Bench warrant issued for NC couple accused of abandoning cats

A bench warrant has been issued for a Garner, North Carolina couple accused of abandoning 17 cats on Thanksgiving weekend. This PoC article tells of their arrest January 12, 2017.

Terry Ray Beasley and Tamara Perez-Lazaro were scheduled to appear before a Johnston County judge on April 24. When they failed to appear a bench warrant (not a felony warrant) was issued for the couple.

A bench warrant is an arrest warrant issued by a judge or court, most commonly when a defendant fails to appear at a scheduled court hearing. This is also known as a “Failure to Appear,” or “FTA,” warrant.

Police aren’t known for going out and tracking down those who have these warrants issued against them if the crime doesn’t put others in danger. Instead, they play a waiting game (and with Terry Ray Beasley’s past criminal activities, it probably won’t be a long wait).

A person is usually caught through no fault of their own. For instance, the next time either of them is pulled over in a vehicle, even for a thorough road check, their name will be run through the system by the police officer. Or if police are called to a home for a domestic disturbance each person present can expect being checked for outstanding warrants.

Once found, Perez-Lazaro and Beasley will be taken into custody and held until they pay the bond (the amount of money the court has determined that they owe) or until an appointed time when the judge can see them and decide the next step.

With their track record, I’d about bet on neither of them being released on any bond until the case is heard by the judge. Until they’re caught or turn themselves in, we wait.

Can anyone reading this who is knowledgeable in the legal profession leave a comment on how the bench warrant being issued will impact their case when they are caught?

As of April 27, 11 cats dumped by the couple have been found safe, one was found dead and five are still missing.

Elisa

This site is hosted by fixed.net. I rate them very highly. I'd recommend them to any website creator or admin team. Click this link to find out more.

Please comment here using either Facebook or WordPress (when available).

