Still waiting for Tom to explain?

We went with the Once Bitten, Twice Shy.  Tom Wall, President of the Huntington County Commissioners and Candidate for the Indiana State Senate District 17 and his attempted cover up of what would normally be just a blip in the news turned into a major regional story.  A story that Tom has yet to address. So here is to you Tom Wall , Political Story of the Year!

BY GARY L. SNYDER

There seems to be some confusion regarding a recent story pertaining to the Huntington North Cross Country team, Animal Control Officer Lori Hendrickson, and County Commission President and Republican Candidate for State Senate District 17 Tom Wall.  So as usual, it's left to HuntingtonPolitics.com (me) to set the record straight.  

On September 7, 2009 the Animal Control Officer (ACO) was dispatched to Stults Road.  When the ACO arrived, she was met by several members of the Huntington North Cross Country team, including Head Coach Curtis Hines and Assistant Coach Nick Johnson.  

At 1:59 the ACO, Lori Hendrickson, noted the following comments on the Huntington County Sheriff's Dispatch Report:  CP requested to speak with the ACO referencing the dog owned by Jerry Gressley runs loose on E. College.  Kids run at the Huntington University cross country course and get chased by this dog.  This dog has bitten three different  students.  None of them have gone for medical treatment, but they are fed up with being chased.

At 3:15 the ACO reported: ACO advised that she spoke with dog's owner Jerry Gressley....he advised that he is the renter of the property where the bite took place and advised that the subject that was bit should not have been on the property in the first place.

At 3:18 the ACO reported:  Contact number for Mr. Gressley is......( the dots are my version of editing.)

At 3:19 the ACO advised the the bite took place on the HU Cross Country course just for information.

At 3:23 the report states all contacts made for now...ACO will follow-up on this matter as needed.

Now, here's where it gets interesting, that's if I didn't have your complete attention already.  At 8:50 a.m. the next morning, the ACO, still Lori Hendrickson, called the Huntington County dispatch and wanted the following statement put into the dispatch log:  ACO requested it logged that Commissioner Tom Wall (and Republican Candidate for Indiana State Senate District 17) called her last evening in reference to this dog bite call.  He advised her she is not to do anything about the dog bite offense that was reported previously that day.  Terry Gressley is employed by the University as the grounds keeper and he advised her not to ruin the relations between the County and Huntington University with this call.  Authorized Lori Vanover (Hendrickson), ACO Huntington County.

Tom Wall has promised me a statement on the incident and we will update the story as soon as it received.

Below are copies of the actual huntington County Dispatch reports and Official Indiana Animal Bites Reports filed by the individuals accosted by the accused K-9.

View this photo - Page one of the Huntington County Dispatch Report

View this photo - Page two of the Huntington County Dispatch Report

View this photo - Official Indiana Animal Bites Report filed by Curtis Hines

View this photo - Official Indiana Animal Bites Report filed by Nick Johnson

View this photo - Official Indiana Animal Bites Report filed by Dan Meyer

Comments

[disappointed in tom wall]

Let's see Tom Wall get out of this one! I am sure it is all a big misunderstanding. He would never do that, or should I say he would never admit to doing that.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern with Mr Wall?? He seems to be a habitual liar, a true politician if you will. I think it is time we put an end to his reign of terror.

[G]

I think to be fair to Tom, let's wait for his statement.

[John Paff]

Gary, to clarify: Is this a photo of the actual dog, or a stock image?

[G]

To be clear, the dog pictured at the top of the page is not the dog in question and is a stock picture.

[Outside (looking in)]

Print | Close Window
Indiana

West's Annotated Indiana Code:

Summary: These Indiana statutes provide the state's dog bite laws. If a dog, without provocation, bites any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may be required to go for the purpose of discharging any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States of America, the owner of such dog may be held liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. It also establishes the conditions under which an owner will be criminally liable if his or her dog bites another person. In Indiana, physicians treating dog bite injuries are required to report such injuries not more than 72-hours after the incident.

Statute in Full:

15-20-1-1 Powers of other agencies not limited

Sec. 1. This chapter does not limit the power of an agency of the state or a political subdivision to adopt a rule or an ordinance that does not conflict with this chapter.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.2-2008, SEC.11.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Formerly:

IC 15-5-12-6
P.L.176-1993, SEC.5.

15-20-1-2 “Owner” defined

Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, “owner” means the owner of a dog. The term includes a person who possesses, keeps, or harbors a dog.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.2-2008, SEC.11.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Formerly:

IC 15-5-12-2.
P.L.176-1993, SEC.1.

15-20-1-3 Liability of owner for unprovoked dog bites

Sec. 3. (a) If a dog, without provocation, bites a person:

(1) who is acting peaceably; and

(2) who is in a location where the person may be required to be in order to discharge a duty imposed upon the person by:

(A) the laws of Indiana;

(B) the laws of the United States; or

(C) the postal regulations of the United States;

the owner of the dog is liable for all damages suffered by the person bitten.

(b) The owner of a dog described in subsection (a) is liable for damages even if:

(1) the dog has not previously behaved in a vicious manner; or

(2) the owner has no knowledge of prior vicious behavior by the dog.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.2-2008, SEC.11.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Formerly:

IC 15-5-12-1.
Acts 1951, c. 37, s. 1.

