Good morning, my name is Alexander, the District Attorney, and it is my pleasure to represent the people of the village in this case. The defendant, Ike LaRue stands accused of some very serious charges, which include stealing the chicken pie, howling late at night while Mrs. LaRue was away, chasing the neighbors’ cats, and tearing Mrs. LaRue’s coat. These four offenses Ike committed plus the lack of apology from him resulted in him getting sent to a dog prison. At the end of this trial, we will ask for a verdict of guilty and the impossibility of Ike’s release from prison before he is done serving his 2-month term and learns his lesson.
The first case we will discuss is the chicken pie robbery. The pie was the one Mrs. LaRue decided to save for dinner, but she simply put the pie on the table and said nothing. While this fact can be used against Mrs. LaRue, there is another piece of evidence that cannot be ignored. Ike did not ask Mrs. LaRue if the pie was for him or not. If Ike had asked for his owner’s permission for himself to eat the pie, then he would have known that he was not supposed to eat the pie. Ike stole the chicken pie and ate it, even though it was not for him.
On another occasion, Ike scared the cats to the point at which he started chasing them. One could argue that Ike was innocent of this charge, since he did not know why the cats were out on the fire escape during the middle of January. However, since he did not know what the cats were doing there, he could have simply asked Mrs. LaRue or her neighbors, the Hibbins, why the cats were outside while it was snowing severely. After all, it is common sense for humans and animals to ask others about something they do not know. If Ike had questioned Mrs. LaRue on why the cats, he would not have ended up chasing them and instead left them alone.
The last charge that Ike is accused of is howling while Mrs. LaRue was away. Ike did confess to howling, but he also mentioned that it was only moderate. But how can we possibly know if he is telling the truth or lies? To examine this question, let us separate this case into two possibilities. Either the neighbors are lying or they are being truthful. In both cases, somebody is trying to make the other side look bad. However, we all know that Ike wants his owner to get him out of prison and forgive him, so he was most likely covering up his crimes by lying.
There is one more case we have not studied yet, but we will not go into detail about here, since the trial is about to end. Ike was trying to save Mrs. LaRue from being hit by a vehicle, but in the process ripped her favorite coat. While that coat was old and worthless, at least in Ike’s words, he still could have simply given a warning to Mrs. LaRue instead of yanking that hard on her coat and tearing it apart. By now, it is safe to say that anybody on Ike’s side cannot offer any more resistance to our argument that Ike is guilty. We demand for justice to be delivered and the only way to make that happen is for Ike to remain in prison.
Commentaires