# 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:** 16
**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, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/301 "2015-05-02T02:30:39Z")
> [@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._ I don’t agree. Logical fallacies are not simply an esoteric debate protocol, **DrDeth**. They are common argumentative techniques that sound convincing on their surface but do not reliably yield accurate analysis. The idea in identifying them is not to win scoring points, but to illustrate the lack of logical strength in the argument in play. Similarly, your attack on the use of logical fallacies suggests your arguments rest on grounds that are not logically sound, and you would prefer that this deficiency not be highlighted. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/302 "2015-05-02T02:31:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To the contrary, it merely shows that there’s a wide variety of injuries that might be inflicted by an arrow, and none of them appear to be the type of shot in the photo, in which the arrow protrudes from the base of the skull in such a way as to make clear that the brain was seriously damaged. > > And I imagine, if you look again, you’ll see none of the injuries come close. But that’s why I posted the photo gallery. You’re making my point for me: Bowhunting has too high of a non-lethal wound rate to be considered a humane method of killing. It doesn’t matter if a particular incident just happened to be a clean quick kill; the method itself has to be determined as cruel or not cruel in advance of the act. Or are you saying that only bad shots are crimes, but if you make a lucky hit you avoid prosecution? Do any laws work that way? > [@Bricker](#): > > The law lays out in listed detail what constitutes cruelty, and using an illegal method like bow hunting is not on the list. > > I will see what I can discover about the hunting laws. When they changed the law to include feral cats they changed the language from just “kill” to “kill in a cruel manner”, but I didn’t see a specific list of methods anywhere. How are people supposed to know in advance? Is it determined in court after the fact? > [@Bricker](#): > > I have spent more time on this question than all the rest of the research I’ve done. My wife was wondering why I was up at 2:00 AM collecting Texas hunting regulations. > > I already answered the cruelty part of this question in the negative. But the statement, “Bow hunting a cat is illegal,” was left unresolved. > > I would love to have someone familiar with Texas law and regulatory schemes step in to add/correct/laugh at me, but the best guess I have is: no, it’s not. I appreciate it, and apologies to your wife. 🙂 I used to work with a lawyer who always yelled at me to stop asking questions there were no answers to. I tried to find out as well, and it’s been pretty frustrating. Shouldn’t laws be clear if they expect people to obey them? I found a few hunter forums and they were arguing over it too. It’s too late to call now, but if we don’t get a clear answer this weekend I think I’ll call Texas on Monday. I have to know now! I was thinking it can’t be legal, because it was proposed in a few other states to cull the population, and the animals welfare people went crazy and shut it down; if it was legal in Texas you’d think they would be fighting it. Some animal rescue sites are using the logic that if a feral has no owner, you can never get permission from someone, so you can never kill them. The funny part is that some hunters on the forums accepted that logic. But most don’t care about legalities - I’m sure you know what “SSS” means to a hunter - and this vet would have got away with it too, if she wasn’t stupid enough to brag about it online. > [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I can tell, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, §§ 63.001 and 63.101-102, define game and non-game animals. In Texas, game animals are mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, desert bighorn sheep, gray or cat squirrels, fox squirrels or red squirrels, and collared peccary or javelina. Texas regulates the hunting of these animals with various rules, including seasons, tag requirements, weapons limitations, and the like. > > Non-game animals that are protected from hunting by various strictures are bats and wolves. Apart from these, there appears to be no general limitation or prohibition against hunting other types of animals in any way. (Migratory birds are federally protected, for what it’s worth). > > Animals are also divided into livestock and non-livestock groups by the cruelty statutes in § 42.09 _et seq_; livestock animals are cattle, sheep, swine, goats, ratites, or poultry commonly raised for human consumption; a horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny; native or nonnative hoofstock raised under agriculture practices; or native or nonnative fowl commonly raised under agricultural practices. > > Cats are a non-game, non-livestock animal. I don’t see any _per se_ ban against killing a cat with a bow insofar as the hunting regulations are concerned. I don’t see any means to conclude that a bow is _per se_ cruel under the cruelty statute (although it’s beyond cavil that a particular death by bow _could_ be cruel on its specific facts). So what about feral or stray dogs? Ferrets? Is anything not on the list considered fair game? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/303 "2015-05-02T02:41:48Z")
