# Veterinarian brags about killing a cat **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224 "2015-04-21T21:00:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/281 "2015-05-01T18:24:28Z")
Hey, I’m first in line at the skeptic’s convention. You may remember your thread about the kid who was suspended for casting Harry Potter spells or something, and my comment was that we should all wait and see because it was probably BS. I was proven right in that thread. Here, I don’t think there’s much reason to be a skeptic. I’m past the threshold. I see that you’re not, but I think you’re being too conservative in your judgment. Honestly, I doubt Tiger’s owners really care that much. I’ve looked at all the pictures, I’ve scouted the area on google maps. People who live in that area get used to animals dying all the time, either for food or just the cruel reality of life. Tiger may have been a sweet cat, but I think Amy is probably pouring it on a little thick with this “beloved house pet” that she also describes as a “barn cat,” the sort of cat that comes and goes and nobody thinks too much about. Lindsey may not be charged just due to the apathy of the owners. At most I think she’ll take a plea to some misdemeanor and be done with it, and Tiger’s owners will take in some other cat who will wander around the barn. None of that makes Dr. Lindsey any less of a moron, though, for shooting a neighbor’s house cat and then being pleased with herself. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/282 "2015-05-01T18:25:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your question should not be addressed to me: Both of you, then. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/283 "2015-05-01T18:43:29Z")
I rather doubt she took the time to examine its genitals. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/284 "2015-05-01T20:11:04Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > I rather doubt she took the time to examine its genitals. So she rolled the dice in describing the cat as a tomcat? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/285 "2015-05-01T20:12:07Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Both of you, then. My response is to **DrDeth**. I’m not making an independent assertion. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/286 "2015-05-01T20:39:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So she rolled the dice in describing the cat as a tomcat? Not much of a gamble. If she’s wrong, who cares? I think it’s more likely that she thought the cat large enough that it was likely that it was a male, than that she performed a urological exam. Or she wasn’t paying that much attention to what she was actually typing; the post in question isn’t the most well composed status I’ve seen lately. Anyway, it’s a pretty tangential point. Unless the body turns up, which seems unlikely, there’s not really any way to prove one way or the other whether the cat was neutered or not. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/287 "2015-05-01T21:01:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Counselor, may I introduce Brother William of Ockham , who’d like to give you a rather close shave. Yes, but only on one side of the face. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/288 "2015-05-01T21:59:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So she rolled the dice in describing the cat as a tomcat? With that kind of cat it’s fairly easy to tell males from females - the head is bigger, the shoulders are broader and the cat overall is significantly larger. It’s not exactly foolproof identification but it’s not bad. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/289 "2015-05-01T22:06:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _He did something horrible, and there must be a law that prevents it_, seemed to me to be the prevailing sentiment. I like the way you say that as if it’s a bad ideal. Can you explain why people shouldn’t hope that there are laws to punish people for doing bad things? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/290 "2015-05-01T22:13:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > the prosecution still must adduce evidence that there was no such permission. You couldn’t just say “present”, could you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/291 "2015-05-01T23:09:29Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > I like the way you say that as if it’s a bad ideal. > > Can you explain why people shouldn’t hope that there are laws to punish people for doing bad things? Nope. People _should_ have such a hope. But that hope isn’t a reliable substitute for an examination of the actual law. The paragraph that contains the sentence you quoted also says: > [@Bricker](#): > > But in cases where intense public pressure exists, criminal charges are often brought even when it’s reasonably clear that the evidence to obtain a conviction is not present. We saw this unfold recently with George Zimmerman. I spent the better part of two years trying calmly to explain, again and again, what the elements of second degree murder were in Florida, against a group of SDMB poster who had obvious emotional investment in the issues and from the behavior did not appear to care all that much about the specifics of the law. He did something horrible, and there must be a law that prevents it, seemed to me to be the prevailing sentiment. So my illustration involves not simply holding this hope, but relying on the hope as evidence that such a law exists. There’s a logical fallacy called, “Appeal to Consequences,” [of which ‘Wishful Thinking’](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html) is a special case. > [@](#): > > It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/292 "2015-05-01T23:11:11Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > You couldn’t just say “present”, could you? I could have, but the word _adduce_ is generally used when discussing the presentation of evidence. And to the extent that your question contains an implied rebuke, I reject it. This is a website in which the apparent goal is fighting ignorance. Does substituting a more general word for a more specific one aid that fight, or does it impair it? