Veterinarian brags about killing a cat

[DrDeth]

@Omar_Little

Depends: http://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdoor-annual/hunting/general-regulations/means-and-methods

Cats are not “game” animals.

[Omar_Little]

Brenham is the headquarters for BlueBell Ice Cream, which recently recalled every single product they produce…is there a connection???

[Omar_Little]

@DrDeth

Cats are not “game” animals.

My response was to SciFi Sam, who asserted that hunting with crossbows is illegal. Not to whether hunting cats was legal or not.

[Omar_Little]

According to this 2007 article about a Texas trial about the shooting of a cat: Cat Murder Trial Spurs Jury Laughter - ABC News

It is not illegal in Texas to shoot a feral cat. It is illegal to shoot someone’s pet.

In that case it boiled down to whether the cat killed was a pet or not. The jury ended up deadlocked and the shooter was not retried. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Galveston-bird-watcher-cat-killer-won-t-be-retried-1647458.php

[Omar_Little]

@DrDeth

The animal rescue group who placed the cat with them have verified it was Tiger.

@steronz

It All information has come from Amy. She says the owners (Tiger was not a foster cat, simply a barn cat that belonged to some unknown couple) want to remain anonymous. Amy continues to state that the dead cat has not yet been confirmed to be Tiger, nor has the body been recovered.

Sounds like conflicting accounts.

[fachverwirrt]

@camille

The point that in this specific instance it may have been a clean shot and quick death is not enough to consider the method itself humane, when there is such a great possibility that a bow kill can go wrong and lead to a slow painful death or injury. As fachverwirrt noted, there are many cases of non-lethal shots to the head, even in cats:

(spoilered for graphic images)

cat survives arrow through head - Google Search

Well, that’s a bit more convincing than my cite.

[Bricker]

@fachverwirrt

Post 153:

This was made in the context of whether veterinarians are held to a higher standard of “cruelty”. You made a positive assertion here, not a statement that cruelty was unprovable under Texas statute.

But I was referring to cruelty under Texas law – otherwise, each of us simply advances his own opinion of “cruelty” and no one’s is any more or less valid than anyone else’s.

[/quote]

I’m sure you can provide a cite that an arrow through the head is universally instantaneously fatal.
[/quote]

I never said “universally,” and I stand by the claim I did make -– that such a shot is an instant fatal one. Not in every single case, to be sure, but in enough of them that discussing the outliers makes little sense to me.

More to the point, how do you know what led to the arrow through the head? All you have is a photograph of the aftermath. If we can trust the mother (who took the picture), then we know that she was in the yard practicing. That’s it. You seem to be assuming that she simply saw the cat and took a single shot that took it in the head. You have no evidence that this is how it went down. Maybe she took an initial shot that wounded the cat, then she made the kill shot. Maybe she caught the cat and hung it from a branch for a little target practice. I don’t know. And neither do you.

True. But I am accepting reasonable scenarios which make sense and for which there is some evidence. The claim that because we don’t know exactly, anything could have happened is an invocation of argumentum ad ignoratium.

[Bricker]

@fachverwirrt

Well, that’s a bit more convincing than my cite.

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.

[Bricker]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Give it up.

Bricker has already admitted that he’s playing lawyer with this. Next stop is that we can’t enter the picture of the cat with an arrow in it’s head into evidence because the shooter was not warned of her rights first.

Strawman, and poisoning the well.

He’s essentially treating this whole thread as if the question is" Is there reasonable probability that this vet could be successfully prosecuted in a court of law"

But that is not the question. That’s only how he is wanting to frame things.

It’s not cruelty. That’s how I am framing things, because that’s how the thread framed it.

[Bricker]

@DrDeth

1. They want to remain anonymous, but they have told others yes it was. The animal rescue group who placed the cat with them have verified it was Tiger.

This is why hearsay is generally prohibited.

Can you name the animal rescue group that verified this?

[fachverwirrt]

@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.

You must have access to another photo, since the one I’m seeing is not at all clear as to where the arrow is protruding. I can’t see an arrow protruding at all; her hand is blocking it. Please point out to me where in that photo you see an exit wound.

[Bricker]

@fachverwirrt

You must have access to another photo, since the one I’m seeing is not at all clear as to where the arrow is protruding. I can’t see an arrow protruding at all; her hand is blocking it. Please point out to me where in that photo you see an exit wound.

I don’t. But since the arrow is a straight line, and I can see the portions between her hands, I can extrapolate the location of the entrance wound. And the text portion of her post says, “The only good feral tomcat is one with an arrow through its head.” (emphasis added)

Adding this word choice to the obvious central lower entry point makes me confident that the arrow penetrated deeply. Moreover, she’s holding the cat aloft by the arrow: in other words, the arrow penetrated deeply enough into the skull to support the cat’s weight when the arrow is held up. That fact alone shows this wound is dramatically different than the flesh wounds shown in the linked gallery above.

[fachverwirrt]

@Bricker

I don’t. But since the arrow is a straight line, and I can see the portions between her hands, I can extrapolate the location of the entrance wound. And the text portion of her post says, “The only good feral tomcat is one with an arrow through its head.” (emphasis added)

Adding this word choice to the obvious central lower entry point makes me confident that the arrow penetrated deeply. Moreover, she’s holding the cat aloft by the arrow: in other words, the arrow penetrated deeply enough into the skull to support the cat’s weight when the arrow is held up. That fact alone shows this wound is dramatically different than the flesh wounds shown in the linked gallery above.

These flesh wounds?

