Ashland County mother whose 6-year-old son was attacked by family dog while handcuffed sentenced to prison
Angelina Williams, 28, was sentenced to 20-plus years in prison for an incident that took place Aug. 17 at a Savannah, Ohio, home in Ashland County. She previously pleaded guilty to seven felony charges, including child endangerment, kidnapping and obstructing justice.
Williams is serving consecutive prison terms adding up to between 23 and 28 and a half years, according to court documents.
Local teen accused of raping mother and daughter
Prosecutors said Williams, her boyfriend and uncle handcuffed the boy by the ankles and wrists as a form of discipline since the child refused to clean up after the dog.
The boy somehow slipped when the adults were trying to put him in a chair and the dog attacked, officials said.
Ashland sheriff's department video (as seen in the video player at the top of the story) shows deputies providing first aid to the child, who was then taken by helicopter to a hospital for treatment.
The boy had reportedly been bit on the neck and ear, but was eventually released from the hospital.
Man dead after fishing boat capsizes near Avon Lake boat ramp
The boy and his older sister were visiting their mother at the time the attack took place. Williams lost custody of the two children in 2019.
In a court appearance in August, Williams told a judge she did not know it was illegal to use handcuffs on a child.
'The dog is not even my dog. The cuffs are not even my cuffs,' Williams said in court. ' I didn't even know the cuffs were illegal or anything was wrong with it. My uncle told me it was OK.'
Co-defendants Taylor Desiree Marvin-Brown and the owner of the dog, Robert Michalski — both charged with child endangering among other things — are being sentenced on July 14 and July 21 respectively, court records show.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
18 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Officials Seek Terrorism Charge After Suspect Attacks People Inside Walmart
Officials took a suspect into custody after at least 11 people were stabbed and injured in a Michigan Walmart store. The motive remains under investigation, police said. Photo: Ryan Sun/AP
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law
In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,' Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.' PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on ... More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by) California's regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California's regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California's law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision's framework, 'when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.' If so, the government must then show that 'the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects 'operable' arms, and 'because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.' As a result, the court concluded that 'California's ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.' To survive the second step of the Bruen test, California attempted to compare its background check system to a wide range of historical analogues, including loyalty oaths and disarmament provisions from the American Revolution and Reconstruction. But the Ninth Circuit was left unconvinced. 'None of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California's ammunition background check regime,' Ikuta found, and so, 'California's ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.' In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Jay Bybee blasted the majority's analysis as 'twice-flawed.' Noting that 'the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' Judge Bybee asserted that California's background check system is 'not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms.' Notably, the California Department of Justice in 2024 received 191 reports of ammunition purchases from 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were denied by background check. In dueling statements, the California Rifle & Pistol Association praised Thursday's ruling against the state's background check law as a 'massive victory for gun owners in California,' while Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision a 'slap in the face.'
CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Detroit police emphasizing city curfew after car fires, alleged accidental shooting
Detroit police are reinforcing their message to residents and parents that all teenagers need to be off the streets before the city's curfew as police investigate two incidents — an alleged accidental shooting and car fires at two auto body shops. "It's just something that can be controlled, you know, the parents need to step up and take responsibility," Commander John Svec with the Detroit Police Department said. Around 11:30 p.m. Friday, officers were called to the hospital for a report of a 15-year-old shot themselves in the hand, according to police. That teenager was given a ticket for a curfew violation, and his parents were given a ticket for parental responsibility. "His parents didn't know who he was with, how he got access to a firearm. He's a young man who shouldn't have been on the streets, and he definitely shouldn't have been handling a weapon," Svec said. At 1 a.m. on Saturday, police say a 13-year-old boy was responsible for damaging four vehicles with fire at two different auto collision shops on the city's west side. Captain Marcus Thirkill said that, while police are still investigating the fires, this would've never happened if families had followed the city's curfew. "We understand, I understand as a father, it's not easy knowing where your kid is at all times, but we're really asking parents to hone in, to know the location of your kids after curfew hours," Thirkill said. Since July 8, there have been over 140 juvenile curfew violations, police said. Officials are reiterating that anyone 15 years old or younger needs to be off city streets by 10 p.m., and anyone between the ages of 16 and 17 by 11 p.m.
