Yes, but that doesn’t make the cat feral.
And the alleged owners may want to avoid the press, but still cooperate with the police and prosecutors.
Can they remain anonymous and still provide any kind of legally sustainable evidence? I would think that they would need to be made available for cross-examination, which absent a gag order, would make it difficult for them to avoid identifying themselves.
Anybody know where the remains of the cat are? Upthread it was mentioned that owners and the catsitter do not have them. Do the authorities have them? Were they obtained from the vet?
Without them, any sort of ID of them as Tiger would likely be difficult.
I meant to respond to this:
Yes, it’s true that the case law you cited back on page four were clear cut cases of torture. But without specific restrictions, there are bound to be cases where reasonable people will not agree.
You believe an arrow through the head is humane. For every person who agrees with you, I could find someone who will agree with me, that it is inhumane, because the method itself is high risk for non-lethal wounding. Even in this case we have Scumpup, an experienced hunter who has said he has no problem with killing, saying this:
That is a description of reckless behavior, that would most likely mean unwarranted and undue suffering for an animal. We don’t really know how long it took for him to die (there are cases of animals and people surviving the same type of head shot).
Can it be argued that the method itself is reckless and high risk, and therefore cruel, with expert testimony about the high wound rate and cat proclivity to survive but yet suffer from a serious injury?
ETA: Robot Arm, even if he was not feral, there is no owner coming forward to claim him and press charges.
Is it necessary for the owners to come forward and lodge a formal complaint before criminal charges can go forward?
Absent sufficient evidence he was owned, no body to examine, no compliant witnesses. All they have is a Facebook post and a bunch of angry people. I don’t think she ever met with the authorities, and is supposedly back in Wyoming with her parents, since she lost her job and has received threats.
I would think it necessary for the owners to identify it as their pet in order to identify it as a pet. It looks like Tiger to me. I find the (alleged) proximity and timing to be compelling points in support of it being Tiger. I doubt those meet any required legal burden of proof.
I happen to think she killed a pet cat in a reckless and wanton manner. I’m not sure she’s legally culpable.
(Of course, IANAL, or any kind of legal expert at all.)
Well, a pet sitter has claimed it is Tiger, and if she has sat for Tiger (don’t know if that has been claimed or not) she’d presumably know the cat well enough to provide the same identification the owners would.
As for there not being a body, it seems odd for that to be a factor against prosecuting since it’s because of the veterinarian that they don’t have it. Speaking of which, what happened to the cat’s body? Does Texas have regulations dictating how pets bodies are disposed of, and were they followed? If there are such laws, I’d expect a vet to know them, and be expected to follow them.
Don’t you watch Law and Order? “No Body, No Case!” 
Seriously, it is difficult to convict without a body, even for people. Jury out for 2 weeks and counting on the Etan Patz murder here in NYC. And a pet sitter can’t speak for an owner in a situation like this.
Besides that, I don’t think the law was meant to address this type of incident regardless of an owner coming forward. Look at this case I cited earlier. He was charged, but the grand jury didn’t indict.
From what I’ve learned by researching this topic, the only cases they prosecute are clear cut torture of animals, which makes sense on some levels because it is typically an indication of a troubled individual. People who kill cats on their property as if they’re pests may be heartless, but otherwise still functional, law abiding citizens.
The only way to change this is to change the law. You can’t expect a DA to prosecute a case he can’t win.
No.
The reason is that the law is specific on this point. “Reckless and high risk,” cannot be considered “cruel,” because the law itself defines “cruel,” to mean a manner that causes unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering. You’re not permitted to argue to a jury that it ALSO means reckless and high risk.
The problem in trying it would be that the vet herself could testify that the death was instant, and the defense could bring in experts who would testify that a would like that would most likely be instantly fatal. Even a pro-prosecution witness would probably have to concede that even though it was POSSIBLE the cat lived for a while and suffered, it isn’t LIKELY. And remember that the fact-finder would not just have to believe it was more likely than not that the cat suffered, but they’d have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Usually, the fact-finder is a jury, but if I were defending this woman, I’d probably opt for a bench trial, in which the judge sits as a finder of fact.)
(ETA: now, if she’s already been interviewed and served up an admission of some kind… if she told the sheriff it took the cat ten minutes to stop moving, for example… then she could be impeached with that prior inconsistent statement at trial).
“Convincing the other posters” of what?
That the woman is an awful person? OK, who’s arguing that point?
That she can be convicted under the facts known thus far? That, you cannot do, and I suspect if I took a poll of readers of this thread they’d agree I’ve convinced many of them of this fact.
So… “convincing the other posters” of what, specifically?
(And have you noticed, DrDeth, that a great many of my posts to you include the word ‘specifically?’ It’s because the bulk of your chatter here relies strongly on a lack of specifics.)
ETA: posts 344 and 338 suggest to me I’m not the “sole dissenter.”
Also this post:
They can’t. Even in cases in which witnesses testify against mafioso figures, where there is a very real and colorable threat of fatal retaliation, anonymous testimony is not permitted. You may recall that the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution says:
(emphasis added)
A criminal accused must be permitted to know who the witness is. This is why the US Marshalls’ “Witness Protection” program exists.