U know, I get it. I don like it when people whine about something that they started either. People complain about things saying , “there SHOULD b a law about…” & then when it DOES happen they complain about the law. The thing is, that is NOT the case here. I really wish u had read this story, even just one of the articles, cuz if u had ud see that THAT is not the issue that’s being raised, & how ur going about pointing out ur argument is very uncool, dude & it kinda ticks me off. I should probably take a minute before I get into this, but if I do I might not say what I feel I should(then again it could b the mania talking, but im gonna keep going anyway cuz I really don’t think so. If it was feel free to call me on it-constructively if u please-much like ii will TRY to do with u. THX)
-ready? Listos?-
-lets begin. Vamos empassar-
THIS was NOT a case of TNR at all. if so NO ONE wouldve said ANYTHING against them at all. typically when people lie in this situation its because they KNOW that they did something WRONG & r afraid of getting caught. the fact that they have not gone to the cops already kinda supports this assertion. ALSO part of the TNR policy/procedure is that u DO NOT release an animal outside in weather as bad as it was at the time as THAT wouldve been inhumane as well.
i probably should not say what im about to in this way, but I guess I still will. the way ur coming across is a lot like people that don’t really care about the welfare of cats specifically, & animals in general…outside of whatever amusement said animal can provide them. As well as how they can “prove” how “smart” they believe themselves to b which is fairly evident by ur “comment”.
u start with a condescending statement that’s all set up to show how dumb everyone else who believes as we do is as opposed to how smart u r with ur legal “high-ground”. then u attempt to use the law to point out how WE r somehow ignorant of what it is, or means(which, of course, u do). then u attempt to invalidate our feelings while using said law as ur “foundation”. the sad thing is if u HAD really read the story & set it up this way taking the proper stance, which, subsequently, would’ve been AGAINST Terry Ray Beasley and Tamara Perez-Lazaro, u wouldve been correct. Unfortunately, that isNOT the path u chose.
Really, ur argument hinges on point 5 i.e.: Return to Field: Sterilize, vaccinate and return healthy unowned shelter cats to the location of origin as an alternative to euthanasia. U see tho, the problem is this: ALL of those cats were INDOOR CATS( ud have known that if ud really read the story). they were NEVER strays, let alone feral, which is what TNR is built upon i.e. that in order to reduce the population WITHOUT euthanizing them, while allowing them to remain in what has essentially become their “home”, they trap them, neuter them(in a sterile environment, by trained personal; not in the basement of some guy that may or may not have had 1 year of college biology, using an exacto-knife, dude), & then release them into their H-O-M-E, i.e. the area wherein they were trapped. since ALL of these cats were INDOOR cats how WHERE SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN RELEASED? That might NOT have been explicitly stated, but I DID state that SOME of them were de-clawed. NO shelter would release a de-clawed cat onto the street. As it would b a death sentence. very few de-clawed cats COULD “make it” for long out on the streets. they CANNOT hunt or defend themselves against other cats & they cant climb anything to truly escape from predators/agitators. Also, if u had read this story, ud know the female had said that she didnt know what her bf “was gonna do”, & that she was “gonna do it”, but “changed my mind” or something like that, which was/is a cover story since she KNEW that what they had done was animal cruelty. the papers said it, the network news anchors said it, but U didnt. Probably cuz u were bz working on what u typed up n an attempt to make urself look good at the expense of the rest of us. Now u COULD say im doing the same to u. theres a BIG difference tho, i AM typing this n a scathing way, to one degree or another, but im MAINLY doing THIS because of what U wroe. If u HADNT written it I would not have needed to respond, right? So u were pointing out how we were stupid whiners & I was pointing out how u really need to look stuff up BEFORE u try to gaffle someone else, or they may do the same to u…much like im doing right now.
now i dont know if u have an issue with cats in particular, cat-lovers, or just all animals period. it doesnt bother me either way as long as u don’t hurt an animal. The thing that DOES bother me is how u tried to belittle Elisa’s efforts & her feelings. Another thing is if u wrote THIS here u very well might have written something similar someplace else which, to me, is the same as spreading disinformation. THAT is something that I DO NOT LIKE ONE BIT.
true, if u live in the US u have freedom of speech which means u can say whatever, whenever, wherever, & however u want, legally, & no one can say/do anything about it. of course that ALSO means WE can do the same to u, u can b banned, etc. all of which r kind of a hassle. i HOPE that u honestly believed what u typed. that THIS was NOT just an attempt to start an argument, etc with the people here. id like to believe that after u see how ur argument was/is flawed that ud just say, “ok, my bad”, to urself & either wrote an apology or dropped this issue entirely.
Yes, i kinda slammed u in my response. im sorry. I was upset & like i said when i started, i probably shouldnt have done THAT the way I did. I wont apologize for WHAT I said, just HOW I said it. unfortunately, it’s a little too late for that, but , like I said, i HOPE u will NOT continue this & that u will take the high road(especially since u introduced this issue in the 1st place).
if i was out of line by anything i said, then i sincerely apologize cuz THAT is NEVER my intent. i may speak harshly, but i know if i TRY to piss people off we will NEVER b able to find a solution to the problems we have. in the end we ALL want solutions, every single one of us, & THAT solution is what i work towards, however unorthodox my methods may seem. if in the process i angered anyone then i am sorry, again, cuz THAT is NOT my intention. life i too short to purposefully fill it with arguments & problems, right? i hope u understand & accept y apology then.
God Bless!

