Bizarre results are always possible. There’s a famous case from our own species in Phineas Gage, who survived a metal spike plunging into his brain.
But I don’t agree it’s unwarranted to look, in aggregate, at the picture, the description, and the fact that the cat’s body can be hung from the arrow and adopt, as a working first assumption, that the strike was essentially one of instant death. It’s by no means impossible to imagine that the cat didn’t instantly die, but the more likely outcome is the one of instant death.
Yes, but the reasons hearsay is generally prohibited in court apply with similar force in this discussion. Hearsay does not allow any examination of the details of the claim. If you assert that you saw or heard something, I can ask you questions to confirm or dispel my acceptance of your conclusions. This is why, by the way, we typically ask for cites, rather than simply permitting a poster to assert the truth of a factual claim.
In this case, the flaws of hearsay are evident, and have nothing to do with “a Court of Criminal law [sic].” Key portions of the public narrative arise from one source, the cat-sitter and self-appointed judge. The original sources are not named or identified I. Any kind of specific detail.
This is a link to the federal exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Which of those exceptions, specifically, do you mean to highlight?
As I said upthread, there’s no rescue group involved; all the information about Tiger comes from the professional pet sitter who sometimes watched him. Certainly you’re not suggesting that it’s reasonable to think that someone who paid a pet sitter to care for their pet might then later give permission to someone to have them shoot the pet in the face with an arrow, right?
The Texas animal cruelty law, as you pointed out, prohibits people from killing pets without permission from the owner. While the owners have thus far remained silent on the internet, it will be trivially easy for the local sheriff to track them down and ask them if they gave permission to have their pet killed.
As for whether or not the dead cat was indeed their pet, you’ve already admitted that proximity matters, and while you and I don’t know where Kristen Lindsey lived in relation to Tiger’s owners (quite understandable, for privacy reasons), this is also a trivially easy fact for local law enforcement to sort out.
The DA has asked her to come in for an interview, and she’s bringing a lawyer. At this point, with the investigation already complete, they already know whether or not she killed Tiger or some random feral cat.
Are you confident that Kristen Lindsey won’t be charged with a crime?
Your cite reports the cat-sitter’s claims; it does not establish them.
I also note that those clamoring to condemn the vet include at least one person who makes bomb threats. Apparently not all of them are upset because they worry about the well-being of all creatures.
That’s correct. If it were established that the dead cat was Tiger, then my best guess would be that the cat had an owner, and that the owner did not give permission for the cat to be killed.
Yes, that’s true. But even then, the sheriff cannot go into court and testify, “I talked to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and they told me they absolutely did not give permission for the cat to be killed by Karen Lindsey or anyone else.”[sup]*[/sup]
Do you understand why the sheriff’s testimony on that point is prohibited?
Perhaps they don’t. Perhaps they are hoping that she will serve up some admission that will make it easier to determine.
No, I’m not. 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.
The Lindsey case is about an animal, not a murdered human, and quite frankly I thought Zimmerman was both pathetic and dangerous, someone who killed a human being because he didn’t understand when the time to play hero was over. But that didn’t translate into guilt of second-degree murder.
A cat is not a human. For this reason alone, I feel the two cases are not worthy of comparison on their merits. But they are nonetheless analogous to each other in that they have raised the attention and ire of many people who are not particularly clear on how the legal system might treat the actions.
A criminal charge would not particularly surprise me. If I had to guess, I’d speculate that the DA will say, in effect, “Plead guilty, take a fine, and go on with your life. A plea of not guilty means I have to take this to trial. Maybe I’ll lose, but you’ll be out thousands of dollars in legal fees even so. And maybe a jury will convict you anyway, and you’ll need thousands more to get to the appellate court and away from a jury and popular outcry to get your conviction overturned.”
What would very much surprise me, on the facts as we now know them, is for Dr. Lindsey to be convicted following a trial and that guilty verdict to survive appeal.
(Note well that I said, “…on the facts as we know them.” If it were to develop that Lindsey knew the cat was a pet, or that the cat wiggled and mewed for ten minutes before dying, then a criminal conviction becomes vastly more likely).
He can’t say that for the purpose of proving that the owners did not give permission, anyway.
Who said anything about testifying? Presumably the owners could walk their own selves into court and say the same thing. You’re saying we don’t know that permission wasn’t given, but “we” in this case just means unaffected people on the internet who really have no business knowing at this point in time. My point is that it’s not some unknowable point in great contention, but rather it’s something that can (and most likely has) been cleared up by a simple phone call.
What do you mean by “perhaps they don’t?” My contention is that they already know A) if the pet owners that Amy Hemsell claims exist do in fact exist, and B) if those owners claim to have owned an orange tabby cat named Tiger, and C) that those owners now claim that Tiger is missing as of the day the picture was posted, and D) whether those owners live in close proximity to the good doctor. If they don’t know those things, I’d be really surprised. Are you saying that perhaps they haven’t bothered to find those things out? And if so, is that a reasonable thing to conclude?
