flipping is a pretty big business.

Livestock/equines and movement/exchanging ownership of these animals is different than that of dogs/cats. Due to different diseases, zoonoses, etc. It is a different ballgame in which there are specific rules, codes and regulations that must be followed. And are much stricter than those for dogs and cats.

Yes, property is property. But giving someone your old TV has much different expectations than giving them your old car, boat, etc.

You bring up that up as if it is only damning the student, though.

Wouldn't these horse owners have been a bit more concerned when they weren't asked for vet checks/recent Coggins on their animals before she came and took them? Most transactions would/should involve a vet check the day the horse is picked up/dropped off, with both parties present, before the horse is loaded or before it even touches the ground at the destination. And then the legal health/travel certificate that the original owner would have had to get together ahead of time. Granted it's only on Facebook right now, but people claiming to be close to the case have said that at least some of these horses were literally just loaded on a trailer and off they went, no paperwork or vet checks involved. I think some of these owners that are posting may be realizing they put their foot in their mouths...I'm currently watching several of their comments on a thread being edited/disappearing because some people are pointing out these inconsistencies. Their lawyers need to tell them to stay out of the comments, lol. I think the FB is moderating them as well.

I just have a feeling some of the owners aren't being forthcoming with what they may have let slide in these transactions as well. A few of the states she hit require the seller to provide a recent Coggins when the horse changes hands. If what is being said is true, the owners may have some explaining to do in all of this too. Only time will tell. It's not like horse people aren't well aware of these basic travel requirements.

 

[dyachei]

It's more than she bought them under false pretenses, which *is* illegal

 

[DVMDream]

Kelsey Lefever: ‘Every One of Them Is Dead’ - Horse Racing News | Paulick Report Long read but basically goes to show you that there are people that make a living off of picking up unwanted horses and selling them elsewhere. Maybe another big case like the one in this link will change the tide and people will be more aware of the possibility.

Like I said earlier, it's fairly well accepted that giving away a dog for free is often just sending it to be a bait dog in a fight ring. Coming from Detroit, you can't even leave your dog outside in a fenced yard unattended in some neighborhoods because the dog fighting rings are so bad.It sounds like horse flipping is a pretty big business.

You bring up that up as if it is only damning the student, though.

Wouldn't these horse owners have been a bit more concerned when they weren't asked for vet checks/recent Coggins on their animals before she came and took them? Most transactions would/should involve a vet check the day the horse is picked up/dropped off, with both parties present, before the horse is loaded or before it even touches the ground at the destination. And then the legal health/travel certificate that the original owner would have had to get together ahead of time. Granted it's only on Facebook right now, but people claiming to be close to the case have said that at least some of these horses were literally just loaded on a trailer and off they went, no paperwork or vet checks involved. I think some of these owners that are posting may be realizing they put their foot in their mouths...I'm currently watching several of their comments on a thread being edited/disappearing because some people are pointing out these inconsistencies. Their lawyers need to tell them to stay out of the comments, lol. I think the FB is moderating them as well.

I just have a feeling some of the owners aren't being forthcoming with what they may have let slide in these transactions as well. A few of the states she hit require the seller to provide a recent Coggins when the horse changes hands. If what is being said is true, the owners may have some explaining to do in all of this too. Only time will tell. It's not like horse people aren't well aware of these basic travel requirements.

I think blaming the owners in this case given the info we do have is pathetic. You say don't assume anything that the vet student did. Why are you assuming no vet checks, Coggins, looking into the housing arrangements, etc occurred?

What the vet student did was illegal. Period.

 

[DVMDream]

Again, being ignorant or not doing what you would isn't a crime.

What the vet student did was illegal. The owner's ignorance (or not since we have no idea if they looked into all those things) doesn't matter. It is a moot point entirely. You'd make one heck of a defense attorney though...

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I think blaming the owners in this case given the info we do have is pathetic. You say don't assume anything that the vet student did. Why are you assuming no vet checks, Coggins, looking into the housing arrangements, etc occurred?

What the vet student did was illegal. Period.

Innocent until proven guilty. At least I'm pretty sure that's how our justice system works, right? I have said multiple times that I don't doubt the vet student is going to be found guilty, though.

I don't recall blaming the owners for anything, they got scammed. I'm pointing out the massive holes in this case, holes which any horse person would know to be red flags in a transaction involving a horse, and holes that will hopefully be filled in court. Hence my confusion as to how the scam went about in the first place. Like I just said, there are people running their mouths on FB right now about how these transactions went down. Don't these lawyers tell their clients to just not talk, especially on social media? You'd think it would be the first thing they're told.

And you may be wrong about ignorance not being a crime, because if it turns out that some owners in some of these states did in fact fail to provide a recent coggins test before sale, they're in trouble here too. Unless there is a loophole where the horse wasn't 'sold' since no dollar was exchanged. That, idk. I'm to about to read into the wording of a law because I don't really care that much. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. There is always more to the story.

 

[DVMDream]

Innocent until proven guilty. At least I'm pretty sure that's how our justice system works, right? I have said multiple times that I don't doubt the vet student is going to be found guilty, though.

I don't recall blaming the owners for anything, they got scammed. I'm pointing out the massive holes in this case, holes which any horse person would know to be red flags in a transaction involving a horse, and holes that will hopefully be filled in court. Hence my confusion as to how the scam went about in the first place. Like I just said, there are people running their mouths on FB right now about how these transactions went down. Don't these lawyers tell their clients to just not talk, especially on social media? You'd think it would be the first thing they're told.

And you may be wrong about ignorance not being a crime, because if it turns out that some owners in some of these states did in fact fail to provide a recent coggins test before sale, they're in trouble here too. Unless there is a loophole where the horse wasn't 'sold' since no dollar was exchanged. That, idk. I'm to about to read into the wording of a law because I don't really care that much. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. There is always more to the story.

