Dog-shooting case ends with plea, court supervision
Breaking News×Beckman fired

Dog-shooting case ends with plea, court supervision

URBANA — A Champaign man who admitted he didn't have a valid firearm owner's card at the time he was believed to have shot a dog in the leg more than a year ago has been sentenced to a year of court supervision.

The sentence means that if Joshua Ingersoll successfully completes the period of supervision, he will have no record of a conviction.

Ingersoll, 33, pleaded guilty in February to not having a valid firearm owner's identification card, a misdemeanor.

He was arrested at his home in the 2700 block of Arden Drive on Jan. 28, 2012, after his girlfriend's terrier was treated by a veterinarian who called police to alert them to the animal's injury.

Ingersoll was subsequently charged with aggravated cruelty to animals and reckless discharge of a firearm, but those charges were dismissed as part of his guilty plea because the evidence was disputed as to who had actually shot the animal.

Ingersoll's attorney, Steve Beckett of Urbana, said the girlfriend admitted to her mother and other witnesses that she had shot the dog. Beckett said his client had possessed a valid FOID card in the past but had inadvertently failed to renew the card.

Judge Michael Jones imposed the sentence on Ingersoll, who had no criminal record. Beckett sought the court supervision sentence while State's Attorney Julia Rietz argued for a slightly more serious sentence of conditional discharge or probation.

Ingersoll was also ordered to pay a $500 fine and court costs.

Sections (2):News, Local

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

alabaster jones 71 wrote on May 29, 2013 at 6:05 pm
Profile Picture

Good.  

Now we just need a reckless discharge of a firearm charge against the cop who shot up an apartment building while firing in the general direction of a dogfight with reckless abandon...

wow1 wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 am

@ alabaster. It's always so nice to see the comments from people who like to bash on the police. Here's an idea. You weren't there so maybe you don't know all that happened. Where do you work? Can I come to your job and critique you all the time? I don't know. Here's an idea. Be a responsible pet owner and keep your damn dog on a chain or locked up. Seems to work for me at my house. Who would have thought? Guess it's just easier to blame the police for your own problems. So sad we live in a world that it's just easier to blame the police instead of taking responsibility for your own actions. If my dog was left to roam the city and it was hit by a car. Should I be mad at myself or the person who hit my dog. I think we all know the answer here. 

rsp wrote on May 30, 2013 at 2:05 pm

There were multiple reports of people claiming they saw the attacking dog roaming the neighborhood, said they were concerned about it but nobody called Animal Control to try and get it off the streets before it attacked someone. It's easier to bash the police than to try to prevent the problem in the first place. 

alabaster jones 71 wrote on June 01, 2013 at 12:06 am
Profile Picture

I agree that the owner of the dog should have tied it up, and that someone should have called animal control earlier.

However, just because the police have a difficult job doesn't mean that a police officer deserves immunity when they make an astoundingly dangerous and reckless decision.  And the officer in the dog shooting clearly did.  If a private citizen tried to break up a dogfight in the same manner and shot up an apartment building in the process, the police and the court system would tear him a new one, and rightfully so.