We, the undersigned, call on the Waterbury Police Department, the Mayor of Waterbury, and the Waterbury Board of Aldermen to charge the woman depicted in the viral video that recently circulated on social media with felony cruelty to animals under Connecticut General Statutes § 53-247(b).

The video, which authorities have confirmed is approximately one year old, shows a woman recording herself as she uses a shock device on a dog confined in a cage and then uses a pole through the slats of that cage to repeatedly impale and strike the animal. The dog whimpers and cowers. A second dog is also present. This is not ambiguous footage. It is recorded evidence of a helpless animal being deliberately hurt while trapped and unable to escape or defend itself.

Connecticut law draws a clear line between a first-offense misdemeanor and a felony. Connecticut General Statutes § 53-247(a) covers a first offense of cruelty to animals and is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. That is not the charge this conduct warrants.

Connecticut General Statutes § 53-247(b) states:

“Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal shall, (1) for a first offense, be guilty of a class D felony, and (2) for any subsequent offense, be guilty of a class C felony.”

A class D felony is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. The conduct on this video clearly rises to the level of a felony because it shows malicious intent. The woman is not reacting in a split-second accident. She is filming. She is using a shock device on a caged dog. She then takes a pole and drives it through the cage to strike and impale an animal that is already confined, whimpering, and cowering. That sequence is intentional. It is malicious. It is torture and wounding of an animal under the exact language of § 53-247(b).

We thank the Waterbury Police Department and Animal Control Officers for responding to the known address on the day the video resurfaced, for confirming that the two dogs are now happy, in good health, and showing no current signs of abuse or neglect, and for confirming that the woman in the video no longer has custody of or contact with those dogs. That welfare check mattered. Those dogs deserved to be seen and protected.

We must still ask a hard question: why was “no further law enforcement action” taken during the initial investigation approximately a year ago? A video of a woman shocking and striking a caged dog is not a close call. If that investigation ended without charges, the public is entitled to know why.

This retroactive investigation is a second opportunity. It is a second opportunity to bring accountability to the actions of an animal abuser and justice to the dogs who were physically and psychologically harmed by her conduct. The fact that the dogs appear healthy today does not erase what was done to them. Fear, pain, and trauma are harm. Video of that harm is evidence.

The statute of limitations does not close this case. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 54-193, the limitation period is one year for a misdemeanor. It is five years for an offense punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year — including a class D felony under § 53-247(b). A felony charge is still timely. That is all the more reason to apply the statute that actually matches the conduct.

In the Department’s own statement, Waterbury Police said they take incidents involving animal abuse seriously and remain “committed to investigating matters of animal abuse to the fullest extent of the law.” The fullest extent of the law in this case is not a welfare check and a press note. The fullest extent of the law is a felony charge under § 53-247(b). Anything less treats clear video evidence of malicious, intentional torture and wounding as if it were a lesser offense — or no offense at all.

We ask Waterbury Police a direct question: What would you have done if the victim on that video had been a human being instead of a dog? If a person were confined in a cage, shocked, and then struck and impaled with a pole through the bars while crying out and cowering, the suspect would have been arrested and charged. The standard should not be different because the victim cannot speak, cannot file a complaint, and cannot walk into headquarters. Connecticut law already recognizes animals as victims of crime. Enforce that law.

Animal advocates across Connecticut and the nation are watching and waiting for accountability. We have faith that the Waterbury Police Department will do its job and bring charges for a crime where the video evidence is clear.

Animals cannot speak for themselves. Desmond’s Army Animal Law Advocates remains committed to being their voice.

We therefore petition the Waterbury Police Department, Mayor Paul K. Pernerewski, Jr., and the Waterbury Board of Aldermen to:

• Charge the woman depicted in the video with felony cruelty to animals under CGS § 53-247(b);
• Investigate and prosecute this matter to the fullest extent of the law, consistent with the Department’s own public commitment; and
• Publicly account for why no charging decision was made after the original investigation approximately one year ago, and why this second opportunity will not be wasted.
  Charge her.
  
  The dogs cannot ask you to. We can.