Latest Headlines
- Homeowner Reportedly Opens Fire On Known Attackers In Bratt Assault
- FPL Seeks To Raise Bills For All Of 2025 To Cover Hurricane Costs; Here’s How Much
- Cat Country 98.7 Is The 2024 CMA Radio Station Of The Year (With Gallery)
- Gonzalez Man Gets Two Life Sentences For Abusing Children
- ECUA Employee Golf Tournament Raises $10K For Children’s Hospital
- Creative Painting: Squeegee Art Saturday At Century Library
- Eagles Vs. Eagles: Ernest Ward Middle Falls To W.S. Neal
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To 25 Years For Child Sex Abuse
- One Airlifted After Highway 97 Rear End Crash
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
Not Guilty Plea From Man Accused Of Starving Horses
March 3, 2011
The Walnut Hill man accused of starving 10 horses has entered a plea of not guilty on multiple animal cruelty charges.
James Benjamin Bethea, 61, pleaded not guilty before Escambia County Judge Michael Allen. His jury trial on two felony and eight misdemeanor animal cruelty charges. has been set for mid-May.
One of the horses allegedly starved by Bethea was euthanized by a veterinarian in a pasture February 2 in the 5000 block of Highway 97A in Enon. Nine others were seized by the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office and transported to an animal clinic for medical care.
For an earlier report about the horses and more photos, click here.
Comments
24 Responses to “Not Guilty Plea From Man Accused Of Starving Horses”
@Molino Jim,
The public, that is who he could have reached out to, I for one would have
responded and I have no doubt that there are many animal lovers out there
with soft hearts who would have helped him and the horses. Everytime
people know of need they respond. There are many good people in
this world, right along with the bad. Many people love to help when
and where they can. It’s a shame people don’t talk about the right things.
I hope none of you predisposed biased clinical morons are ever on a jury. you would be doing nobody any favors with your know-it-all-before-trial mentality.
REGARDING:
“When one has a public defender the plea is always not guilty- – -.Public defenders don’t care if they win or lose”
Nope, they quite often suggest a plea bargain if the evidence is against them or if they are overloaded. They give legal representation and act according to their client’s wishes. They try to influence those wishes as any good advocate would, but are bound by them.
And they DO care if they win or lose. It’s part of human nature to wish to win. There’s also the fact that if they do a good job as public defenders, they might get an even better paying or prestigious job somewhere else. Conversely, if they do a poor job, they might not get any job offers elsewhere or even invited to leave as public defenders.
Check the records of some of these people who grace these pages. You will see defendants with public defenders and them going to trial, winning trials, losing trials, appealing verdicts, winning appeals, losing appeals. You see defendants changing their pleas in the middle of trials. You see prosecutors dropping charges in the middle of trials.
All kinds of things can happen.
David considering function
of attorneys in criminal cases
such as the above
When one has a public defender the plea is always not guilty.It is called politics.Public defenders don’t care if they win or lose,they get paid just the same.There will never be a trial,he will do a plea bargain for a light sentence or no sentence.Public defenders don’t want to solve cases,just keep them from going to trial where they might just lose a case!
GREENJEANS—WHO WOULD HE REACH OUT TO FOR HELP?
REGARDING:
“I don’t see how he can plea not guilty.”
Please consider Amendment 5 to the United States Constitution – “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Particularly consider the part which says: “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Forcing a person to plead guilty would be forcing him to be a witness against himself and would be a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
This doesn’t mean he will necessarily be found not guilty, just that the prosecution has to convince a jury and/or judge of his guilt. Sometimes even when folks are clearly guilty, the jury will acquit. Sometimes if the evidence is obtained improperly, the judge will throw it out and force an acquittal.
This is a good thing.
David for protecting the innocent
——————————————————————————–
I think those poor horses have had their hell on earth under this man. I also kNOW he could have gotten help had he asked around or made some phone calls. Seeing the pics of those poor animals WHO HAVE FEELINGS made me physically ill. He should never be allowed to have any other animal.