Holes that you don't even know exist. Those holes may not exist. You are saying innocent until guilty for the student. Then why are you claiming the owners didn't know about Coggins, living arrangements, etc. Again you won't judge the student but will the horse owners without knowing all the facts.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Holes that you don't even know exist. Those holes may not exist. You are saying innocent until guilty for the student. Then why are you claiming the owners didn't know about Coggins, living arrangements, etc. Again you won't judge the student but will the horse owners without knowing all the facts.

Are you doing that thing where you don't actually read my posts again?

Goodnight

 

[DVMDream]

Are you doing that thing where you don't actually read my posts again?

Goodnight

No, I'm definitely reading them where you multiple times ask how they got scammed, why didn't they check x, y and z. You're not giving them any benefit of the doubt in your posts. Go read your posts and see if you provide any benefit of the doubt to the horse owners.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

No, I'm definitely reading them where you multiple times ask how they got scammed, why didn't they check x, y and z. You're not giving them any benefit of the doubt in your posts. Go read your posts and see if you provide any benefit of the doubt to the horse owners.

Oops, looks like you didn't read the post where I said the owners/others close to the case are talking on FB....

Anyways, good talk!

 

[DVMDream]

Oops, looks like you didn't read the post where I said the owners/others close to the case are talking on FB....

Anyways, good talk!

That's right, I forgot that everything posted and discussed about on Facebook is 100% accurate. My bad.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

That's right, I forgot that everything posted and discussed about on Facebook is 100% accurate. My bad.

Like I said, it's only FB. I find it hard to believe that someone would impersonate an owner of a horse on a case with very minimal media coverage, but I guess you never know.

Although another really unfortunate aspect of this case is that Tuskegee is getting dragged by these people right now, as if the school had any sort of association with this girl's accused crime(s).

 

[Caia]

Have some comments but will have to wait until the cows manage to settle their uteri for 5 mins.

 

[DVMDream]

Although another really unfortunate aspect of this case is that Tuskegee is getting dragged by these people right now, as if the school had any sort of association with this girl's accused crime(s).

This part is awful. School had nothing to do with it they should be left alone. They will eventually have to address what will happen with the student, but regardless of any opinions on her guilt/innocence at this point, they should wait until full details of the case come out. Which I suspect is what they are doing and why they currently aren't commenting. But, yeah, the school is innocent in all of this and shouldn't be targeted.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

This part is awful. School had nothing to do with it they should be left alone. They will eventually have to address what will happen with the student, but regardless of any opinions on her guilt/innocence at this point, they should wait until full details of the case come out. Which I suspect is what they are doing and why they currently aren't commenting. But, yeah, the school is innocent in all of this and shouldn't be targeted.

I mean I know people get really heated over animal crimes, but I don't see how revoking her constitutional rights/accusing a school to be potentially directly involved makes any sense.

I'm even seeing some people encouraging others to boycott any vet that graduated from the school. Complete bs.

 

[DVMDream]

I mean I know people get really heated over animal crimes, but I don't see how revoking her constitutional rights/accusing a school to be potentially directly involved makes any sense.

I'm even seeing some people encouraging others to boycott any vet that graduated from the school. Complete bs.

People are irrational and stupid. My job would be much easier if I didn't have to deal with them.

 

[Caia]

hmm. wow. I have mixed feelings on this. The horses are the real victims here.

I'm not defending the actions of the potential criminal here, what she may have done is complete ****, but are animal people still not aware of what might actually happen to any animal given away for free online? If it wasn't this vet student, it would have been the next person looking to make a couple bucks at auction (or in dog fighting, or the people who torture/kill animals to get their rocks off). I hate to say it, but if you're going to say you were "trying to do right" by your animal, wouldn't you at least want to see his forever home firsthand and tour this woman's property/see how she cares for the horses she claims are in her care? Talk to her veterinarian yourself? Anything? A few articles I read made it sound like she came to pick up every single horse, too, which is a red flag. Maybe I'm just being idealistic...but it's fairly accepted that it's not a smart idea to give dogs/cats away for free anywhere (online or in a box in your trunk). You'd think horse people would be a bit more wary about this sort of thing, idk. I do feel bad for these people, but I can't find a single source online that mentions any of these horse owners thoroughly checked out this girl and her claims. It doesn't excuse her of what she's accused of, I get that.

Have you owned horses or other livestock before? Re-homing them is a lot different than dogs/cats. There are some rescues that may go to this length if they're adopting out a horse (there's a TB rescue out of KY that I can think of) to get references, info about the home, etc. but when it comes to private transactions, that is more rare.

Why is it a red flag for her to have come to pick up the horse? Maybe some of the people didn't have truck/trailer. I don't. If you're selling a horse, this isn't unusual. It's not like a dog that you can just drive over to someone's house, obviously. I think that visiting the place they're going to be kept would be a good idea but is not often done in this industry. Maybe this will encourage that change.

While horses are companions to a lot of people, they're still treated fundamentally different than small animals. They're not always considered livestock per se, but closer to it than your dog or cat because of the cost and facility requirements associated with them. People will often advertise horses they're giving away for free as a "companion horse" as they likely can't be ridden (most often for medical reasons). If a horse can't work and has no functional purpose, it is incredibly hard to find a new home for them. They're expensive and when you can no longer afford to keep them and they have no attributes to allow for a sale (i.e. can't be ridden), what can they do? Rescues are very, very limited. There's a number of unwanted horses that are uncared for all throughout North America because of this very reason - which does lead us down the path to the horse slaughter discussion, which I'm not going to delve into.

I'm certainly not judging these people. They were doing what they thought was best for their horse and trusting a vet student was a very reasonable thing to do. It's a terrible that she took advantage of that and put such a black mark on the profession.

