Saturday, February 15, 2014

An unpreventable tragedy, Part II

Its axiomatic!

So, more and more news is coming out about the Klonda Richey incident. The situation leading up to her killing is not exceptional in any way. Almost every neighborhood has a bully like Andrew Nason (the killer dogs owner).

Here are the actors in this boiler-plate story:
  • Klonda Richey. Victim of doggers. Begged for help, denied any kind of due process.
  • Andrew Nason. Bully dogger. Used his pets to project intimidation, terrorize the neighborhood. Had no restraint placed on his behavior.
  • Mark Kumpf. Corrupt and lazy AC officer. It appears that he withheld some information from the victim that may have gotten her some relief. Dawn at Craven Desires did some SUPER investigative reporting on this character.
  • Dayton PD / 911. Does not take animal related complaints seriously.
  • Magistrate Kristi Wuebben. Did not take animal related complaints seriously. Denied protection order in spite of video showing violations taking place.

There are literally ten million stories like this. Sure, 99.9% of them do not end with the dogs killing the victim. However, they are all epic fails with the lives of the victims changed for the worse, perhaps forever. Many of these scenarios typically result in a different, but still awful, outcome.

What would some of the more likely outcomes been?
  • Victim moves away. Often, taking a big financial loss. Many folks get literally "barked out" of their homes. Very common.
  • Dog owner kills complainant/victim, or at least tries to do so using a non-canine method. Uncommon but happens.
  • Complainant kills dog owner. Sleep deprivation from endless loud barking can result in a psychotic episode. As per the above, the vic occasionally kills the dogger in justifiable self defense. Uncommon but happens.
  • Victim takes matters into their own hands: Shoots or poisons the dogs. May wind up in jail for doing so. Fairly common.
  • Dog owner arrested / incarcerated for something other than a dog related offense. Its noteworthy that Nason had a long "rap" sheet – he would have likely wound up back in prison before much longer. Fairly common.
  • Dogger moves away for various reasons. These people have very unstable lives and often move around a lot. Sometimes, the victim will "out asshole" the perp who then go project their aggression onto someone else somewhere else. Fairly common.

Why were Richey's pleads for help summarily ignored by authorities? (This is my favorite rhetorical question). Remember, many hold dogs and dog owners are absolutely perfect as a First Principle. Its axiomatic! So when they receive a complaint, that leaves only 2 options – 1) the complainant is a crank and a liar, or 2) they deserved what happened. All evidence is summarily dismissed as forgery.

And it IS axiomatic – Its like a computer program:


Of course, there are a small handful of places where these scenarios are taken seriously, so YMMV. There are a handful of people who are not brainwashed by The Collective. Unfortunately, none of those people were in Dayton.

In any case, I'm sure the judge who was reviewing Richeys case was following a similar decision tree. There is no thought process, judgement, or reason involved. Its pure binary logic. I mean, the videos clearly showed violations in progress, but that did not fit the narrative: There is no programming for that.

I'm sure the cops and the judge were fully confident that Richey was indeed an evil mastermind, using all her considerable skills as a special effects guru to frame the innocent dog owner and his absolutely perfect pets for wrongdoing. What else could it have been? There is no other explanation. See, during process of elimination you first eliminate the dogs and dog owners from the calculus, as being a dog/owner is a rock solid alibi in itself. Hell, they might as well have been on Mars when all this went down!

Kumpf, I am sure, probably was not too concerned as to the validity of the complaints... he just needed to protect a fellow Nutter at all cost: That is HIS programming.

As an aside, I've been taking some flak recently for a few things I've said on here and some comments I've made on Craven and other blogs. Again, I did not create this regime nor do I contribute to it. Look, when you are confronted by "The Dorg" your life as you know it is over. Don't freaking get pissed at ME about it. You can't afford a kevlar body suit for your pet bunny? AR15's with night sights ain't your thing? Those things may be true but they don't mean squat. That and 99 cents will buy you a cup of coffee in this town What it means is, YOU just outsmarted yourself.


  1. dog nutters (of all breeds) always say "they're dogs, they bark, they bite. that's what dogs do." okay. okay. how about this? based on that statement, i think the burden should fall on the accused dog nutter to prove their dogs are innocent.

    i'm so glad you are back. you and why i hate your dog are really needed.

  2. Klonda Richey's death is just so far beyond the pale - she had video evidence and it was ignored, your "it's axiomatic" theory rings true.

    It should be axiomatic that if a neighbor is willing to build a fence and install security cameras to protect themselves and provide evidence, they're not a crank.

    It should be axiomatic that if a dog is robobarking it is not being adequately cared for.

  3. Klonda seems like a sweet person. It takes a really nasty attitude sometimes to get people to respond to things like this (e.g., a situation that will require some effort to fix). I don't think she had that in her. She tried logic and proof and pleas and those things ought to have worked.Her case upsets me so much. She should not be dead. Those dogs should be dead, not Klonda.

    And, p.s., if the dogs have kept to the owner's yard I don't think Klonda would've ever said much against them. She liked animals and would have excused some things IF the dogs had stayed away from her house. Just my opinion... I didn't know her personally.

  4. Glad your back in blogging action! Give 'em hell!