> [@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. The stated goal of the Straight Dope is fighting ignorance. But this is the Straight Dope Message Board, which has different goals in different forums. The BBQ pit exists to allow for flaming, which does not correlate well with fighting ignorance. Flaming people tends to result in people defending their viewpoints, since pissing people off makes them tned to fight to win and not to be accurate. This forum is for getting out your frustrations. When ignorance fighting happens, it’s just due to the general community, and not due to any goals of the forum. Nothing wrong with **Bricker** fighting ignorance here, but he does need to lower his expectations of what will be appreciated. (I very much appreciate **Bricker** ’s work, BTW.) ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/304 "2015-05-02T02:50:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I also suspect there might be a continuum between “feral cat” and “pet cat”. If you leave food dishes out, is every cat who eats the food your pet? Even if it isn’t collared or chipped and never comes into your house? This has actually become a [legal issue](https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-feral-cat-legal-issues). A man who was feeding a cat in an alley was charged with animal abuse when the cat was injured, he couldn’t afford the vet care, and the animal died. > [@Shodan](#): > > These things make me glad I am a dog person. > > Regards, > Shodan Is every facet of your life a partisan issue? ---
**Author:** ![OwnRules](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@OwnRules](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OwnRules)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/305 "2015-05-02T03:07:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The stated goal of the Straight Dope is fighting ignorance. But this is the Straight Dope Message Board, which has different goals in different forums. The BBQ pit exists to allow for flaming, which does not correlate well with fighting ignorance. Flaming people tends to result in people defending their viewpoints, since pissing people off makes them tned to fight to win and not to be accurate. > > This forum is for getting out your frustrations. When ignorance fighting happens, it’s just due to the general community, and not due to any goals of the forum. > > Nothing wrong with **Bricker** fighting ignorance here, but he does need to lower his expectations of what will be appreciated. > > (I very much appreciate **Bricker** ’s work, BTW.) Who died and made you King? …or Queen ---
**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, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/306 "2015-05-02T03:41:33Z")
> [@camille](#): > > But that’s why I posted the photo gallery. You’re making my point for me: Bowhunting has too high of a non-lethal wound rate to be considered a humane method of killing. It doesn’t matter if a particular incident just happened to be a clean quick kill; the method itself has to be determined as cruel or not cruel in advance of the act. Or are you saying that only bad shots are crimes, but if you make a lucky hit you avoid prosecution? Do any laws work that way? Sure. Vehicular manslaughter is only charged if you drive drunk and kill someone. It’s always dangerous, but only death triggers manslaughter. Of course, there are also other laws that are violated by driving drunk even if no one is injured. But in this instance, so far as I can find, there are no other laws in play. > [@](#): > > When they changed the law to include feral cats they changed the language from just “kill” to “kill in a cruel manner”, but I didn’t see a specific list of methods anywhere. How are people supposed to know in advance? Is it determined in court after the fact? The law specifies what “cruel” means: a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering. Whether a particular amount of pain is unwarranted would be for a court to decide. ---
**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, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/307 "2015-05-02T04:01:53Z")
To follow up on this… In criminal law, the rule is that the law is strictly construed against the state. In other words, the criminal law must always give fair notice to an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence what conduct is prohibited. This does not mean that every possible method of killing must be specified, though. The legislature is certainly free to forbid a specific method, but they are also free to simply criminalize _any_ method if it ends up causing unwarranted pain, and leave for an individual finder of fact to determine if the facts of a specific case rise to the level of “unwarranted.” Again, though, in the case of virtually instant death, there wouldn’t be a way for the finder of fact to support a finding of “unwarranted” amount of pain. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/308 "2015-05-02T04:54:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “Logic is for assholes.” > > That explains so much about your posting habits. Logical fallacies have nothing to do with _logic_ as you use it. They are debating concepts. ---
**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, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/309 "2015-05-02T08:55:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Logical fallacies have nothing to do with _logic_ as you use it. They are debating concepts. I can’t really tell what these sentences mean. If I say, “If A is true, then B is true. And if B is true, then C is true. Therefore, if A is true, we know C is true,” would you say this is a concept? I have no idea what you imagine “concept” might mean, and how a “concept” is somehow immune to fallacious argument. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/310 "2015-05-02T20:49:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t really tell what these sentences mean. > > If I say, “If A is true, then B is true. And if B is true, then C is true. Therefore, if A is true, we know C is true,” would you say this is a concept? That’s logic. “Logical fallacies” are debating concepts, and are only used outside the debate forum by assholes. