Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So he'd been arrested for attacking the dog two days before he finally killed it? An arrest is kind of a big deal, esp. for animal abuse. And there were witnesses.
So, did he live alone? If not, why didn't someone remove the dog from the premises and save its life before that final attack?
That's exactly what I was just wondering?? Didn't they notice a change in his behavior, why did animal control allow him to keep the animal??
The message I got was from Facebook, so I don't consider it that private (but maybe I am hoping I didn't commit another faux pas).
She mentioned the dog having been vicious because the dog had been hers until it attacked her child- that's when the dog went to live with her father.
No, he apparently lived with his wife, not alone.
I do remember at the time a lot of rage that he got let off with a tiny bond and, it being Florida, that he likely wouldn't be charged or punished. It's a tough state for animal welfare.
That's exactly what I was just wondering?? Didn't they notice a change in his behavior, why did animal control allow him to keep the animal??
I'm on dialup and it took a long time to get to that tabloid link. It was awkwardly excerpted, and I understand it better now that I've read the whole article.
That article said he was caught by a witness torturing his dog until it died. He was then charged and arrested for killing the dog. And two days after his arrest, he shot himself. The way I read this his wife was out of the country at the time. So there was no one to intervene, well, except the witness and I'm not sure how long someone could watch this go on without doing something, but everyone has different limits. Plus I don't know at what point the witness came upon this scene of torture.
The article said that Lerner had no history of mental illness. That this was completely out of character for him. And that his family said he felt threatened, embarrassed and humiliated after being arrested and charged.
The information for this story came from interviews that the family gave to the local news station, from what I read. Since the family has reached out before to discuss this with the media, is there a reason why they haven't told done a followup about this aspect of mental illness and meds withdrawal as a cause for his out of character behavior? It isn't due to any privacy concerns, as a family has already shared it with outsiders who posted comments.
The message I got was from Facebook, so I don't consider it that private (but maybe I am hoping I didn't commit another faux pas).
She mentioned the dog having been vicious because the dog had been hers until it attacked her child- that's when the dog went to live with her father.
No, he apparently lived with his wife, not alone.
I do remember at the time a lot of rage that he got let off with a tiny bond and, it being Florida, that he likely wouldn't be charged or punished. It's a tough state for animal welfare.
Thanks, I understand why now about that issue, and I also saw mention of the dog's problems in the articles I read.
The only thing I don't get now is why the family "reached out" to the reporters and said that he had no history of mental illness, while the message to you was angry about your "thoughtless and stupid comments" in not being understanding when a person has a mental illness and a drug withdrawal reaction.
Maybe the man hid it from his family and they just learned that fact recently, but if that is true, maybe there was no need to be so harsh with you about something that they told the reporters did not exist.
There is no reason to justify animal abuse at all, but it is sad that something was so wrong with the dr. It is just heartbreaking. I feel bad for everyone involved.
His daughter and I have struck up a nice correspondence about mental health issues. She and her family are very traumatized by his suicide (she found him, plus had to clean up after his suicide and clean up the dog's remains).
I should have remembered- the three times our local Boston newspaper covered a subject about mental health, all three times I'd had professional contact and involvement with the person covered, and all three times the paper got totally snookered, lied to in two cases, and just plain got it wrong. It's like they went in with an agenda and just stuffed in some details from a specific person.
It doesn't sound like xxxx mental illness (severe depression and medication) was any secret from his family, but like many families of same, they weren't in agreement as to its severity or what should be done.
What he did to the dog is ghastly. I do think that is the major reason he killed himself, when he realized what he'd done. It sounds like he was quite a humanitarian with people and animals until then.
Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion.
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 03-23-2014 at 11:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