Kelsey Lefever: ‘Every One of Them Is Dead’ - Horse Racing News | Paulick Report Long read but basically goes to show you that there are people that make a living off of picking up unwanted horses and selling them elsewhere. Maybe another big case like the one in this link will change the tide and people will be more aware of the possibility.

Like I said earlier, it's fairly well accepted that giving away a dog for free is often just sending it to be a bait dog in a fight ring. Coming from Detroit, you can't even leave your dog outside in a fenced yard unattended in some neighborhoods because the dog fighting rings are so bad.It sounds like horse flipping is a pretty big business.

You bring up that up as if it is only damning the student, though.

Wouldn't these horse owners have been a bit more concerned when they weren't asked for vet checks/recent Coggins on their animals before she came and took them? Most transactions would/should involve a vet check the day the horse is picked up/dropped off, with both parties present, before the horse is loaded or before it even touches the ground at the destination. And then the legal health/travel certificate that the original owner would have had to get together ahead of time. Granted it's only on Facebook right now, but people claiming to be close to the case have said that at least some of these horses were literally just loaded on a trailer and off they went, no paperwork or vet checks involved. I think some of these owners that are posting may be realizing they put their foot in their mouths...I'm currently watching several of their comments on a thread being edited/disappearing because some people are pointing out these inconsistencies. Their lawyers need to tell them to stay out of the comments, lol. I think the FB is moderating them as well.

I just have a feeling some of the owners aren't being forthcoming with what they may have let slide in these transactions as well. A few of the states she hit require the seller to provide a recent Coggins when the horse changes hands. If what is being said is true, the owners may have some explaining to do in all of this too. Only time will tell. It's not like horse people aren't well aware of these basic travel requirements.

It is common practice not to have a vet check done on cheaper or free horses and part of being a buyer is gauging that risk. If you're using the horse for a purpose, a PPE is recommended to make sure the horse is capable of serving that purpose. A free horse that you're "retiring" to a good home? Pretty unlikely a vet exam will be done. So I personally don't think that's suspicious. I think asking for a Coggin's would have been reasonable, but often people are going to be more lax with these types of transactions.

Unless you're crossing state lines that requires health certificates, that's also pretty much never going to be done. None of this is unusual for re-homed horses. Your expensive show horses are a different story.



I think what I'm trying to get at is that if you're unfamiliar with the industry and comparing the rehoming of horses to dogs/cats, naturally you would judge the owners harsher for what they haven't done in this situation and I don't think that's fair. I think owners should absolutely be more careful with vetting buyers/adopters but based on the industry, I'm not surprised they weren't, particularly with a vet student. Hopefully this serves to stimulate more caution in the future.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Have you owned horses or other livestock before? Re-homing them is a lot different than dogs/cats. There are some rescues that may go to this length if they're adopting out a horse (there's a TB rescue out of KY that I can think of) to get references, info about the home, etc. but when it comes to private transactions, that is more rare.

Why is it a red flag for her to have come to pick up the horse? Maybe some of the people didn't have truck/trailer. I don't. If you're selling a horse, this isn't unusual. It's not like a dog that you can just drive over to someone's house, obviously. I think that visiting the place they're going to be kept would be a good idea but is not often done in this industry. Maybe this will encourage that change.

While horses are companions to a lot of people, they're still treated fundamentally different than small animals. They're not always considered livestock per se, but closer to it than your dog or cat because of the cost and facility requirements associated with them. People will often advertise horses they're giving away for free as a "companion horse" as they likely can't be ridden (most often for medical reasons). If a horse can't work and has no functional purpose, it is incredibly hard to find a new home for them. They're expensive and when you can no longer afford to keep them and they have no attributes to allow for a sale (i.e. can't be ridden), what can they do? Rescues are very, very limited. There's a number of unwanted horses that are uncared for all throughout North America because of this very reason - which does lead us down the path to the horse slaughter discussion, which I'm not going to delve into.

I'm certainly not judging these people. They were doing what they thought was best for their horse and trusting a vet student was a very reasonable thing to do. It's a terrible that she took advantage of that and put such a black mark on the profession.



It is common practice not to have a vet check done on cheaper or free horses and part of being a buyer is gauging that risk. If you're using the horse for a purpose, a PPE is recommended to make sure the horse is capable of serving that purpose. A free horse that you're "retiring" to a good home? Pretty unlikely a vet exam will be done. So I personally don't think that's suspicious. I think asking for a Coggin's would have been reasonable, but often people are going to be more lax with these types of transactions.

Unless you're crossing state lines that requires health certificates, that's also pretty much never going to be done. None of this is unusual for re-homed horses. Your expensive show horses are a different story.



I think what I'm trying to get at is that if you're unfamiliar with the industry and comparing the rehoming of horses to dogs/cats, naturally you would judge the owners harsher for what they haven't done in this situation and I don't think that's fair. I think owners should absolutely be more careful with vetting buyers/adopters but based on the industry, I'm not surprised they weren't, particularly with a vet student. Hopefully this serves to stimulate more caution in the future.

Not going to touch on all the points you made because time, but the at least one of the states she hit definitely either required a health certificate, a current coggins/EIA, or both to hit the road/go to another state (that one would assume a horse owner/horse oriented vet student would be very well aware of). Hence my point with there being a lot of info that is probs being left out media-wise given the stories an owner(s) has been telling online. haven't really kept up with all the horse groups discussing this situation though because ER nights are rough/not really that invested. I'm not unfamiliar with the travel requirements of horses given that I had the opportunity to see the necessary exams/paperwork pretty frequently as a pre-vet. I know some people try to avoid all of that because $$$, I'm just pointing out how I think it's a little odd given my experience/the situation. I don't claim to be a horse-pro by any means but I'm not just talking out of my *** here. If a vet student came to pick up my dog and didn't ask for proof of rabies vaccination, I might wonder why someone who should know all about this didn't ask if my dog was vaccinated according to law. Again, this is all in reference to the novel one of the victimized owners had written online, so grain of salt.