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/293 "2015-05-01T23:12:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s a logical fallacy called, “Appeal to Consequences,” [of which ‘Wishful Thinking’](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html) is a special case. Oddly, we are no longer in your high school debate club and thus pointing “logical fallacies” no longer gets you points. Well, except on the _asshole scale._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/294 "2015-05-01T23:15:17Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > None of that makes Dr. Lindsey any less of a moron, though, for shooting a neighbor’s house cat and then being pleased with herself. Nor do I valorize her conduct. But she’s a grade A moron that, on the evidence PRESENTED thus far, likely can’t be criminally convicted. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/295 "2015-05-01T23:18:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nor do I valorize her conduct. But she’s a grade A moron that, on the evidence PRESENTED thus far, likely can’t be criminally convicted. Oh please. Bricker, you know as well as I do if the crime is heinous enough the jury will often ignore fine points of the law and convict anyway. She confessed, it’s a cute kitty, and simply relying on the fact that owners may not want to testify wont get you to “She had permission” as no jury will believe she had permission. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/296 "2015-05-01T23:32:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Oh please. Bricker, you know as well as I do if the crime is heinous enough the jury will often ignore fine points of the law and convict anyway. She confessed, it’s a cute kitty, and simply relying on the fact that owners may not want to testify wont get you to “She had permission” as no jury will believe she had permission. That’s why there are judges, **DrDeth** , and a judge should not even let the jury deliver a verdict if the prosecution has not made a trial record that includes evidence that would allow the jury to find each element of the crime. In other words, if the prosecution rests without having the owner testify, the defense should move for a directed verdict on the grounds that since no evidence was offered on the issue of consent, no reasonable jury could convict. That’s a judgement of law, not fact. Of course, the judge might also be swept up in the fires of righteous outrage and allow the jury to deliver a verdict anyway, which is why the defense would move for a directed verdict again, and if overruled again will have preserved his issue for appellate review. And, finally, this is why we have appellate courts, in which the judges review a transcript that coldly and unemotionally reveals the testimony that was offered – and by its absence shows the lack of requisite proof for each element. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/297 "2015-05-01T23:52:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Oh please. Bricker, you know as well as I do if the crime is heinous enough the jury will often ignore fine points of the law and convict anyway. She confessed, it’s a cute kitty, and simply relying on the fact that owners may not want to testify wont get you to “She had permission” as no jury will believe she had permission. By the way, since this happens “often,” in your view, can you share some recent examples in which you feel the jury ignored the fine points of the law and convicted anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/298 "2015-05-02T01:21:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a website in which the apparent goal is fighting ignorance. There is your problem. The stated goal is fighting ignorance. The apparent goal, based on some years of observation, is an endless quest for things over which to feel outraged and/or superior. I had thought you astute enough to understand that, your willful blindness to the economic underpinnings of the Island of Sodor notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/299 "2015-05-02T01:38:24Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > There is your problem. The stated goal is fighting ignorance. The apparent goal, based on some years of observation, is an endless quest for things over which to feel outraged and/or superior. I had thought you astute enough to understand that, your willful blindness to the economic underpinnings of the Island of Sodor notwithstanding. Your monomaniacal fixation on Sir Topham Hatt’s wholly imaginary maleficent influence is unfortunate, as your perception is otherwise quite astute. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/300 "2015-05-02T01:48:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Oddly, we are no longer in your high school debate club and thus pointing “logical fallacies” no longer gets you points. Well, except on the _asshole scale._ “Logic is for assholes.” That explains so much about your posting habits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=16)