What seemed so easy in the concept stages is proving a bit harder to get a handle on! I guess I will just jump in, and see where it all goes.

We have long known that cruelty to a spouse's pets is a definite sign of domestic abuse. With that fact in mind lets look at the case of Sara Tinsley, of West Dundee, Illinois.


"Sara Tinsley, 38, of West Dundee, entered a guilty plea in Kane County Circuit Court Wednesday to a charge of aggravated cruelty to animals, the Chicago Tribune reported Thursday.
Tinsley was taken into custody April 2 after officers were made aware of a domestic dispute at her home.
The lizard-hacking wife admitted to assaulting the reptiles with a steak knife in an effort to upset her husband, Harry Tinsley, 38, after he allegedly beat her the previous day, a police report said.
Prosecutors said the couple was going through a divorce when the lizard assault took place and the husband was charged with domestic battery"

Original source here

Why was the husband charged with a DV charge based solely on her claim of previous battery, but she not charged with any form of domestic abuse? She admitted that the lizards were assaulted in an attempt to upset the husband. Why, if her claims of abuse were true, did the husband not retaliate for her killing his pets that day? It only stands to reason, if he truly had been violent the previous day (for some unspecified reason) he most surely would have reacted violently to the killing of his pets!

She later claimed that lizards were not "real" pets and therefor could not be companion animals.

Keeping in mind she threw the lizards against the wall, then stabbed them during a PHONE ARGUMENT with him, he was not even present at the time!
More here

We have to wonder just who the perpetrator is, where the violence begins, and even more, why our feminist-biased system feels he should be charged with DV while she is not! (yet we are awash in images of fargile, delicate women, only being the poor victims of DV. Time for a reality check!)