Flipping horses isn't all that rare, especially in the regions she was hitting. The equine vet I shadowed a lot as a pre-vet (in the same general region that this girl hit) used to talk about it too. I bet it's even more common the closer to Mexico you get. I don't see why people are so surprised that it happened to them, unless they truly were oblivious to the possibility (I get that they auto-trusted someone because she was a vet student, but yeah). It's just sad all around.

 

[Caia]

If a vet student came to pick up my dog and didn't ask for proof of rabies vaccination, I might wonder why someone who should know all about this didn't ask if my dog was vaccinated according to law.

This is not the same imo, so I'm going to have to agree to disagree. Trying to get rid of an old and/or lame horse is not the same as rehoming your dog.

I'm not trying to be elitist here but shadowing an equine vet as a pre-vet does not necessarily allow you to understand horse ownership and this seems clear to me in your posts. It really is its own little world and it can be difficult to understand all the nuances without fully being a part of it. Kinda how I feel about farmers and their cows, I can only relate based on training so much.

I'll be interested to see how this story continues to develop.

 

[Caiter92]

Not going to touch on all the points you made because time, but the at least one of the states she hit definitely either required a health certificate, a current coggins/EIA, or both to hit the road/go to another state (that one would assume a horse owner/horse oriented vet student would be very well aware of). Hence my point with there being a lot of info that is probs being left out media-wise given the stories an owner(s) has been telling online. haven't really kept up with all the horse groups discussing this situation though because ER nights are rough/not really that invested. I'm not unfamiliar with the travel requirements of horses given that I had the opportunity to see the necessary exams/paperwork pretty frequently as a pre-vet. I know some people try to avoid all of that because $$$, I'm just pointing out how I think it's a little odd given my experience/the situation. I don't claim to be a horse-pro by any means but I'm not just talking out of my *** here. If a vet student came to pick up my dog and didn't ask for proof of rabies vaccination, I might wonder why someone who should know all about this didn't ask if my dog was vaccinated according to law. Again, this is all in reference to the novel one of the victimized owners had written online, so grain of salt.

Flipping horses isn't all that rare, especially in the regions she was hitting. The equine vet I shadowed a lot as a pre-vet (in the same general region that this girl hit) used to talk about it too. I bet it's even more common the closer to Mexico you get. I don't see why people are so surprised that it happened to them, unless they truly were oblivious to the possibility (I get that they auto-trusted someone because she was a vet student, but yeah). It's just sad all around.

I feel like this is putting a lot of blame on the owners who sold or gave her their horses, and that's really not fair. She lied and deceived to benefit herself. This girl was a vet student. You should be able to trust someone whose profession is to care for animals will provide a proper home. She exploited that for her own gain, on top of lying, falsifying vet records, and all of the other crimes that are piling up. Regardless of whether selling the horses at auction or slaughter ends up being found to be breaking the law, I hope to god she gets expelled. This whole situation shows a serious lack of integrity and poor judgement.

 

[TheGirlWithTheFernTattoo]

Few more articles

Finding Willie: how social media exposed dark side of horse biz

Vet student waives extradition on horse scam charge

Apparently she drew up a fake euth invoice and send it to an owner to prove the horse had died at her farm, but it was discovered that there was no one in the state with the name of the veterinarian she put on it.

I can't find anywhere that states there is evidence to prove she sold them to an auction house or that the auction house sold them to slaughter, just the assumption/suspicion that that happened. Curious to see what other evidence pops up in the next few weeks.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

This is not the same imo, so I'm going to have to agree to disagree. Trying to get rid of an old and/or lame horse is not the same as rehoming your dog.

I'm not trying to be elitist here but shadowing an equine vet as a pre-vet does not necessarily allow you to understand horse ownership and this seems clear to me in your posts. It really is its own little world and it can be difficult to understand all the nuances without fully being a part of it. Kinda how I feel about farmers and their cows, I can only relate based on training so much.

I'll be interested to see how this story continues to develop.

Have you read any of the articles on this? These weren't just old/lame horses. Some of these owners are claiming that their horses actually had decent value. I saw $1500 for one of the horses, and that's just coming from the people who are coming forward and talking to the media. So no, these horses weren't just old/lame horses, hence my mixed feelings/confusion about what we aren't privy to just yet. some of these horses were just unwanted for various reasons.

I feel like this is putting a lot of blame on the owners who sold or gave her their horses, and that's really not fair. She lied and deceived to benefit herself. This girl was a vet student. You should be able to trust someone whose profession is to care for animals will provide a proper home. She exploited that for her own gain, on top of lying, falsifying vet records, and all of the other crimes that are piling up. Regardless of whether selling the horses at auction or slaughter ends up being found to be breaking the law, I hope to god she gets expelled. This whole situation shows a serious lack of integrity and poor judgement.

Gonna ramble a bit here:

Selling the horses to slaughter isn't illegal, despite that being the trigger point for most people reading the articles on this story. The only crime she committed was getting property under false pretenses, which isn't likely to get much of a punishment. The original owners did nothing illegal (barring the questions I brought up earlier), but I just disagree that they are free of any degree of responsibility to what happened to the horses here. I mean, if I fell for a credit card scam, I'd be pissed off for sure but it's also my problem that I fell for it. This girl literally modeled her scam after the many scams before her, scams the horse world is well aware of. I posted the article on the trainer who sold over 100 horses to slaughter using the same method of deceit.