15-20-1-4 Criminal offenses; exception

Sec. 4. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the owner of a dog commits a Class C misdemeanor if:

(1) the owner recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to take reasonable steps to restrain the dog;

(2) the dog enters property other than the property of the dog's owner; and

(3) as the result of the owner's failure to restrain the dog, the dog bites or attacks another person without provocation, resulting in bodily injury to the other person.

(b) The offense under subsection (a) is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the person has been convicted of one (1) previous unrelated violation of this section;

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if:

(A) the person has been convicted of more than one (1) previous unrelated violation of this section; or

(B) the violation results in serious bodily injury to a person;

(3) a Class D felony if the owner recklessly violates this section and the violation results in the death of a person; and

(4) a Class C felony if the owner intentionally or knowingly violates this section and the violation results in the death of a person.

(c) This subsection does not apply to a nonaggressive dog that goes beyond the owner's premises onto agricultural or forested land. An owner of a dog commits a Class D infraction if the owner of the dog allows the dog to stray beyond the owner's premises, unless the dog is under the reasonable control of an individual or the dog is engaged in lawful hunting and accompanied by the owner or a custodian of the dog. However, the offense is a Class C infraction if the owner has a prior unrelated judgment for a violation of this subsection.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.2-2008, SEC.11.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Formerly:

IC 15-5-12-3.
P.L.176-1993, SEC.2.
P.L.220-2007, SEC.1.

15-20-1-6 Exemption from liability

Sec. 6. An owner of a dog is exempt under section 4 of this chapter if the dog commits an act described in section 4 of this chapter during the period that the dog is owned by:

(1) the United States;

(2) an agency of the United States; or

(3) a governmental entity (as defined in IC 34-6-2-49);

and the dog is engaged in assisting the owner or the owner's agent in the performance of law enforcement or military duties.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.2-2008, SEC.11.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Formerly:

IC 15-5-12-4.
P.L.176-1993, SEC.3.
P.L.2-1995, SEC.70.
P.L.1-1998, SEC.115.

15-20-1-7 Impoundment of animals; probable cause

Sec. 7. If a law enforcement officer or any other person having authority to impound animals has probable cause to believe that there has been a violation of section 4 of this chapter, IC 35-46-3-6 applies.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.2-2008, SEC.11.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Formerly:

IC 15-5-12-5.
P.L.176-1993, SEC.4.

35-47-7-4 Dog bite injury reporting

Sec. 4. The:

(1) physician who treats a person for a dog bite or an apparent dog bite; or

(2) administrator or the administrator's designee of the hospital or outpatient surgical center if a person is treated in a hospital or an outpatient surgical center for a dog bite or an apparent dog bite;

shall report the case to the Indiana state department of health not more than seventy-two (72) hours after the time the person is treated. The report may be made orally or in writing.

CREDIT(S)

As added by P.L.176-1993, SEC.7.

[Outside (looking in)]

ACO Lori:

Tom Wall is NOT your boss (he thinks he is). Mike Snelling learned the hard way not to take an ORDER from only one Commissioner. It takes the action of at least TWO Commisioners to take action!

[Clean up this town]

How long will this community stand by and be intimidated by elected officials and their cronies? Why are they and their cronies above the law and any one who raises an issue a target for mischaracterization and character assasination? Word has it that this was initiated by a county councilman calling in a marker with Wall. I predict the whole story will soon emerge and all involved should immediantly resign. Kudo's to the ACO for reporting the wrong doing. Now, what is the status of the dog? Did it have current Rabies shots? Is it in quarantine? How many others will be injured before a friend of the commissioners has to follow the law? How many tax dollars will it cost to settle the suit now that the commissioner made the County liable instead of the owner? What threat was made to the ACO to get her to stop her duty? Shamefull and disgusting and all too common in this town!!!

[Brian Griffin]

Once again, the real Tom Wall comes out. Tom has flawlessly exhibited his desire to trump standard protocols, rule with an iron fist and forget that he is only one of three. Even if he had the backing of two other commissioners (which I seriously doubt) state law trumps Tom. Now the County (all of us taxpayers) at the risk of a possible lawsuit due to Tom's negligence. I think it was very wise of the ACO to document this incident, clearing her of wrongdoing. However, she has officially become a target in Tom's eyes and I would not be surprised if Tom tries to get rid of her. I have serious concerns for the ethics of Tom Wall, he preaches about getting rid of politics as usual, but this shows he thinks he is above the rules himself. On that note, wasn’t Tom previously a Reserve City Police officer? He should have at least some vague idea of the laws and responsibilities at stake here. I’m starting to wonder if my personal ethics will permit me to vote Tom to Indianapolis, where he can be someone else’s problem, but will I be able to sleep at night knowing I have put the rest of Indiana at risk? Here is to hoping the big fish put him in his place, heads up Indy, TOM WALL FOR STATE SENATE!

[Outside (looking in)]

The dog owner is an in-law of County Councilman Davenriner, whom I hear has also butted in to the matter.

[JWDant]

The Friday September 25th H-P included Tom Wall's comments which indicated he did not tell Lori exactly what she claimed he did.
Do any of the posters who immediately condemned Tom Wall in this case know Lori?
Not personally a Tom Wall fan, but, if you know them both there isn't a lot to pick between the two of them.