Reply ↓

Comments

Bench warrant issued for NC couple accused of abandoning cats — 10 Comments

MARIANNA BURT on April 29, 2017 at 4:50 pm said:
Strange comments above! To get back to specifics, abandoning an animal is a criminal offense in NC as elsewhere in US. Missing court may seems like a big deal but actually it is very common. Go to calendar call in any NC district courtroom & you may be surprised to see that a large percentage (maybe about 30%) don’t show up. It’s so common that there is a mechanism whereby if you go to the courthouse the next day & fill out a motion form for a new court date (giving reason you missed court), a new date is granted automatically. If you don’t get there the first day, you can still fill out the form, but the motion needs to go up to a judge for approval.
If a new court date is granted, the order for arrest will be recalled. If this isn’t done, of course the defendant is subject to arrest. The sheriff’s dept. will attempt to do this by going to the defendant’s address as listed on the original warrant, but of course people change addresses & if this fails there often are no resources to hunt further, especially for misdemeanor cases. If a defendant is arrested he/she goes before a magistrate who will set a new bond for release, higher than the first one set when the case began but still lower for animal cases than one might expect. If bond cannot be met the defendant stays in jail until the trial date.
The defendants in this case may have left the area. This case may never be resolved.
Reply ↓
- Elisa Black-Taylor on April 30, 2017 at 3:14 am said:
  That’s our resident cat hating troll.
  Reply ↓
ItsInternationalLAW on April 28, 2017 at 6:58 am said:
It sounds like your gripe and the law’s gripe with this couple comes from those who promote TNR and RTF (“Return To Field”). Perhaps you should turn them in for causing this. Maybe you can sue those in charge of “Maddie’s Fund” and get some of those millions of dollars to actually save some cats from inhumane deaths. Because this is what “Maddie’s Fund” and the ASPCA is suggesting should happen to them all. Then again, wherever would they get all those suffering cats that you and they parade in social-media for donations to line your own pockets and to help provide click-bait income for manipulative and underhanded website owners?
http://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2017/04/07/lets-make-1-million-modest-ambition
Right from their (your) own mouths. And I quote:
The Challenge is centered around Five Key Initiatives. Individually, each has powerful lifesaving potential. Collectively, they can change the way shelters approach obstacles to ending the unnecessary euthanasia of hundreds of thousands of cats each year:
1) Alternatives to Intake: Provide positive alternatives to keep cats in the home or community when admission to a shelter is not the best choice.
2) Managed Admission: Schedule intake of cats to match a shelter’s ability to assure humane care and safe movement through the shelter system to an appropriate outcome for every cat.
3) Capacity for Care: Match the number of cats cared for at any one time with the capacity required to assure the Five Freedoms for all cats in the shelter.
4) Removing Barriers to Adoption: Expand the pool of adopters by removing barriers to adoption such as cost, process or location.
5) Return to Field: Sterilize, vaccinate and return healthy unowned shelter cats to the location of origin as an alternative to euthanasia.
They were just practicing part 5 of what you all suggest should happen to any unclaimed cats. Why are you whining about it?
Reply ↓
- ItsInternationalLAW on April 28, 2017 at 7:00 am said:
  The very agencies that you support and promote are posting this all over the internet. You’re just as much to blame for the deaths of those cats now.
  Here’s another example where they tell everyone to do the exact same thing: http://chewonthis.maddiesfund.org/2017/04/new-partnership-making-1-million-a-modest-ambition-for-shelter-cats/
  Reply ↓
- ed young on April 28, 2017 at 7:46 pm said:
  U know, I get it. I don like it when people whine about something that they started either. People complain about things saying , “there SHOULD b a law about…” & then when it DOES happen they complain about the law. The thing is, that is NOT the case here. I really wish u had read this story, even just one of the articles, cuz if u had ud see that THAT is not the issue that’s being raised, & how ur going about pointing out ur argument is very uncool, dude & it kinda ticks me off. I should probably take a minute before I get into this, but if I do I might not say what I feel I should(then again it could b the mania talking, but im gonna keep going anyway cuz I really don’t think so. If it was feel free to call me on it-constructively if u please-much like ii will TRY to do with u. THX)
  -ready? Listos?-
  -lets begin. Vamos empassar-
  THIS was NOT a case of TNR at all. if so NO ONE wouldve said ANYTHING against them at all. typically when people lie in this situation its because they KNOW that they did something WRONG & r afraid of getting caught. the fact that they have not gone to the cops already kinda supports this assertion. ALSO part of the TNR policy/procedure is that u DO NOT release an animal outside in weather as bad as it was at the time as THAT wouldve been inhumane as well.
  i probably should not say what im about to in this way, but I guess I still will. the way ur coming across is a lot like people that don’t really care about the welfare of cats specifically, & animals in general…outside of whatever amusement said animal can provide them. As well as how they can “prove” how “smart” they believe themselves to b which is fairly evident by ur “comment”.