People forget/have no clue this is a real fate for horses since the US banned horse slaughter. Well duh, they just get trucked to the closest border. Unwanted horses feed zoo animals and people outside the US, plain and simple. Thousands upon thousands of unwanted US horses are slaughtered every year. The only way to control the fate of any animal is to euthanize it. I'm not saying there are no rehoming success stories (obviously there are), or that we should run around euthanizing everything, but it's a real consideration. And then there's the wanted horses that get stolen...

Also, another convo for another day, but this is a good segway into talking about bringing horse slaughter back to the US/the idea of euthanizing an animal solely because you no longer want it/can't care for it. Not saying I have strong feels either way, but unwanted horses just don't have a place to go in this country. They are left to starve in pastures/stalls (seen this first hand), trucked to other countries where the humane aspect of slaughter may not be enforced (like US plants used to enforce), or given away.

Few more articles

Finding Willie: how social media exposed dark side of horse biz

Vet student waives extradition on horse scam charge

Apparently she drew up a fake euth invoice and send it to an owner to prove the horse had died at her farm, but it was discovered that there was no one in the state with the name of the veterinarian she put on it.

I can't find anywhere that states there is evidence to prove she sold them to an auction house or that the auction house sold them to slaughter, just the assumption/suspicion that that happened. Curious to see what other evidence pops up in the next few weeks.

Like I posted earlier, people are posting screenshots of texts allegedly from her admitting the horses were slaughtered (horses belonging to whatever owner that communication was with) to Mexico. Interestingly, one of the screenshots talks about one of the horses given to her was impossible to work with or something like that, not that it's entirely relevant, just wondering if what she says about the horse was true (if those are really her texts). Every article/post on these horses keeps saying that they were all good horses, but maybe not all were (which is a frequent reason for slaughter). Again not defending her actions, I'm just wondering about details that people would leave out of their interviews. She still got that horse under false pretenses.

I've seen the articles you posted, more that haven't been posted here yet, and all of the conversation happening in the horse groups (including posts from owners coming forward). That Willie article brings up a whole host of other questions that I wasn't going to bring up but is being heavily debated elsewhere...your horse has trouble walking and is in pain, and you choose rehoming instead of euthanasia? A different pasture isn't going to magically take pain away. He was unable to ride therefore unwanted, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would decide that rehoming would be the best option in that particular situation. Horses that have trouble walking have trouble living, so I don't really get the logic there. Out of sight, out of mind? How is getting rid of a horse in pain supposed to help it?

 

[Caiter92]

Selling the horses to slaughter isn't illegal, despite that being the trigger point for most people reading the articles on this story. The only crime she committed was getting property under false pretenses, which isn't likely to get much of a punishment. The original owners did nothing illegal (barring the questions I brought up earlier), but I just disagree that they are free of any degree of responsibility to what happened to the horses here. I mean, if I fell for a credit card scam, I'd be pissed off for sure but it's also my problem that I fell for it. This girl literally modeled her scam after the many scams before her, scams the horse world is well aware of. I posted the article on the trainer who sold over 100 horses to slaughter using the same method of deceit.

People forget/have no clue this is a real fate for horses since the US banned horse slaughter. Well duh, they just get trucked to the closest border. Unwanted horses feed zoo animals and people outside the US, plain and simple. Thousands upon thousands of unwanted US horses are slaughtered every year. The only way to control the fate of any animal is to euthanize it. I'm not saying there are no rehoming success stories (obviously there are), or that we should run around euthanizing everything, but it's a real consideration. And then there's the wanted horses that get stolen...

Also, another convo for another day, but this is a good segway into talking about bringing horse slaughter back to the US/the idea of euthanizing an animal solely because you no longer want it/can't care for it. Not saying I have strong feels either way, but unwanted horses just don't have a place to go in this country. They are left to starve in pastures/stalls (seen this first hand), trucked to other countries where the humane aspect of slaughter may not be enforced (like US plants used to enforce), or given away.

Like I posted earlier, people are posting screenshots of texts allegedly from her admitting the horses were slaughtered (horses belonging to whatever owner that communication was with) to Mexico. Interestingly, one of the screenshots talks about one of the horses given to her was impossible to work with or something like that, not that it's entirely relevant, just wondering if what she says about the horse was true (if those are really her texts). Every article/post on these horses keeps saying that they were all good horses, but maybe not all were (which is a frequent reason for slaughter). Again not defending her actions, I'm just wondering about details that people would leave out of their interviews. She still got that horse under false pretenses.

I fully realize selling horses to slaughter isn't illegal, and what the alternatives are, and that they are shipped to Canada or Mexico. The US didn't ban horse slaughter, they banned using USDA funds for inspection of horse slaughter facilities and the ability of slaughter facilities to pay for inspection themselves. So sending the horses somewhere to be slaughtered is fine, legally speaking. However, what is illegal is breech of contract and acquiring property under false pretenses.

In articles and the accounts of owners who were involved with this student I saw, many of them mention having a first refusal clause or it stipulated the horse be returned to them if she could no longer care for them. That is what I'm referring to being possibly found illegal--breaking contracts by selling the horses to slaughter or auction, or acquiring the horses with the intentions to do so. Even if it's found she broke no laws breaking contracts and acquiring property under false pretenses, this is still a very ****ty thing to do.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I fully realize selling horses to slaughter isn't illegal, and what the alternatives are, and that they are shipped to Canada or Mexico. The US didn't ban horse slaughter, they banned using USDA funds for inspection of horse slaughter facilities and the ability of slaughter facilities to pay for inspection themselves. So sending the horses somewhere to be slaughtered is fine, legally speaking. However, what is illegal is breech of contract and acquiring property under false pretenses.

In articles and the accounts of owners who were involved with this student I saw, many of them mention having a first refusal clause or it stipulated the horse be returned to them if she could no longer care for them. That is what I'm referring to being possibly found illegal--breaking contracts by selling the horses to slaughter or auction, or acquiring the horses with the intentions to do so. Even if it's found she broke no laws breaking contracts and acquiring property under false pretenses, this is still a very ****ty thing to do.