Or are you just saying that perhaps they haven’t done a full DNA test yet or found whatever other incontrovertible proof you might want?
Yes, people are outraged for any and all number of reasons, all of which may or may not be reasonable but most of which don’t rise to criminal behavior. And I’ll admit that there’s a lot of throwing hypothetical charges at her to see what sticks, which seems to drive you particularly nuts.
But that aside, there does seem to be a valid criminal charge here assuming the story pans out. I don’t see where her knowing whether or not it was a pet amounts to a valid defense, but I suspect a jury is not going to be very sympathetic to such claims regarding a healthy looking house cat. I also think she’ll take a plea for some misdemeanor just to make this all go away.
Oh, absolutely. It’s certainly learnable. I’m saying that right now, we, the public, don’t know it. For this reason, any claims here that it’s a matter of established fact are premature.
I’m saying perhaps they were unable to find these things out – not for reasons of idolence, but as a result of other obstacles. For example, Amy may have said to the investigators precisely what she’s said publicly: that the owners wish to remain private, and so she won’t reveal their names. And she may be saying this because the owners don’t really exist and she fabricated their existence in order to add pathos to her outraged story about a vet killing a feral cat.
What I am basically arguing are that any conclusions I accept are limited by the facts we know. I have no idea what the investigators learned. And nothing released so far supports any inferences about what they’re learned.
It’s an excellent chance to practice my research skills on Texas law. I try to focus on the positive.
Sure – assuming the story that the dead cat was in fact Tiger, there are absolutely valid criminal charges here. I’ve never said otherwise. I am simply pointing out that this part of the story has not yet panned out.
I can’t find any Texas precedent that addresses the scienter requirement for the law, but I don’t think it’s a defense for her that she didn’t know the animal was a pet. The scienter here seems to be in her intention of killing the cat. If she killed the cat accidentally, or even negligently, then she’s not guilty. But if her actions in killing the cat were intentional or reckless, that’s enough to satisfy the mental state of the law. She doesn’t need to know that the cat was a pet to be guilty of the killing under § 42.092(b)(6), killing without the owner’s consent. This won’t require proof of suffering or pain, but there does need to BE an owner.
Cruel killing under § 42.092(a)(2) protects feral cats, and doesn’t require an owner, but DOES require proof of suffering and pain.
Omar Little linked to a 2006 case and quoted a portion of the article that claimed, “It is not illegal in Texas to shoot a feral cat. It is illegal to shoot someone’s pet.” That was true in 2006 when that cat was shot (by a bird-lover with a .22 rifle trying to protect songbirds from the cat’s predations) but subsequent to that case the law was changed to protect feral cats.
That wasn’t really in dispute - I rather doubt the newspaper made up a fictional character. I am more interested in the truth of her claims, which have not been established.
Right, and this is the crux. Out here in the “I don’t need absolute proof to call someone a dumbass” world, I have no reason to doubt Amy Hemsell. This picture of Tiger was uploaded to Facebook on Feb 28th. She lives in the area. She runs a pet sitting business. And a cat matching the photo existed on her Facebook page showing animals owned by her clients prior to all of this going down.
Is Tiger alive and well and she’s keeping him hidden away to keep this storing going? Did Tiger die months earlier and she’s just capitalizing on a lookalike cat having been killed? The simplest explanation here is that she’s telling the truth.
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.
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).
It’s the “matching” portion that I have trouble with. I don’t agree that the blurry picture can be matched with the other picture to a degree of confidence I’m comfortable with.
To me, an equally simple explanation is that she saw the dead cat, thought it was Tiger, and now is refusing to reveal the names of Tiger’s owners because she was wrong and Tiger came back home later that same day.
In other words, the strength of your “simplest explanation” rests on the unspoken “Why would Amy lie?”
But earlier cases ballooned out of control because they rested on similar questions like “Why would Crystal Magnum lie?” or “Why would the McMartin preschoolers lie?” or "Why would Jackie lie?" And in those cases, proponents of the cause had to apologize – or, more often, chose to simply stop discussing the case and never acknowledge that the cause they had so passionately supported was a fraud.
I don’t say this is a fraud. I say we don’t know, yet, because the only information we have that speaks to guilt comes from a single source.
Why, we asked ourselves, why did we let one source fool us into condemning Phi Kappa Psi? How intemperate, how quick to… wait, what’s that? A vet killed a cat? Stone her!!!
I’ll be perfectly comfortable condemning Dr. Lindsey when multiple sources of evidence are confirmed.
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?
Is there a significant difference in the environmental damage inflicted by a feral cat vs. that of an outdoor cat that hangs around the neighborhood and eats out of the food dish when hunting isn’t good? Was Tiger spayed or neutered? If an outdoor cat gets hit by a car, who in the neighborhood is responsible for the vet bill?
If it was Tiger, and I say “if”, why didn’t he have a collar?
As mentioned, I for one never doubted for a minute that she existed, or that she worked at an animal shelter. That I am willing to take her word for. The rest of her claims may or may not be true - that hasn’t been shown either way.