I’m with you @Airbeck . Animals are more special than people to me. They are always innocent. People, not so much.
Regardless of the animal being a coyote specifically, wouldn’t animal cruelty laws be relevant? Even for vermin animals like rats that you can kill freely, I don’t think you’re allowed deliberate cruelty.
No animosity here either, only towards these kids and those who are trying to protect them. I agree about being encouraged that the authorities are involved now. The local news has picked up on it also, with stories on WGN and the local FOX network. There’s even a new neighborhood FB group now that was created specifically because the other groups were censoring the topic. I think people are pissed and upset and even more so due to the attempted silencing. I also think about the fact that this kid or kids (I really think its one “ring leader” kid and others that followed along) has killed two different baby animals that we know of, so how many dead creatures do we not know about? Anyway, sorry for the overreaction before.
It’s good to see that sanity exists somewhere on Facebook, isn’t it?
We take what we can get I guess haha.
Agreed. No animal deserves this. The poor pup was only a few months old. He was just discovering the world, and this is what he found. Breaks my heart.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to upset anyone with my question about the legality of killing coyotes. I was just wondering about it. Here in California, coyotes are in the same category as rats–you can kill them with any method you have legal access to.
That doesn’t make it okay to torture them, but it does limit the legal consequences.
Misleading. There are (at least) two relevant laws:
Per California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 472(a), a coyote is categorized as a nongame mammal. This means you can hunt them if you have a hunting license and a legal place to hunt. Coyotes may be taken at any time of the year and in any number, and archery equipment is a legal method of take. However, most cities restrict the discharge of a firearm in urban areas like those with condominium complexes. Many municipalities further restrict the discharge of archery equipment, and pellet rifles as well. You would have to check your local ordinances to see what is prohibited.
California Fish and Game Code section 3004(a) makes it unlawful for a person, other than the owner, person in possession of the premises, or a person having the express permission of the owner or person in possession of the premises, while within 150 yards of an occupied dwelling house, residence or other building, or within 150 yards of a barn or other outbuilding used in connection with an occupied dwelling house, residence or other building, to either hunt or discharge a firearm or other deadly weapon while hunting. The 150-yard area is a “safety zone.”
So, you can hunt them if you have a hunting license, if your local municipality allows it (mine doesn’t), on your own property or (presumably) on public land, but not on someone else’s property nor within 150 yards of someone else’s building. I’m not sure of the definition of “hunting” but I believe it is limited to firearms or bow and arrow. No poison, no traps.
Couple arrives late for a movie and has to sit in the front, decide to steal someone else’s reserved seats instead, and pepper spray the auditorium when the staff kicks them out.
https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article298523583.html
That was my bad, I overreacted for some reason. It was a perfectly relevant question, and I’m glad I have more clarity on it now.
And note the seriousness as evidenced by the bond.
Todd pleaded not guilty during an arraignment on Friday in which he was held on $10,000 bail.
That’s $50 for each victim of sexual abuse!!!
The point of bond is not punishment. Dividing the sum by the victim count is a pointless exercise in recreational outrage.
And if you are doing ‘’‘victim’‘’ math do it correctly,
The Middlesex District Attorney’s Office said in a statement Thursday that Todd was indicted earlier that day for “two counts of rape alleging the sexual assault of two women.”
Some states have a statute with a reporting option for aggravated animal abuse because it’s associated with future harmfulness to others.
Yep. It’s so people can buy their way out of jail.
It’s like a kind of debtors’ prison really. We made it illegal to jail people for not being able to pay off a debt, yet we jail them for not being able to pay a bond.
Two major reasons for setting relatively high bail are to protect vulnerable people in the community (in this case, they might include victims who could be vulnerable to harassment or intimidation) or to prevent the accused fleeing the jurisdiction (though he was ordered to surrender his passport, escaping to somewhere in the U.S. would still be possible).
Of note, the prosecution had only asked for $25K bail. 
A pediatrician in India is in trouble for blocking an ambulance transporting a critically ill heart patient.
Milwaukee CBS affiliate fires its weatherman over an Instagram post condemning Nazism.
The idea behind bail is that you want to make sure that the defendant shows up for trial. One way to do that would be for a defendant to wait in jail until the time of their trial, but that that costs the State money, and is very inconvenient for the defendant (who, after all, has not yet been found guilty of anything). Another way of doing it is for the defendant to temporarily forfeit a significant sum of money, that they’ll get back when they show up for trial.
The trick is in how you determine the amount of money. You want it to be high enough that the defendant can’t just brush it off and skip town anyway, but at the same time low enough that they can still raise it on short notice, without extreme hardship. In a just system, that means that it would depend, not on the severity of the crime, but on the wealth of the defendant. Of course, it’s further complicated by the fact that, for the lower class, there’s basically zero overlap between that lower bound and that upper bound.
In this case, though, I think that bail actually worked. A doctor probably can afford $10,000, but probably can’t just walk away from it, therefore, it’s an appropriate amount.