"Regardless of whether selling the horses at auction or slaughter ends up being found to be breaking the law..." reads otherwise. And thanks for the lesson, but I think we can all make sense of that law-by eliminating inspection funds, horse slaughter for meat in the US in turn was also banned

Which means we are sending horses on any/all meds to be slaughtered and fed to people around the world.

Anyways, idk how far these contracts can go in court. I mean I hate to say it, but these aren't likely notarized. The circulating picture of one was written on notebook paper. Those could just as easily be forged, idk. I know you don't need a notary to make a contract binding (or even a written piece of paper, necessarily), but it just seems like there isn't going to be the best evidence against her. Then there's the fact that she only picked up a few of these horses herself. She sent friends/her boyfriend (the people who were actually selling the horses to slaughter) to pick up a lot these horses. She played a role in the deception, but technically if those people signed any contract on her behalf, how binding could it possibly be? And not everyone had a contract with her, so I really think she will get off easy, whether that be a short stint in jail or she get the same sentence her predecessor did.

 

[DVMDream]

"Regardless of whether selling the horses at auction or slaughter ends up being found to be breaking the law..." reads otherwise. And thanks for the lesson, but I think we can all make sense of that law-by eliminating inspection funds, horse slaughter for meat in the US in turn was also banned

Which means we are sending horses on any/all meds to be slaughtered and fed to people around the world.

Anyways, idk how far these contracts can go in court. I mean I hate to say it, but these aren't likely notarized. The circulating picture of one was written on notebook paper. Those could just as easily be forged, idk. I know you don't need a notary to make a contract binding (or even a written piece of paper, necessarily), but it just seems like there isn't going to be the best evidence against her. Then there's the fact that she only picked up a few of these horses herself. She sent friends/her boyfriend (the people who were actually selling the horses to slaughter) to pick up a lot these horses. She played a role in the deception, but technically if those people signed any contract on her behalf, how binding could it possibly be? And not everyone had a contract with her, so I really think she will get off easy, whether that be a short stint in jail or she get the same sentence her predecessor did.

Um she committed a felony. Acquiring property under false pretenses is a class H felony, unless the property value is under $400 and I doubt many of those horses are worth less than that. As you said, some are worth more. She potentially has committed 32 felonies. That's nothing to sneeze at. And that's not including if they find any falsified health certificates or other documents.

 

[dyachei]

"Regardless of whether selling the horses at auction or slaughter ends up being found to be breaking the law..." reads otherwise. And thanks for the lesson, but I think we can all make sense of that law-by eliminating inspection funds, horse slaughter for meat in the US in turn was also banned

Which means we are sending horses on any/all meds to be slaughtered and fed to people around the world.

Anyways, idk how far these contracts can go in court. I mean I hate to say it, but these aren't likely notarized. The circulating picture of one was written on notebook paper. Those could just as easily be forged, idk. I know you don't need a notary to make a contract binding (or even a written piece of paper, necessarily), but it just seems like there isn't going to be the best evidence against her. Then there's the fact that she only picked up a few of these horses herself. She sent friends/her boyfriend (the people who were actually selling the horses to slaughter) to pick up a lot these horses. She played a role in the deception, but technically if those people signed any contract on her behalf, how binding could it possibly be? And not everyone had a contract with her, so I really think she will get off easy, whether that be a short stint in jail or she get the same sentence her predecessor did.

Doesn't always matter if they were notarized if both parties signed the documents.

I think you're trying to make the blame that of people that were giving their horses away. I'm not sure if it's a personal issue that you feel strongly about or just on a moral/ethical level, but it's clear that you *want* them to have responsibility with each post. Do they have some? probably a little. But I don't expect people to ask old dogs about rabies vaccines/licenses in this part of the US, so I doubt it'd be different up there. It's not ideal, but it's real life

 

[hygebeorht]

I am sure the prior owners are feeling eaten alive by guilt. Should they have done more due diligence? Probably. Did they likely feel less need to be thorough since the accused was a veterinary student? Probably. Would I have made the same mistake they did? Probably.

I think the takeaways here are: a) do your homework if you're rehoming an animal, regardless of who is taking it, b) realize that you actually have no control over your animal's fate once it isn't your animal, and c) don't be a ****head like the accused, hurting others and tarnishing the good name of veterinary medicine.

This is a sad mess all around.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Um she committed a felony. Acquiring property under false pretenses is a class H felony, unless the property value is under $400 and I doubt many of those horses are worth less than that. As you said, some are worth more. She potentially has committed 32 felonies. That's nothing to sneeze at. And that's not including if they find any falsified health certificates or other documents.

The woman who essentially did this exact same thing to over 1oo horses didn't serve any time, hence me referring to her case when I said that. Just probation.

 

[DVMDream]

The woman who essentially did this exact same thing to over 1oo horses didn't serve any time, hence me referring to her case when I said that. Just probation.

I dunno, you seem to be "well golly gee whiz" what she did isn't that bad. Those owners should feel worse. I mean really, in every one of your posts you're downplaying what the student did and redirecting blame to the owners.

 

[KCgophervet]

Selling the horses to slaughter isn't illegal, despite that being the trigger point for most people reading the articles on this story. The only crime she committed was getting property under false pretenses, which isn't likely to get much of a punishment. The original owners did nothing illegal (barring the questions I brought up earlier), but I just disagree that they are free of any degree of responsibility to what happened to the horses here. I mean, if I fell for a credit card scam, I'd be pissed off for sure but it's also my problem that I fell for it. This girl literally modeled her scam after the many scams before her, scams the horse world is well aware of. I posted the article on the trainer who sold over 100 horses to slaughter using the same method of deceit.