  u start with a condescending statement that’s all set up to show how dumb everyone else who believes as we do is as opposed to how smart u r with ur legal “high-ground”. then u attempt to use the law to point out how WE r somehow ignorant of what it is, or means(which, of course, u do). then u attempt to invalidate our feelings while using said law as ur “foundation”. the sad thing is if u HAD really read the story & set it up this way taking the proper stance, which, subsequently, would’ve been AGAINST Terry Ray Beasley and Tamara Perez-Lazaro, u wouldve been correct. Unfortunately, that isNOT the path u chose.
  Really, ur argument hinges on point 5 i.e.: Return to Field: Sterilize, vaccinate and return healthy unowned shelter cats to the location of origin as an alternative to euthanasia. U see tho, the problem is this: ALL of those cats were INDOOR CATS( ud have known that if ud really read the story). they were NEVER strays, let alone feral, which is what TNR is built upon i.e. that in order to reduce the population WITHOUT euthanizing them, while allowing them to remain in what has essentially become their “home”, they trap them, neuter them(in a sterile environment, by trained personal; not in the basement of some guy that may or may not have had 1 year of college biology, using an exacto-knife, dude), & then release them into their H-O-M-E, i.e. the area wherein they were trapped. since ALL of these cats were INDOOR cats how WHERE SHOULD THEY HAVE BEEN RELEASED? That might NOT have been explicitly stated, but I DID state that SOME of them were de-clawed. NO shelter would release a de-clawed cat onto the street. As it would b a death sentence. very few de-clawed cats COULD “make it” for long out on the streets. they CANNOT hunt or defend themselves against other cats & they cant climb anything to truly escape from predators/agitators. Also, if u had read this story, ud know the female had said that she didnt know what her bf “was gonna do”, & that she was “gonna do it”, but “changed my mind” or something like that, which was/is a cover story since she KNEW that what they had done was animal cruelty. the papers said it, the network news anchors said it, but U didnt. Probably cuz u were bz working on what u typed up n an attempt to make urself look good at the expense of the rest of us. Now u COULD say im doing the same to u. theres a BIG difference tho, i AM typing this n a scathing way, to one degree or another, but im MAINLY doing THIS because of what U wroe. If u HADNT written it I would not have needed to respond, right? So u were pointing out how we were stupid whiners & I was pointing out how u really need to look stuff up BEFORE u try to gaffle someone else, or they may do the same to u…much like im doing right now.
  now i dont know if u have an issue with cats in particular, cat-lovers, or just all animals period. it doesnt bother me either way as long as u don’t hurt an animal. The thing that DOES bother me is how u tried to belittle Elisa’s efforts & her feelings. Another thing is if u wrote THIS here u very well might have written something similar someplace else which, to me, is the same as spreading disinformation. THAT is something that I DO NOT LIKE ONE BIT.
  true, if u live in the US u have freedom of speech which means u can say whatever, whenever, wherever, & however u want, legally, & no one can say/do anything about it. of course that ALSO means WE can do the same to u, u can b banned, etc. all of which r kind of a hassle. i HOPE that u honestly believed what u typed. that THIS was NOT just an attempt to start an argument, etc with the people here. id like to believe that after u see how ur argument was/is flawed that ud just say, “ok, my bad”, to urself & either wrote an apology or dropped this issue entirely.
  Yes, i kinda slammed u in my response. im sorry. I was upset & like i said when i started, i probably shouldnt have done THAT the way I did. I wont apologize for WHAT I said, just HOW I said it. unfortunately, it’s a little too late for that, but , like I said, i HOPE u will NOT continue this & that u will take the high road(especially since u introduced this issue in the 1st place).
  if i was out of line by anything i said, then i sincerely apologize cuz THAT is NEVER my intent. i may speak harshly, but i know if i TRY to piss people off we will NEVER b able to find a solution to the problems we have. in the end we ALL want solutions, every single one of us, & THAT solution is what i work towards, however unorthodox my methods may seem. if in the process i angered anyone then i am sorry, again, cuz THAT is NOT my intention. life i too short to purposefully fill it with arguments & problems, right? i hope u understand & accept y apology then.
  God Bless!
  Reply ↓
  - ItsInternationalLAW on April 28, 2017 at 10:21 pm said:
    They were ALL owned cats that ended-up in shelters. They “pulled” those cats from shelters to save them from being euthanized. Now you see how they really……
    I have deleted the remainder as it is too insulting. Comments are very welcome but there must be respect for everyone else. (Admin – Michael)
    Reply ↓
    - Michael Broad on April 29, 2017 at 5:45 am said:
      I have deleted most of your comment because it does not respect the person to whom it is addressed. Comments are extremely welcome but respect must be shown to others.
      Reply ↓
      - TooFuckin'Funny! on April 29, 2017 at 7:10 am said:
        What a crock!…
        You are free to comment but not as you naturally have an urge to…rudely and insulting others. You are a very objectionable person. PoC is doing great. It is in the top five cat sites in my view. There are a lot of people who are decent and who understand the ethics behind PoC and there are people like you who are frankly highly unpleasant and sick. (Admin)
        Reply ↓
        Michael Broad on April 29, 2017 at 8:37 am said:
        I have amended your comment.
        Reply ↓
  - Michael Broad on April 29, 2017 at 5:48 am said:
    Thanks Ed for the comprehensive comment. I have put limits on this person and just edited out most of his response to your comment. He does not respect others. I think he is a relatively polite Woody the famous troll.
    Reply ↓