Appendix (1) Fact Sheet Distributed by Sunnyvale City on Lucy

The below fact sheet is being distributed by the Sunnyvale City Manager. It is shown below in whole.

Blogger notes that the fact sheet says nothing about Lucy's prior record, nothing about the subsequent evaluations of her by professionals as NOT VICIOUS, and says nothing about the discretion allowed in cases like this. (No one disputes that an attack took place. In fact, it confirms precisely what this whole case is about, that it was an unavoidable accident.) Likewise, it says nothing about how they judge's own comments and what he was permitted to do under the law, once the determination was made by the city. It fails to own up to the City's role in the initial determinations which, everyone admits, were permissible under the law). It says nothing about compassion. It says nothing in defense of Mr. Kahn's decision to refuse Lucy's guardians to be present when Lucy died. It says nothing about Mr. Kahn's quick attempt to euthanize Lucy before a final appeal and request for a pardon were filed, an attempt that was thwarted when the shelter's employees refused to comply. It says nothing about how several City Council members tried to "agendize" the matter. Notice also that the fact sheet describes the Legal Process but NOWHERE does it describe the ETHICAL PRPOCESS (it does not, because there was none.) Finally, notice how the fact sheet is quick to point out in the 2nd word that Lucy was a pit bull, as if that had some bearing on the matter. Sunnyvale is going back to the days when if a crimnal was of a certain color, the press was quick to point that out. How revolting. Shame on all of you public officials in Sunnyvale.

The things the fact sheet is silent on speak volumes about where the truth is in all of this. They want all of us to believe that once the ball starts rolling, it is impossible to stop. And we call ourselves a civilized society?


FACT SHEET (DITRIBUTED BY THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE) ON LUCY


Lucy, a pit bull, attacked two dogs in the City of Sunnyvale in July 2007, killing one dog and injuring the second. Lucy was determined to be a vicious dog and was humanely euthanized December 20, 2007, shortly before 3 p.m.

What Happened

Sunnyvale Animal Control, part of the Department of Public Safety, was called to the scene of a dog attack July 30, 2007. On investigation, it was determined that Lucy had escaped from the owners’ property through a dilapidated fence, and, without provocation, attacked two leashed dogs. As a result of the attack, Bobbie, a Chihuahua, was killed and Dude, a small mixed-breed, was injured before escaping the scene. The woman who was walking the dogs also suffered injuries.

Neighbors who witnessed the attack attempted to fend Lucy off with a garden hose, but were unable to deter the attack.

Lucy was seized, pursuant to Sunnyvale Municipal Code 6.08.115 – Threat to Public Health and Safety. This case is viewed as a public safety issue.

The Legal Process

An administrative hearing was held by the City of Sunnyvale and based on the investigation and witness and victim statements, Lucy was determined to be a vicious dog. The dog’s owners appealed the finding to Superior Court, Santa Clara County, and Judge Brian Walsh agreed with the finding and issued an order to have the dog humanely euthanized.

The owners asked Judge Walsh to reconsider and vacate his decision, which was denied. The owners then filed several petitions in multiple courts, all of which were denied.

The City’s Role: False Information on the Internet

A large amount of false and misleading information has been published on the Internet about this case. Most importantly, neither the Sunnyvale City Council nor the city attorney has the authority to overturn – or ignore – a court order. City Councils have responsibility for determining policy, and do not get involved in daily operations of government. As such, Lucy’s attack and subsequent adjudication, was never agendized for Council action. Once a court order is issued, however, only the court can change the order.

While this is an unfortunate case, Lucy’s owners had ample opportunity to plead their case in the judicial system. The legal process extended over several months before the final appeal, and at no time did any court find a reason to change the order.