While overall I think this discussion has been pretty civil, I'm going to call out the bolded as victim blaming and I'm not cool with it. It's akin to saying the rape victim should have not worn such a short skirt or had that many drinks... Let's place the blame ENTIRELY on the dinguses who committed the crime. THEY did something wrong, not the victim. Yes more due diligence might have resulted in a happier outcome but its still NOT THE VICTIMS FAULT.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I dunno, you seem to be "well golly gee whiz" what she did isn't that bad. Those owners should feel worse. I mean really, in every one of your posts you're downplaying what the student did and redirecting blame to the owners.

I mean, no, not really. Most of this convo has been back and forth about the owners, I haven't really talked about the student herself because (like I've said), I have no doubt she's guilty here.

While overall I think this discussion has been pretty civil, I'm going to call out the bolded as victim blaming and I'm not cool with it. It's akin to saying the rape victim should have not worn such a short skirt or had that many drinks... Let's place the blame ENTIRELY on the dinguses who committed the crime. THEY did something wrong, not the victim. Yes more due diligence might have resulted in a happier outcome but its still NOT THE VICTIMS FAULT.

Knew this was coming at some point from someone, and was not disappointed. People love to compare things to rape, as if they could possibly be on the same level.. The difference here is that these owners had complete control over who they gave their horses to, and were not forced to do anything. You just compared them to a rape victim, who has ZERO control over the situation and is physically forced to do something. A violent crime. Kind of ridiculous, even upsetting/gross, that you're comparing a rape victim to someone who fell for a property scam. Not even close to being comparable. I highly suggest you reconsider that comparison, and I can hope you can see the huge difference between the two situations. If not, well, that's disappointing.

I see you wanted to make some big point about me being a victim blamer, but you just hugely downplayed the crime of rape and likened it to someone getting scammed out of property. I don't really know how to articulate how deeply disturbing that is to me, but whatever, you do you. If they're the same in your eyes, then that's something you'll need to work out for yourself.

With that, I'm going to go ahead and be done with this thread.

 

[Caiter92]

It isn’t like the horse owners stood on a street corner and just gave their horse to the first person that walked by. They thought they were giving their horse to someone who was wanting them as a companion horse to their own barrel horse. The ones that had contracts tried to do the right thing and make sure their horse would come back to them if she didn’t want them anymore.

This insistence the owners are completely responsible for this situation is akin to saying it’s a rescues fault for adopting out an animal to someone who ended up abusing the animal. There is only so much you can do to vet a home. Could the owners have done more? Of course. There is always more that can be done. But it is not their fault this happened.

Honestly this lack of compassion for the horrible situation the owners are in and how terrible they must feel is really disheartening.

 

[dyachei]

It isn’t like the horse owners stood on a street corner and just gave their horse to the first person that walked by. They thought they were giving their horse to someone who was wanting them as a companion horse to their own barrel horse. The ones that had contracts tried to do the right thing and make sure their horse would come back to them if she didn’t want them anymore.

This insistence the owners are completely responsible for this situation is akin to saying it’s a rescues fault for adopting out an animal to someone who ended up abusing the animal. There is only so much you can do to vet a home. Could the owners have done more? Of course. There is always more that can be done. But it is not their fault this happened.

Honestly this lack of compassion for the horrible situation the owners are in and how terrible they must feel is really disheartening.

It's only one user. That's the good news.

The disgust with comparing it to victim blaming in rape situations is over the top, though.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

It isn’t like the horse owners stood on a street corner and just gave their horse to the first person that walked by. They thought they were giving their horse to someone who was wanting them as a companion horse to their own barrel horse. The ones that had contracts tried to do the right thing and make sure their horse would come back to them if she didn’t want them anymore.

This insistence the owners are completely responsible for this situation is akin to saying it’s a rescues fault for adopting out an animal to someone who ended up abusing the animal. There is only so much you can do to vet a home. Could the owners have done more? Of course. There is always more that can be done. But it is not their fault this happened.

Honestly this lack of compassion for the horrible situation the owners are in and how terrible they must feel is really disheartening.

Okay jk guess I'm not done. I'm deeply sorry you're disheartened, but you're claim about what I've said are simply not true.

Where on god's green earth are you getting the idea that I've said they are completely responsible? I never once did, and you really need to stop putting words in my mouth. Enough is enough. You can disagree with my opinion that I feel they have "some degree of personal responsibility" but you cannot sit there and say I've said they are completely responsible. I even have mentioned how I know they feel some serious guilt right now. You literally are saying the exact same thing I've been saying this whole time. Yes, they could have done more. Meaning they have some degree of personal responsibility here. You yourself just said they played their own role in this. I get that since I said it, it must be wrong somehow, but come on now. You just reinforced my point with different wording.

I think the fact that you aren't actually reading a thing I've said before making huge judgments on my character is more disheartening. I mean, 99% of the time I don't care what you guys say to anyone on here because I get this forum is often used as an outlet and it's a waste of time to care. Most people just end up blocking you guys which I can completely understand. However, if you're going to jump on the bandwagon against someone, at least read their posts for crying out loud.

Goodnight.

 

[dyachei]

Meaning they have some degree of personal responsibility here

You keep saying this and then keep insisting they should have done better. That's where the disconnect is. Some degree is not the same as responsible. Just because the owners could have done better doesn't mean they should have. There was a certain amount of trust in an individual in our field...which is known for compassion for animals. Some tried to follow up with her and were lied to. Others tried to get information from her and were lied to. If you fell victim to a credit card scam you can bet your ass they would arrest the person who was responsible and charge them with crimes. Then try them for said crimes.

This isn't you versus everyone else. It's you saying one thing but showing you believe another and people trying to point that out to you.