@ JUDY – that would be “nolo contendere”, an admission the the prosecution has enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict in court or that the defendant does not contest the evidence of wrong doing in the writ, and this is substantially the same as a guilty plea under the law, with punishment imposed as if a guilty plea.
Sometimes that plea results in a lighter sentence due to the interview of the judge and the opportunity of the defendant to give an unsworn explanation of the circumstances and show remorse for the violation(s), and saves the taxpayer’s money.
At least that’s my imperfect understanding of it.
TO THOSE WHO SAY GIVE THEM AWAY–GOOD LUCK. IF YOU WANT A HORSE GO TO THE SALE AND LEAVE YOUR TRAILER UNLOCKED AND YOU’LL HAVE ONE (FREE) WHEN YOU COME BACK. WE USE TO SHIP THE MEAT OUT OF COUNTRY BUT THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWED THIS. NOW WE HAVE TO MANY HORSES AND CAN’T GET RID OF THEM. WHY IS IT OK TO EAT A COW AND NOT A HORSE?
i agree with joshbaker…looks like 2 me the man should of gave some of his “people”food to them horses =)
seems to me that a plea of “nolo contendo” would have been appropriate, in this case.
i agree with you little bit because i know this man and i jknow where he gets his horses and they looked worse than that when he bougght them and people say he starved them if he actually was starving the horses he wouldnt have 5 or 6 rolls of hay in the pasture with them!!!!
For those of you who are trying to defened his actions. That is not a painted picture you are looking at there it is a life a defensless life who can not take care of it’s self. The man controlled this animals life and he abused it just that simple regardless of the circumstances.
dont know why everybody keeps writing like he’s actually reading this, cause I’m sure he dont give a damn about any of your oppions.Every body makes mistakes everybody has there days, he’s more than just your average man, he’s got the best of both worlds
I say we take away his food and water and let him see what it feels like to suffer ..
He doesnt look like he missed to many meals.
@ Northend Alumni ~ “he did not intentionally and willfully starve the animals”
What did he think would happen when he stopped feeding his animals? If you’re withholding vital life sustaining nourishment, you’re commiting animal cruelty regardless of your reason. There are alway options if you can’t afford to feed your animals. Thank goodness the State Attorney’s Office charged him with two FELONIES in addition to the misdemeanor charges.
Pleading “not gulty” to any crime is standard procedure. The animals and pictures show the “rest of the story”. Yes, he is guilty, whether by neglect, lack of money, not caring or anything else waits to be proved. At least the animals are in a better place. Hope someone is keeping an eye on the ones left at his house.
weather he intended to do it or not he did. that means guilty! if he could not afford the animals he should have gotten rid of them or, ASKED FOR HELP! he could have placed a ad asking for help, made some phone calls…. he sure did not stop eating. ignorance is no excuse for the law!
I am sure he followed his attorney’s advice to plead not guilty. Just like any other case a long drawn-out proceeding means more $$$$ for the lawyer.
His plea is not guilty because he did not intentionally and willfully starve the animals. He simply did not have the financial resources to provide adequate food for them.
Of course he will plead not guilty…they all say they are innocent. But, the evidence should prove otherwise. The photos were pretty convincing and I am certain the horse that had to be euthanized by a veterinarian was not healthy (sarcasim). The apparent state of these poor horses doesn’t occur overnight. He lived there with these animals for a long enough time to see how their health dwindled to basically skin and bones. He was not responsible and did not react responsibly. He won’t get away with this case of cruelty to animals. To me, he is pathetic.
sir, you are insane, if you think your animals were not starving. that right there should be enough to take away any other animals that have the dire misfortune of being in your possession. you don’t have the sense to know when an animal is starving. please, powers that be: do not allow him to have any other animals until he gets it!
I dont see how he can plea not guity. He knows what is did and everyone that was out there the night rounding up the poor horses know what he did. If he thinks he is going to get away with this he has another thing comming.
We should starve him see he he likes it.