The techincally correct answer to this question is “No.” All that’s necessary is to have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. This is a very low standard.
However, most prosecutorial guidelines admonish the prosecutor to also have a good faith belief that he will be able to convict – that is, that in addition to probable cause he knows he can adduce enough legally sufficient evidence to convict. So from that standpoint, at the very least he’d have to be confident the owners could testify as to ownership and would be willing to.
It’s not simply identification that’s required.
The law provides a crime exists if a non-livestock animal is killed without the owner’s consent. To convict, the prosecution must prove that the pet’s owner exists and did not consent to the killing. Even if the pet sitter could positively identify the dead cat as Tiger (which, given the blurry picture, is not likely) that pet sitter cannot testify that there was no permission.
In fact, even if the pet sitter heard the owners say, “Gosh, I wonder where Tiger is. I hope he’s OK, especially since I never gave anyone permission to kill him,” repeating that testimony at trial would not be permitted. It’s hearsay: an out of court statement, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
I have no idea.
If there’s genuine interest, I’ll look it up.
I’m curious, but don’t look it up just for me. Some people have said that having the body would determine if the cat was Tiger. The nature of the wound could also help determine if the cat suffered before it died. It seems like it could be in the vet’s interest to dispose of the body to conceal evidence. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there are rules governing how a vet is supposed to dispose of the bodies of dead animals, so she may have run afoul of one law while avoiding prosecution for another.
Okay, scratch that. One last try. The law defines cruel manner" as:
Does “include” mean there could also be other interpretations not included in this wording?
And could we say that this manner (bowhunting) “permits” unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering?
It permits this because it is a known high risk for non-lethal injury, which permits unwarranted and unjustified suffering, because there were other manners available (trap and euthanize, something a vet would know and easily facilitate). Using inadequate equipment was also unjustified; there was no immediate danger involved.
Does it fit the criteria now:
I guess I can’t wrap my head around the idea that the cruelty depends on a lucky shot and not the manner itself. For example, carbon monoxide was banned as a form of euthanasia in many places because it caused unwarranted suffering in some cases (some cats were caught in air pockets in the chamber and did not succumb right away, causing distress). The manner itself was deemed cruel, even though it was most often quick and painless.
Yes, but no.
By this I mean that the overarching requirement for criminal law is that it’s construed strictly against the government. Any “wiggle room,” goes to the benefit of the accused. A criminal law must clearly define the conduct that is prohibited. If someone has to guess whether or not his conduct might be prohibited, then the law is void for vagueness, a constitutional defect.
So the word “includes” does indeed signal that something else could be included. But it can’t be anything that isn’t clearly and unambiguously implied by the words that are there. The moment a criminal statute involves guesswork, it’s not enforceable.
In my best judgement: no. No reasonable person, reading that statute, would know that the words are meant to include risk as well as consequences.
Deemed cruel how? If a legislative body changed a law to include carbon monoxide as “cruel,” then no problem… that gives explicit notice to anyone what conduct is prohibited. But I would very surprised to learn anyone was convicted under a general “cruelty” provision for using monoxide.
Interesting. That law went through a few language changes before it was passed. I guess the language was made ambiguous to give that wiggle room to the defendant (plus all the exemptions). The law gets passed, the animal people celebrate a victory that isn’t what they think it is, and then get upset when people aren’t prosecuted.
I’m probably being unreasonable out of frustration, but what does “permit” mean in this context? It’s not the same as “cause”, but implies you would be responsible for the consequences indirectly. Are we responsible for the actions of others (workers, minors)? Or is it something else?
And how would it need to be worded to make risk an element of the crime? Do you think that’s too high a bar for an animal protection law to have a chance of getting passed?
I was using it as an example. It’s been banned as a form of euthanasia in shelters in most states, with some exceptions. I don’t know if it applies to an individual, or if anyone has ever rigged up a way to kill an animal with CO as a DIY. But it’s possible someone could say, run a hose from an exhaust pipe into an enclosed space, like an old top load freezer. So hypothetically speaking, would you consider that a cruel manner or not?
BTW, thanks again for your time and all the info. I really learned a lot about how to read and interpret laws. It’s unfortunate that some animal activists don’t understand the limits of these laws. When I first read it, I thought it was odd that a state like Texas would pass a law to protect feral cats.
Actually, you’re not being unreasonable at all. The woman did something that feels like it should be illegal; it’s absolutely natural to want to explore the criminal code in depth to figure out why it isn’t.
The unreasonable person, in my view, is one who stubbornly insists that the law doesn’t say what it says, or attacks the messenger by insulting anyone who provides unwelcome but accurate information.
Anyway, “permits” means “to allow (something) to happen,” and is probably intended to cover the claim, say, the knife didn’t cause the pain; it was the resulting loss of blood, or the fall didn’t hurt the animal; it was the cars on the highway where the accused tossed it that did that.
I don’t have a solid feel for the mood of the Texas legislature, but it should’t be too difficult to draft:
*(new paragraph 3) *“Cruel manner” includes a manner that causes, permits, or reasonably foreseeably risks causing or permitting unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering
I wouldn’t have before this conversation. Learning that air pockets could prolong the cat’s life and that the cat would be in distress or panic would cause me to re-evaluate that sense.
I’m happy to help!