Local News

Fayetteville veteran accused of killing service dog found dead in home

Posted May 7

— A former soldier charged last month in connection with the shooting death of her dog was found dead inside her Fayetteville home Sunday morning.

Marinna Rollins, 22, was found by friends in her home in the 6600 block of Netherfield Place at about 3 a.m. Police confirm her death was a suicide.

Rollins and her boyfriend, 26-year-old Jarren Heng, were charged with animal cruelty and conspiracy last month in connection with the death of Rollins’ emotional support dog. Authorities said Rollins suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other emotional issues.

The dog was medically-certified through the mail from a South Carolina doctor. Investigators said there is no evidence the dog was trained to be a medical service dog.

Authorities said the dog was taken into a wooded area, tied to a tree and shot five times with a rifle on April 16. The couple recorded the incident, and the video circulated on Facebook. According to Cumberland County Animal Control, the pit bull, then named Huey, was given to them in December 2015.

The video showed the couple tying the dog to a tree and laughing as the dog, which they call Cam, dies.

The video shows the couple covering the dog with a white sheet and putting it in a shallow grave.

When the couple was confronted by Animal Control officers, they told authorities it cost $75 per week to feed the dog, which had some health issues.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Diane Knight May 12, 8:46 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Let me start by saying I love animals more than I do most people. Yes, she could have done all the things you stated, including giving the dog to a shelter, but that would be an act of a sane (or at the very least, mentally competent) person. Of course I'm speculating, but it seems to me she had a lot more going on than just PTSD. Like you said, the whole situation is just sad.

  • Diane Knight May 12, 8:26 a.m.
    user avatar

    "She failed to seek help cause she didn't want it."
    She didn't want help because she was mentally ill. I've never met a rational person that wanted to live with PTSD or any mental illness for that matter. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we can't force people to seek help or want it.
    Yes, I feel bad for her, obviously she had serious issues, however, can you imagine if she had a child with her boyfriend?
    It could have just as easily been a baby instead of the dog, and anyone that's capable of that kind of cruelty toward an animal is capable of anything.

  • Henry Cooper May 10, 10:31 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    That is part of what I asked. I also want to know...

    Hypothetical... If the DPD was injured and had to go on disability should we as citizens be on the hook for that? If you stick to what you have said the answer would have to be "no" wouldn't it? If you say yes how would you justify it given your previous stance, that in its entirety, would mean he should not have gone in for a valueless item and therefore would not have been injured.

  • Beauregard Macy May 10, 10:07 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    I must admit I can't remember the last time I read the word 'fetish' so many times. Obviously, with that statement, you win. Good luck with your therapist.

  • John Barbara May 10, 10:04 a.m.
    user avatar


    Of course the law is written to benefit humans, I hesitate to point out the lunacy of your statement because it just wouldn't matter.

    What your statements boil down to is an attempt to rationalize the blood lust of the crowd screaming for and cheering that young woman's death.

    Refusing to go along with this highly emotional animal "rights" fetish on display here is not an co-morbid with a lack of education, closed mindedness, et al. This fetish is emotionally based, immature, and from an evolutionary standpoint, a dead end. People that adhere to that fetish speak and act from feelings and emotion and not from logic, not from ethics, and certainly not from being "open minded".

  • John Barbara May 10, 9:56 a.m.
    user avatar


    Neither the law nor ethics required that DPD cop to do that. There is no moral imperative, amongst rational people at least, that a person surrender their life for that of a dog or a possum.

    That he did that was not a contradiction to the law. Whether it was foolish or merited is for him to decide, he is the one who placed his safety, if not life, at risk to save a dog.

    Frankly, I would never expect a cop to run into a burning building to pull out my dog. It's not that I don't care about my dog, it's that I place the value in that equation on the human's life. That's one thing that separates decent society from the fanatics.....decent society doesn't demand blood from other persons in exchange for the life of an animal.

    Seeing these responses I have to wonder how many of these people think the persons working in slaughter houses butchering beef cattle, chickens, et al, deserve to be slaughtered themselves for having killed those animals?

  • Beauregard Macy May 10, 9:39 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    I'm not cheering any suicide, just trying to make sense out of your ramblings. Admittedly, I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate too. You can throw the discussion of 'law' out the window. Rules written by man are of course biased towards their own benefit. Also, 'alleged' and 'innocent until proven guilty' are weak shields to hide behind when it is filmed and celebrated. Who are you to say one life is worth more than another? Intellect? What about an ape that can learn sign language versus an invalid that can't breathe on their own? Longevity? What about the tortoise? Then what is it that creates your species' superiority?

    I wouldn't call others' arguments uneducated when your simple comments reflected a closed-mindedness that reflects nothing but lack of education.

  • Henry Cooper May 9, 6:27 p.m.
    user avatar



    Comments on this story as far as a human risking their life for a dog? A human that serves the public made a decision that most favor it would seem. I guess you will condemn the decision and go after the funds that were spent to rescue a non human because for you to believe the hard core stance you portray you would let the dog die. I mean if the DPD got hurt it would be on us via disability and by expanding on your course of reason we should not pay him because he did not follow "the law" so wouldn't that be on him?

    There is more to it than the law when it comes to a community. Community policing is built around trust and respect. Lets say they let the dog die. Will that citizen feel a part of the community? Will they be more likely or less likely now to assist the DPD or DFD?

    But yes you are probably correct by the letter of the law.

  • John Barbara May 9, 5:24 p.m.
    user avatar

    Beauregard Macy,

    Interesting response given that my statement is functionally a photocopy of the law on this subject. For the two alleged perps, there still is that concept of innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the psychotic blood lust on display in the words of animal "rights" crowd here. Without a finding of fact, a verdict, from any court, you people were calling for her death. Well, you have it.

    As evil as she may have been, those of you cheering her suicide are far, far worse.

    Oh, as for my backyard, minus probable cause and a warrant, you're trespassing, even if you're a cop. Not that anyone's property rights matter to fanatics whipped into a blood lust frenzy over a case of alleged animal cruelty.

    This is a deranged and decaying society.

  • John Barbara May 9, 5:18 p.m.
    user avatar

    Betsy Riggins,

    Unfortunately, you did not respond with an educated argument. You responded with an emotional argument.

    The difference between a dog and a human woman or a dog and any human is that lies in those very statements. Women are not dogs. No human is a dog. Dogs can never be classified as human in any legal or even mature sense. When a dog bites a human the dog cannot be charged with a crime. The owner of the dog is charged with a crime. That this has to be pointed out to the same people who are cheering the suicide of a human being is sickening.

    While I would agree that killing for the pleasure of killing is wrong, killing for sustenance is not. Domesticated animals have always, are now, and will always be property. Dogs are not people and it is insane to think society will bow to this fetish of equating the life of a dog with human life.

    Facing starvation would you feed a puppy and allow a human child to die? Or would you skin the puppy to feed the child?