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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.