Nuke them from orbit.
Regards,
Shodan
I wonder if “Tiger” was neutered?
In any event, I can’t tell from the photo that the cat was particularly healthy. Unless you have access to a better photo, you can’t either – can you?
They may have been appalled by her action itself. They may have been appalled by her tone-deafness in posting the action on Facebook and inciting the ire of Internet cat-lovers. I have no way of knowing.
I do know that’s it’s entirely appropriate for society to seek to solve the feral cat program by killing feral cats after capture.
We have cat experts here saying that and the cat experts at the ASPCA and the Humane Society have confirmed that the markings are identical. By the picture.
“A few blocks” is the distance given.
Once again, DrDeth, you seem to miss out on what a cite is.
A cite is not your claim. It’s a link to evidence that supports your claim, ideally joined with a quotation from the source that specifically supports you. If your source isn’t available on-line, then instead of a link a cite contains sufficient information to locate it. For example, you might say, “Earthquakes involve the ground shaking.” (Kalette, Denise. “California Town Counts Down to Big Quake.” USA Today 9 21 July 1986: sec. A: 1.)
If there’s no link in your post, it’s probably not a cite. If there’s nothing in your post except your words, it’s definitely not a cite. I’m not aware of any poster here being a “cat expert,” by any sort of professional training, by the way. Who are our SDMB “cat experts,” specifically?
I linked to the sites earlier. Have you read them?
There’s nothing in this post other than your words, does that mean it’s worthless…well actually yes/
This week we found out that the cat wasn’t actually a feral cat but a domesticated cat owned by one of her neighbors, his name is Tiger.
Lindsey apparently didn’t know that the “feral tomcat” she bagged was actually Tiger, a 6-year-old orange Tabby who went missing earlier on Wednesday. A Facebook page titled “Justice For Tiger” was quickly set up and called for Lindsey to be charged with a crime. The page has photos of Tiger as well as a video that the kitty’s owner posted to YouTube in November:
Note that Tiger’s owners have decided to stay anonymous and the body of Tiger has not been recovered.
Yes, actually it would be like that.
See, we can all play the “Dio” card.
Members of the jury, I put it to you that the cat MIGHT have been suffering from a fatal kidney disease. You cannot tell from a mere picture the state of the cat’s health. Why my client was performing a humane and vital service! And she did not even send a bill to the owners!
Reasonable doubt, right? I’m surprised you have not pulled out the “The picture is totally 'shopped, you can tell from the pixels”, or “the chain of evidence was compromised, so you must not even view the picture”
Well this is not a court, counsellor. Your “what if’s”, “maybe’s” and “you must have definitive proof” before you can condemn someone holding a cat with a freakin’ arrow through it’s head does not fly here.
Edit: And she definitely should have been fired, for being such a simpleton, such an idiot, such a bone-head that she thought that her employer would be fine with a public posting of her grinning next to a pet cat with a freakin’ arrow through it’s head. She should be fired for her idiocy alone.
Bricker, I’m curious what it is you are attempting to argue in this thread.
Do you have a dog or a cat? If yes, would you be OK with your pet’s vet posting a picture of themselves smiling next to a feral dog or cat with an arrow through the animal’s head?
You would feel no problem with your vet behaving like that, and you would feel no problem taking your dog or cat to be cared for by this vet?
You may likely say you would have no problem with it; just wanted to clarify.
My take is he’s simply playing defense attorney. If incontrovertible proof shows up that this was indeed her neighbors pet cat, he’ll probably then tell us that with no official autopsy, there is no way of telling what the cat actually died of. Maybe it ate a bad mushroom, and the shooter merely used the corpse as target practice.
It’s all just a game for him.
He wanted to argue that killing feral cats by means of crossbow is OK, that TNR programs arent working, etc, but was shot down by the fact that this cat wasn’t a feral at all, she killed someones beloved missing housepet. In order to continue the argument that it’s Ok to kill ferals and not look like a heartless bastard, he is in denial about the fact that the cat killed here is “Tiger” a missing pet.
Note that he’s the only person in the free world (and beyond, apparently this story has spread internationally) that questions the fact that the murdered cat is Tiger. Not a single other source has questioned. Cat experts have pointed out the marking are unique and clear, his defense of the cat killer is to have the experts prove their expertise and mentions that the photo is a little blurry.:dubious: He blithely ignores the fact Tiger was recently reported missing a short time before being killed and from a ares “a few blocks” away. He now wants a autopsy and a Google maps analysis not to mention* 27 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. *:rolleyes:
While I appreciate his willingness to mount a pro bono defense of the cat killer, her on line confession is so damning it’s pointless.
I don’t agree with Bricker’s personal views on cat killing ethics, but I appreciate his take on the legalities.
In this case, it doesn’t matter if the cat was feral or a pet, the criminal charges are the same for both.