 

[DVMDream]

Okay jk guess I'm not done. I'm deeply sorry you're disheartened, but you're claim about what I've said are simply not true.

Where on god's green earth are you getting the idea that I've said they are completely responsible? I never once did, and you really need to stop putting words in my mouth. Enough is enough. You can disagree with my opinion that I feel they have "some degree of personal responsibility" but you cannot sit there and say I've said they are completely responsible. I even have mentioned how I know they feel some serious guilt right now. You literally are saying the exact same thing I've been saying this whole time. Yes, they could have done more. Meaning they have some degree of personal responsibility here. You yourself just said they played their own role in this. I get that since I said it, it must be wrong somehow, but come on now. You just reinforced my point with different wording.

I think the fact that you aren't actually reading a thing I've said before making huge judgments on my character is more disheartening. I mean, 99% of the time I don't care what you guys say to anyone on here because I get this forum is often used as an outlet and it's a waste of time to care. Most people just end up blocking you guys which I can completely understand. However, if you're going to jump on the bandwagon against someone, at least read their posts for crying out loud.

Goodnight.

If multiple people have agreed that you are not really giving the owners of the horses the benefit of the doubt. And you seem to be placing more blame on them than the vet student. Maybe you really are doing those things, even if you aren't intending to. Just something to think about.

 

[TheGirlWithTheFernTattoo]

I'm shocked at how common this type of thing actually is.

Off topic, but:

How would people compare this (morally and in terms of severity) to the cases of animal abuse done by veterinarians (example the case of Dr. Mahavir Rekhi). Although I find ethically this is terrible, and 100% abuses a position of trust, it doesn't seem like she did anything to the animals themselves besides selling them to auction.

 

[dyachei]

I'm shocked at how common this type of thing actually is.

Off topic, but:

How would people compare this (morally and in terms of severity) to the cases of animal abuse done by veterinarians (example the case of Dr. Mahavir Rekhi). Although I find ethically this is terrible, and 100% abuses a position of trust, it doesn't seem like she did anything to the animals themselves besides selling them to auction.

I don't think it's on the same level. I think animal abuse is worse. However, neither vet should be in the industry.

It shows a lack of ethics and judgement in ways that can't be compensated for. So it's also not just a breach of trust

 

[hygebeorht]

Hey guys, can everyone take a deep breath and a step back? @pinkpuppy9 may have phrased things indelicately at times but she is just voicing a (not uncommon) opinion that I have read in other places.

Sure, maybe the owners shouldn't have fallen for the con, and some people would be bothered by their willingness to offload an unwanted horse to a stranger for free. It's nice to think that once we take responsibility for an animal, we will provide for it until it dies. But that's a big ask for an animal with a 30+ year lifespan and expensive upkeep. A lot can change in 30 years.

I am sure those owners will never forgive themselves and feel very responsible for their horse's fates. I think that at the core, @pinkpuppy9 is trying to highlight what they could have done to avoid falling for this con. That said, it was a pretty solid con, and if the owners are to blame for anything, it's for believing something that was too good to be true.

So can we stow the pitchforks and chill TF out a little? (PP9, that applies to you too...) Remember, written tone always comes across as harsher than intended, and it's easy for online disagreements to escalate unnecessarily.

 

[KCgophervet]

I mean, no, not really. Most of this convo has been back and forth about the owners, I haven't really talked about the student herself because (like I've said), I have no doubt she's guilty here.



Knew this was coming at some point from someone, and was not disappointed. People love to compare things to rape, as if they could possibly be on the same level.. The difference here is that these owners had complete control over who they gave their horses to, and were not forced to do anything. You just compared them to a rape victim, who has ZERO control over the situation and is physically forced to do something. A violent crime. Kind of ridiculous, even upsetting/gross, that you're comparing a rape victim to someone who fell for a property scam. Not even close to being comparable. I highly suggest you reconsider that comparison, and I can hope you can see the huge difference between the two situations. If not, well, that's disappointing.

I see you wanted to make some big point about me being a victim blamer, but you just hugely downplayed the crime of rape and likened it to someone getting scammed out of property. I don't really know how to articulate how deeply disturbing that is to me, but whatever, you do you. If they're the same in your eyes, then that's something you'll need to work out for yourself.

With that, I'm going to go ahead and be done with this thread.

It's only one user. That's the good news.

The disgust with comparing it to victim blaming in rape situations is over the top, though.

My point was to use an over the top example to highlight the problem. Exaggerating for emphasis to clarify how the point comes across. I underlined the one sentence because what you described is definitely rape, but there are many other forms of rape that occur where it's not so cut and dry. And people DO say things like "well the victim should take some personal responsibility for what happened to them." And it's not okay in my opinion for ANY victim to be told that. Regardless of what crime occurred.

Again, point being, don't blame the victim for crappy people managing to take advantage of them. It's not cool, no matter the circumstances. Was not intending to get into a discussion on rape but that was the biggest most obvious example of victim-blaming that exists so I used it to demonstrate the point.

 

[battie]

I'm shocked at how common this type of thing actually is.

Off topic, but:

How would people compare this (morally and in terms of severity) to the cases of animal abuse done by veterinarians (example the case of Dr. Mahavir Rekhi). Although I find ethically this is terrible, and 100% abuses a position of trust, it doesn't seem like she did anything to the animals themselves besides selling them to auction.

Had to look that dude up cause I hadn't heard about this.

What I find insane is that he lost his license for 10 months for multiple cases of abuse, then gets only 3 announced inspections/year for 2 years. Then he's basically scott free (granted only read 1 story cause midterm studying). But then we have that baby vet from TAMU who shot that cat with a bow and arrow who sounds like she's permanently losing her license. On a personal level, I think what he did is way worse, but is not receiving nearly as harsh of a punishment.