So you can extrapolate an exit wound (in three dimensions, no less) with full confidence of its relationship to the cat’s internal anatomy, but the photo is too blurry to make an identification of its color pattern? Interesting.

By the way, to me it is quite clear that the arrow is entering through the left side of the forehead somewhere above the eye; her hand is pretty clearly near the side of the back of the head, and not at the base of the skull.

[Bricker]

@fachverwirrt

These flesh wounds?

The first one is clearly lying tangential to the curve of the skull. The second is deeper, yes, but certainly not central. The third looks dead.

So you can extrapolate an exit wound (in three dimensions, no less) with full confidence of its relationship to the cat’s internal anatomy, but the photo is too blurry to make an identification of its color pattern? Interesting.

The picture alone would have been insufficient, but as I clearly mentioned, there were two other factors: the description by the shooter of the arrow being through the head, and the fact that the cat’s weight is being held up by the arrow.

But you mention only the weakest of the three?

“Interesting.”

[fachverwirrt]

@Bricker

The first one is clearly lying tangential to the curve of the skull. The second is deeper, yes, but certainly not central. The third looks dead.

The third is this one. Not dead, despite the arrow piercing not only his head, but throat and torso as well.

The picture alone would have been insufficient, but as I clearly mentioned, there were two other factors: the description by the shooter of the arrow being through the head, and the fact that the cat’s weight is being held up by the arrow.

But you mention only the weakest of the three?

“Interesting.”

Well, of course the arrow is through the head. I didn’t mention it because that was never under contention. I am unaware of any convention of language that says that “through the head” means “protrudes from the base of the skull.” And the third certainly indicates that the arrow pierced the skull, another point that is not under contention. I’m sorry that I didn’t acknowledge your obvious, irrelevant points.

ETA: Put another way: is it your contention that an average person would not refer to, say, the second of my linked photos, as a picture of a cat with an arrow through its head?

[Bricker]

@fachverwirrt

The third is this one. Not dead, despite the arrow piercing not only his head, but throat and torso as well.

Well, of course the arrow is through the head. I didn’t mention it because that was never under contention. I am unaware of any convention of language that says that “through the head” means “protrudes from the base of the skull.” And the third certainly indicates that the arrow pierced the skull, another point that is not under contention. I’m sorry that I didn’t acknowledge your obvious, irrelevant points.

ETA: Put another way: is it your contention that an average person would not refer to, say, the second of my linked photos, as a picture of a cat with an arrow through its head?

I agree that any of those photos could be validly described that way.

So?

[fachverwirrt]

@Bricker

I agree that any of those photos could be validly described that way.

So?

So … what’s your point again?

[Bricker]

@camille

Hmmm, so how is that a refutation of the DrDeth’s claim that cat markings are “almost as good as fingerprints”? The study you cited describes the reliability of a specific pattern recognition software program, but does admit that the markings are unique to an individual animal, which was the original contention.

What we don’t know is how reliable other methods, or visual comparison of two photo samples by an expert can be, especially when factoring in the white bib and leg splash patterns in addition to the tabby markings - which are clear enough even in the quality of the photographs available. Add to that the proximity and timing, and I contend you increase the likelihood to near certainty it is the same cat as the one that went missing.

Because fingerprints have more points of comparison, it’s inaccurate to say “almost as good.” And you see what happens to the S variable when N increases?

And according to some of the articles, even if the couple who were fostering the cat don’t want to come forward, the animal rescue group who placed the cat with them are apparently willing to claim and identify the cat and say they did not give permission to kill it (I admit this is speculative at this point).

First: all we have is someone else saying that the rescue group says that the couple says. That’s double hearsay.

Even if the rescue group comes forward, they weren’t the owners. They can’t say what the owners did or didn’t do.

I’m still not convinced that using an illegal method like bow hunting to dispose of the cat isn’t considered cruelty, irrespective of the ownership issue. If bow hunting a cat is not legal, then what is the charge and penalty for breaking that law?

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.

[Bricker]

@fachverwirrt

So … what’s your point again?

I have two points:

1. The killing of this cat wasn’t cruel.
2. The successful prosecution of the vet for animal cruelty will be very difficult on the facts adduced thus far.

[fachverwirrt]

@Bricker

I have two points:

1. The killing of this cat wasn’t cruel.
2. The successful prosecution of the vet for animal cruelty will be very difficult on the facts adduced thus far.

Yes, thank you. The immediate subject we were discussing was whether one could deduce from the photograph that the kill was instant (and therefore not cruel). Your contention was based on your conclusion that the arrow exited at the base of the skull, indicating that the brain was seriously damaged. You cited three pieces of evidence:

1. The photo itself. You have acknowledged that this is insufficient by itself.
2. The fact that the vet described the arrow as “through the head”. You’ve acknowledged that several pictures of cats that are still alive are reasonably described as having “arrows through the head”. It is not clear to me whether you accept this as a refutation of this point. I’m interested to know your response (truly; I’ve been snarky, but it’s a long week and I’m tired, and it’s the pit so I’m letting my asshole through a little. I am actually interested in the discussion).
3. The fact that she is holding up the cat by the arrow. I acknowledge that this almost certainly indicates that the cat’s skull is pierced, but I contend that any arrow through a cat’s skull will provide enough support for a cat’s weight.

I’m not actually contending that death wasn’t instantaneous. I have no idea. I’m just contending that you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on incomplete evidence, and I find your argument unsatisfying.

I’m not really interested in the second point, but for what it’s worth, I agree with you.