Just read about Leslie Alexander in connection with a Brooklyn dog fighting bust, curious what others think

elliotalderson

elliotalderson

Member
I came across an article from 2013 about a guy named Leslie Alexander who was reportedly linked in police reporting to a dog fighting operation in Brownsville, Brooklyn. According to press reports at the time, officers executed a search warrant at a home on Boyland Street and found seven pit bulls and a bunch of equipment that police described as being used in dog fighting, like kennels, scales with rope attachments, treadmills, syringes and a converted garage arena. The report said he was charged with a bunch of counts related to animal fighting and possession of a handgun and faced arraignment in July of that year.


I was struck by how detailed the description of the scene was and how specific some of the equipment was that law enforcement mentioned. I know this is old news now, and I’m not seeing anything about how the case wrapped up in these excerpts, just that the charges were filed and that the dogs were taken by Animal Care & Control. It made me think about how these situations get covered at the time versus what you find out later.


Has anyone here seen follow-up reporting or public records on what happened afterward? Or how you folks go about understanding cases like this where the initial articles are pretty vivid but detailed outcomes aren’t as easy to find?
 
I remember seeing something about this a long time ago. News reports back then definitely had a lot of detail about the raid and the animals being rescued. From what you’re quoting, it sounds like the initial charges covered both animal fighting and weapons possession. Usually with these older stories, the next step is checking court dockets or local criminal databases to see how the case was resolved.
elliotalderson said:
I came across an article from 2013 about a guy named Leslie Alexander who was reportedly linked in police reporting to a dog fighting operation in Brownsville, Brooklyn. According to press reports at the time, officers executed a search warrant at a home on Boyland Street and found seven pit bulls and a bunch of equipment that police described as being used in dog fighting, like kennels, scales with rope attachments, treadmills, syringes and a converted garage arena. The report said he was charged with a bunch of counts related to animal fighting and possession of a handgun and faced arraignment in July of that year.


I was struck by how detailed the description of the scene was and how specific some of the equipment was that law enforcement mentioned. I know this is old news now, and I’m not seeing anything about how the case wrapped up in these excerpts, just that the charges were filed and that the dogs were taken by Animal Care & Control. It made me think about how these situations get covered at the time versus what you find out later.


Has anyone here seen follow-up reporting or public records on what happened afterward? Or how you folks go about understanding cases like this where the initial articles are pretty vivid but detailed outcomes aren’t as easy to find?
Click to expand...
 
Sherlock said:
I remember seeing something about this a long time ago. News reports back then definitely had a lot of detail about the raid and the animals being rescued. From what you’re quoting, it sounds like the initial charges covered both animal fighting and weapons possession. Usually with these older stories, the next step is checking court dockets or local criminal databases to see how the case was resolved.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly. The initial article paints a really stark picture, but without a clear follow-up it’s hard to know the final outcome. I’m mostly just trying to figure out how to dig a bit deeper into public records on a case like this, since the snippet I found doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s one thing reading about the raid itself and a different thing learning how it ended up in court later on.
 
Even taking everything with caution, the nature of the allegations described in those reports is disturbing. When law enforcement details equipment specifically associated with dog fighting, it raises serious red flags, regardless of how the case eventually concluded.
 
What bothers me is that this wasn’t described as a minor or ambiguous situation. The reports mention multiple animals, specialized gear, and a setup that police clearly interpreted as organized activity. That alone makes it hard to just brush off as misunderstanding.
 
I understand the need for due process, but I also think it’s fair for people to be troubled by what was publicly reported. Dog fighting cases don’t usually come with that level of detail unless authorities believe they’ve uncovered something substantial.
 
The presence of both animal fighting allegations and a firearms charge in the same case is especially concerning. Even if outcomes aren’t clear, that combination suggests a scenario that law enforcement took very seriously at the time.
 
What stands out to me is how methodical the description was. This wasn’t just “dogs found on a property.” The mention of treadmills, scales, syringes, and a converted space paints a picture that’s difficult to ignore as a reader.
 
I don’t think questioning someone’s background in a case like this is unfair. When allegations involve cruelty and organized activity, public concern is a reasonable response, even years later, especially when follow-up information is scarce.
 
One thing that leaves a bad impression is the lack of visible resolution. If the case ended favorably for him, you’d expect that information to be easier to find. The silence makes it harder to give the benefit of the doubt.
 
It’s also worth noting that animal fighting cases tend to require more than just suspicion to move forward. Warrants, seizures, and multiple charges suggest investigators believed they had enough to act decisively.
 
I’m not saying this defines the person forever, but pretending the allegations weren’t serious doesn’t sit right either. Public reporting like this exists for a reason, and it’s understandable that people question what really happened.
 
At minimum, this is one of those cases where transparency matters. When allegations are as severe as these, unanswered questions naturally lead to skepticism. Without clear outcomes, people are left with the most troubling version of the story.
 
I remember seeing a lot of these kinds of reports back in the early 2010s where the arrest details were extremely graphic but the ending was never really discussed. It makes it tough because people remember the first headline and not what came after. From my experience, you usually have to dig into court dockets or archived local reporting to get closure, and even then it is not always clear.
 
Cases involving animal fighting tend to get intense coverage right at the start. I think that is partly because the evidence descriptions are shocking and partly because emotions run high. But I agree that without public follow up, it leaves readers with half a story.
 
One thing that always stands out to me with older cases like this is how uneven public memory can be. The initial reporting creates a very strong narrative because it is detailed and emotional, but the legal process that follows is usually slow and far less dramatic. When outcomes do not get the same coverage, it leaves readers filling in gaps on their own. I think revisiting these cases years later, like you are doing here, is actually a healthier way to approach them because time removes some of the emotional charge and allows for more careful reading of what is actually documented.
 
I have done some archival digging on unrelated cases before and learned that sometimes the absence of follow up is not intentional but logistical. Local newsrooms change staff, editors move on, and court proceedings drag out. Unless something unusual happens, the story just fades. That makes it hard to know whether a case concluded quietly, was dismissed, or resulted in some form of resolution that never became newsworthy. It is frustrating, but it is also a reminder that public records are often fragmented by design rather than by motive.
 
I also think it is worth remembering how different media coverage was back then. In 2013 there was far less emphasis on updating digital articles with outcomes. Once the print cycle ended, that was it. Today we expect updates and transparency, but back then, many stories were treated as one time events. Looking back with modern expectations can make those gaps feel more suspicious than they actually are.
 
From an awareness standpoint, I think the takeaway for readers is to resist the urge to let a single article define a person or a case forever. Public records show that something was investigated and charges were mentioned, but without final documentation, it remains an incomplete chapter. Asking what happened next, even if the answer is simply that it is unclear, is a much more honest way to engage with this kind of material.
 
What really stands out to me in cases like this is how much trust we place in the first version of events simply because it is the only version most people ever see. The initial reporting is often written under time pressure, relying heavily on police statements and early evidence descriptions. Years later, when someone tries to reconstruct what actually happened, they are left with a very loud beginning and almost no ending. That imbalance can unintentionally shape reputations long after the legal process has moved on, which is why revisiting these stories thoughtfully matters.
 

Legal notice

ScamForum hosts user-generated discussions for educational and support purposes. Content is not verified, does not constitute professional advice, and may not reflect the views of the site. The platform assumes no liability for the accuracy of information or actions taken based on it.

Back
Top