On Thursday, Mar. 27, Judy Camp went to trial on charges of pet theft, obstruction of property, and lying to police. She sees her actions of rescuing a dog as simply doing a good deed. However, the dog had a owner – a negligent one, but nevertheless, an owner. But, Camp only sees herself as a good Samaritan.
Apparently, being a good Samaritan holds no merit these days – or maybe there’s more to the story. See for yourself:
Last December, Camp assumed she was doing a good deed by rescuing a dog who was left outside to weather the freezing winter temperatures in Washington state.
According to the New York Daily News, Camp learned of the dog’s suffering through an Internet message board. The board revealed that the dog was rural road in the proximity of the Methow River. A resident only two houses away from where the dog was located also gave an account of the dog’s conditions. The resident stated that the dog was often confined with another dog, often left out in the cold to suffer. The dog reportedly belonged to the
While the family had received a number of complaints about dogs being left in the freezing conditions, they had not violated any animal cruelty laws. The dogs had food, water and appeared to be well kept. However, Camp stated that when she arrived to check on the dog on Dec. 6 when temperatures where predicted to drop below zero, the dog was anything but we kept. She cited that the dog confined to an area littered with trash everywhere. Camp made the decision to take the dog back to her home.
That following Monday, she had it checked out at local veterinary hospital. The veterinarian informed Camp that the dog was approximately 20 pounds overweight. The exam also revealed that the dog had noticeable scarring that could have come from unsuccessful neutering or scrotum damage from the inclement weather. After hearing of the dog’s ailments, Camp felt confident that she’d made the right decision to rescue the dog. She did right? Well, not exactly.
Shortly after the visit to the vet, Deputy Dave Yarnell informed Camp that the dog had been stolen. However, she told the vet that it was her dog, although she was well aware that the declaration was a lie. She stated that she felt she and the deputy had an unspoken understanding given the dog’s condition. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. When the deputy tried to remove the dog from her care, they actually ended up nearly fighting over the dog. Camp made an attempt to remove sneak the dog to her care instead, but the deputy wasn’t having it.
Once the dog was returned, Camp ended up paying the Orvil Magruder $500.00 for the dog. However, pet theft charges were still filed. Camp’s situation has received national attention since she was charged even after paying for the dog. Some people feel she was wrong, while others view her as a hero.
“I did the right thing, for the right reason,” Camp said.
Although Camp took the dog from the negligent owner without his consent, should she have been charged with pet theft? She did end up purchasing the dog, but did her initial acts blemish the good dead? Should Judy Camp be charged? Yes or no.
Image via Judy Camp, Facebook