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/311 "2015-05-02T20:50:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. Vehicular manslaughter is only charged if you drive drunk and kill someone. It’s always dangerous, but only death triggers manslaughter. Of course, there are also other laws that are violated by driving drunk even if no one is injured. But in this instance, so far as I can find, there are no other laws in play. > > The law specifies what “cruel” means: a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering. Whether a particular amount of pain is unwarranted would be for a court to decide. It’s not the same thing at all. This animal cruelty law is the opposite of your example: The equivalent example would be if the DWI law made vehicular manslaughter legal, as long as it was quick and painless. Which would be ridiculous. There is no equivalent law. Changing the language to “protect” feral cats was basically a sham, because it still allows you to take it upon yourself to kill a cat. If it turns out to be unwarranted or cruel, we decide that after the fact, after the animal is dead or injured. Has anyone ever been convicted I wonder? The two most infamous cases led to a hung jury (before the law was changed), and a [failure to indict](http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25314343) (he was a cop), even though it was a neighbor’s cat, there were witnesses, and the cat survived but was seriously injured. The only surprise was that [he was terminated]([http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2013/06/05/boerne-police-officer-terminated-after-allegedly-shooting-](http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2013/06/05/boerne-police-officer-terminated-after-allegedly-shooting-) cat-with-arrow.html) by the police department. ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/312 "2015-05-02T21:28:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s logic. “Logical fallacies” are debating concepts, and are only used outside the debate forum by assholes. No, logical fallacies are methods of reasoning which will lead to logically incorrect conclusions, and are used in any context in which logic is important. It’s absolutely astonishing that _even you_ don’t know this. It certainly puts a permanent pall over any argument you try to make from now on, as you’ve just openly admitted that you don’t know how logic works. I mean, not that anyone who’s read more than four or five of your posts needs the tip, but it’s always nice to have it in writing. I expect this exchange is going to be referenced quite a lot whenever you drop trou in a thread and leave another steaming pile of stupid. ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/313 "2015-05-02T21:58:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s logic. “Logical fallacies” are debating concepts, and are only used outside the debate forum by assholes. That’s absolutely incorrect, but extremely illustrative. I had assumed your confusion was based on a lack of information. It begins to look like you have an active antipathy towards correct logical reasoning. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/314 "2015-05-02T22:30:06Z")
> [@camille](#): > > It’s not the same thing at all. This animal cruelty law is the opposite of your example: The equivalent example would be if the DWI law made vehicular manslaughter legal, as long as it was quick and painless. Which would be ridiculous. There is no equivalent law. The vehicular manslaughter law doesn’t make DWI illegal, though. There’s another law that does that. The vehicular manslaughter law says that if you drive drunk and have an accident which kills someone, the state can presume your culpable intent. But if no one dies, the law doesn’t punish you. The difference in that example is that there exists ANOTHER law which punishes (to a lesser degree) the conduct of driving drunk at all. Here, we have the analogy of the manslaughter law in the law that punishes a cruel killing, but we don’t also have a separate analogy for the DWI law that provides some lesser punishment for killing even without cruelty. > [@](#): > > Changing the language to “protect” feral cats was basically a sham, because it still allows you to take it upon yourself to kill a cat. If it turns out to be unwarranted or cruel, we decide that after the fact, after the animal is dead or injured. Yes. The purpose of the law was not to save the lives of feral cats, in my opinion, but to punish those who would deliberately torture cats. The law was not intended, in my opinion, to forbid “clean and quick,” kills of feral cats. Indeed, a law that forbid all kills would require numerous exceptions for overcrowded shelters and trap-and-kill programs. > [@](#): > > Has anyone ever been convicted I wonder? The two most infamous cases led to a hung jury (before the law was changed), and a [failure to indict](http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25314343) (he was a cop), even though it was a neighbor’s cat, there were witnesses, and the cat survived but was seriously injured. The only surprise was that [he was terminated]([http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2013/06/05/boerne-police-officer-terminated-after-allegedly-shooting-](http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2013/06/05/boerne-police-officer-terminated-after-allegedly-shooting-) cat-with-arrow.html) by the police department. I cited a bunch of cases above that involved cruelty convictions. But all of them involved … well … cruelty, unmistakeable infliction of pain preceding death. I can’t find any convictions for the death of a feral animal where the death was quick and essentially painless. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/315 "2015-05-03T01:20:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The vehicular manslaughter law doesn’t make DWI illegal, though. There’s another law that does that. The vehicular manslaughter law says that if you drive drunk and have an accident which kills someone, the state can presume your culpable intent. But if no one dies, the law doesn’t punish you. > > The difference in that example is that there exists ANOTHER law which punishes (to a lesser degree) the conduct of driving drunk at all. What makes it strange to me is that in the case of the cat, the intent is the same, the action is the same, but \*\*how \*\*the cat dies makes it the difference between a crime and not-crime. It’s seems more like “Killing someone with your car will be legal, even if done deliberately, if the person dies painlessly. in that case, you’re scotfree. But if the person lingers for a few minutes, then it’s a crime.” The intent is the same, the weapon is the same, the shot is the same – whether or not it’s illegal depends entirely on the victim. Whether the victim dies quickly or not determines the crime. Yes, I know that cats aren’t people, and I am not trying to equate the two. But for me the vehicular manslaughter comparison doesn’t work. Are there any similar crimes where everything-- including intent-- are the same but the legality changes from “yea” to “nay” based on the victim’s reaction? I suppose if the intent is to playfully punch someone, the reaction changes it from “all in fun” to “assault” if the victim files charges. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/316 "2015-05-03T01:34:28Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > What makes it strange to me is that in the case of the cat, the intent is the same, the action is the same, but \*\*how \*\*the cat dies makes it the difference between a crime and not-crime. It’s seems more like “Killing someone with your car will be legal, even if done deliberately, if the person dies painlessly. in that case, you’re scotfree. But if the person lingers for a few minutes, then it’s a crime.” The intent is the same, the weapon is the same, the shot is the same – whether or not it’s illegal depends entirely on the victim. Whether the victim dies quickly or not determines the crime. > > Yes, I know that cats aren’t people, and I am not trying to equate the two. But for me the vehicular manslaughter comparison doesn’t work. Are there any similar crimes where everything-- including intent-- are the same but the legality changes from “yea” to “nay” based on the victim’s reaction? > > I suppose if the intent is to playfully punch someone, the reaction changes it from “all in fun” to “assault” if the victim files charges. Before \*\*Bricker \*\*corrects me, I suppose in the manslaughter case, the intent (“Don’t kill someone, make it home safely”) is the same in both cases. So is the weapon. For some reason I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Maybe the DUI laws are interfering with my grasp-- because if you maim someone, it’s still a crime, though it’s not manslaughter. So it’s still a crime, even if someone doesn’t die. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/317 "2015-05-03T02:28:22Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Before \*\*Bricker \*\*corrects me, I suppose in the manslaughter case, the intent (“Don’t kill someone, make it home safely”) is the same in both cases. So is the weapon. For some reason I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Maybe the DUI laws are interfering with my grasp-- because if you maim someone, it’s still a crime, though it’s not manslaughter. So it’s still a crime, even if someone doesn’t die. Right. It’s a _different crime_ if you maim someone. In the case of cats, no one has enacted that second crime, analogous to the one covering the maiming but not the death. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/318 "2015-05-03T02:31:08Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > What makes it strange to me is that in the case of the cat, the intent is the same, the action is the same, but \*\*how \*\*the cat dies makes it the difference between a crime and not-crime. It’s seems more like “Killing someone with your car will be legal, even if done deliberately, if the person dies painlessly. in that case, you’re scotfree. But if the person lingers for a few minutes, then it’s a crime.” The intent is the same, the weapon is the same, the shot is the same – whether or not it’s illegal depends entirely on the victim. Whether the victim dies quickly or not determines the crime. > > Yes, I know that cats aren’t people, and I am not trying to equate the two. But for me the vehicular manslaughter comparison doesn’t work. Are there any similar crimes where everything-- including intent-- are the same but the legality changes from “yea” to “nay” based on the victim’s reaction? > > I suppose if the intent is to playfully punch someone, the reaction changes it from “all in fun” to “assault” if the victim files charges. Sure. I reach out and cop a quick feel of the nice ass of the woman next to me in the supermarket. It’s my wife, and there’s no crime; it’s the deacon’s wife, and it’s a crime. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/319 "2015-05-03T11:19:33Z")
Sorry for posting up about crossbow hunting of cats (in Texas) being illegal - I had thought I’d seen a link posted by someone else on this thread. And, weirdly, until I mentioned it, everyone - including Bricker - was acting as if it were definitely true too. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/320 "2015-05-03T11:23:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. I reach out and cop a quick feel of the nice ass of the woman next to me in the supermarket. It’s my wife, and there’s no crime; it’s the deacon’s wife, and it’s a crime. Intent would make a difference there, though. If your intent was to grab your wife’s ass, and you didn’t realise she’d moved, that’s different to grabbing someone else’s ass on purpose. However, I can think of at least one act where the reaction of the victim makes a difference: if you strike someone with a whip, in many places that’s legal if they wanted you to, as in S&M. Not so legal otherwise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=17)