Bricker has also indicated there is enough evidence for a civil suit, should Tiger’s owners want to go forward. I believe the animal rescue groups are urging that, and would probably pay any legal fees. Bricker, do you know what the limits are for damages in this type of case?
As far as I know, Tiger’s owners want to remain anonymous. Since they would be the ones damaged, I assume they would need to be the ones to bring suit. I don’t think you can actually do that and remain anonymous.
Yes, that’s why I said they were being “urged” to do so. They may not.
My question was more for general knowledge. There are many cases where pets are injured or killed and the perpetrator is known. I have never heard of a civil suit for such an incident, and I believe that a cat, considered as property, has a limited monetary value. Could damages go beyond that, for say emotional distress? Is it worth it to bring suit? Would it set a precedent? Or is it a case of animal rescue groups overreacting with ignorance of the law?
I’m sorry, but so far as I can tell, you haven’t provided any links. I asked you previously for posts in which this proof had been presented; you replied with a list of post numbers, and I replied to that list by examining the first post in the list and showing it did not do or say what you claimed.
So I ask again: SPECIFICALLY, what and where are any cites for anything you’ve said here?
OK, that’s a cite. But it has a problem. It simply makes an unsupported claim. It does say how “we” found out the cat was Tiger. It doesn’t disclose any of the methods or reasoning used to reach this conclusion. Accordingly, it’s virtually useless as evidence.
Same problem. This is a cite, but it offers no insight into how the conclusion was drawn. For all we know, the first author made up the claim and the second author relied upon the first. This is extremely weak evidence.
Same problem. That Facebook account is filled with outrage, but is very lean on such matters as evidence.
That’s at least the second time you’ve made the claim that Tiger lived a few blocks away, and you quoted it, indicating you drew it from some source. Where?
You continue to offer up your claims about what some unnamed “cat experts” have said, and you continue to refuse to provide any links to these cat experts’ findings.
Her on-line confession is not in least damning as to the claim that the cat she killed was “Tiger.”
You seem to believe that constant repetition of a claim makes it more true.
What makes a claim judged true is EVIDENCE.
You have provided none.
It’s not a court, but it is a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance. In support of that mission, then, what “flies” here should be evidence-based argument.
That’s true. Texas Penal Code § 42.092 provides that cruelty towards a “non-livestock animal” is a crime, and specifically includes “…a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat cat…” (See § 42.092(a)(2) – and THAT’s a cite.)
But although I’m not a Texas lawyer, I’m having some doubts about how she can be charged under this statute.
§ 42.092(b) provides that any person who “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly… tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal.” There’s no dispute that she killed the cat. But did she kill it “in a cruel manner?” The law defines cruel as “a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.” There’s no serious question that the arrow’s caused a death that was virtually instant, in my opinion.
I can’t find much case law on the provision, but every single prosecution for this section has involved activities that are much more clearly torture. In In re MCS, Jr., 327 SW 3d 802 (Tex CtApp, 2nd Dist. 2010) a juvenile petition for the charge is sustained when the kid lit a captured bat on fire. In Patterson v. State, 353 SW 3d 203 (Tex CtApp, 4th Dist. 2011) the accused used a large kitchen knife, a rubber mallet, a claw hammer, and a box cutter to repeatedly stab three cats to death. In Chase v. State, 418 SW 3d 296 (Tex CtApp, 3rd Dist. 2013) (reversed on other grounds), the accused he tied a dog and then slashed the dog’s throat with a knife, causing its eventual but not instant death. In Brown v. State, 333 SW 3d 606, (Tex CtApp, 5th Dist. 2009) the accused doused a dog with gasoline and set it on fire. I could go on, but the point is this: in all prior prosecutions for which I found caselaw, the cruel conduct was much more evident, and I am far from certain that this conduct constitutes a “cruel manner” under Texas law.
There’s also a provision, (b)(6), that provides that, “…without the owner’s effective consent… [causing] bodily injury to an animal…” is covered.
But that seems to turn on how the law treats an animal with no owner, and of course on whether the cat she killed was feral or had an owner.
Now we’re really getting away from my comfort zone of criminal law. But my best guess is …no damages for emotional pain and suffering.
Texas caselaw all the way back to an 1891 decision in Heiligmann v. Rose, 16 S.W. 931 (Tex 1891), held that for a pet like a cat or a dog, the recoverable damages are limited to “…market value, if the dog has any…” or any “…special or pecuniary value to the owner, that may be ascertained by reference to the usefulness and services of the dog.” This decision was quoted with approval in Strickland v. Medlen, 397 SW 3d 184 (Tex 2013):
I of course welcome correction on this reading from someone more versed in Texas civil law than I am. But as I read the case law, monetary damages for a improperly killed pet would be limited to the actual monetary value of the animal.
All legal arguments aside, Kristen Lindsey is one twisted, fucked-up bitch.