Here is the process, from this document’s explanation.(PDF)
Yep. My current prediction is that Dr. Lindsey never intends to practice veterinary medicine in Texas again, and will drag out the proceedings past her license expiration and the 12 months post-expiration that the TBVME still has any authority over the expired license. I lose the bet based on my self-imposed time limit and Dr. Lindsey fingers horse butts in Wyoming. But we’ll see, hopefully I’m wrong.
News article on subject:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/national/board-finds-violation-case-veterinarian-who-killed/nnTTq/
[INDENT] Kristen Lindsey, the Texas veterinarian who outraged many for boasting about killing a cat with a bow and arrow, has been found in violation by the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.[/INDENT] …but the board hasn’t said what exactly the violation was.
Veterinary Board Seeks To Revoke License For Texas Vet Who Killed Cat With Arrow.
This means it’ll move to a hearing, apparently in February.
And she can contest the hearing results.
May 20, 2016. I like my chances.
Not a party to the bet, But reading back over the thread, a hearing that results in a revocation of her license - even if appealed - is considerably more than a strongly worded letter. What were the exact terms of win/loss?
The hearing doesn’t result in the loss of license.
As noted above, the hearing officer prepares a “Proposal for Decision,” following the hearing. If the respondent objects to the findings of fact and/or conclusions of law
contained in the PFD, or to the Board’s proposed action, the respondent may file a motion for rehearing with the Board. If the motion is declined, the respondent may appeal the case to the district courts of Travis County, Texas. From this point, the case is handled like any other civil matter. The Board’s action (censure, suspension, whatever) does not happen until that process is complete.
Now, if she lost at a civil trial, but then appealed, the Board’s action WOULD take effect.
But the bet is that the Board completes some substantive action by May 2016.
My point here was always that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a punitive action. I don’t agree that a “punitive action” is a Board “Proposed Decision.”
This seems fishy to me. For the DA, you considered an indictment but no conviction a “push.” If the vet board recommends a loss of license, that’s at least as strong as an indictment. Winning the bet on the technicality that the process isn’t completed by May 2016, even if the board has made its recommendation, does not seem fair at all. If they recommend the loss of a license, the spirit of the bet seems to me to suggest that you’d lose, or at best you’d tie. The disagreement was definitely not over whether the process would take a long time or not.
Well, when it comes down to it, friend Bricker will simply make the argument that a misplaced comma in the original “bet” means that he didn’t lose, or that the fact that the bet was not notarized means that it does not have an official status, and therefore he didn’t lose. It’s just all lawyer games with him.
Not at all. An indictment had the potential to arise from outraged emotions and a DA responding to the political optics instead of the law.
You’re right. I didn’t propose the time line, though. Now that it’s in place it seems foolish to throw it away, inasmuch as it’s innuring to my advantage.
But I will. If the issue goes against Lindsey in February, but she appeals, and thus goes past the deadline, I’m willing to call it a push.
I’ve made many bets on the SDMB. I have won most but lost more than a few.
I have always paid when I lost.
What bets are you relying on for this prediction?
Per the TJT facebook page, mediation has failed and a new hearing date has been set for 25-27 April. One more extension and I’m SOL.
I know this is a little old, but still active, so I’ll chime in to say that as far as I know, Bricker makes good on all his bets. I made one bet with him that I won and got the money right away, no attempts at trying to worm out of it. The others in that thread did, too, and I’ve never heard anything contrary to that regarding his reputation on this board in honoring bets.
Thank you. I absolutely am accountable for what I bet – and say – here.
In contrast to Euphonious Polemic.
This thread has really gotten me thinking.
Most of the original posters who are all up in arms are gone on to new outrages, and the process of officially dealing with the incident is still trudging along… Its a strange contrast.
Its also made me very aware that there are a lot of things that people would consider wrong (or to be less forcible about it, perhaps substitute “wrong” with unwise or inappropriate or tacky or impulsive) but which aren’t specifically illegal. Which is very strange to think about, but on reflection does make sense. I do wish that cruelty to (or even random killing of) animals was more often actually illegal.
Its been interesting no matter how it turns out. I still think it shows terrible character on her part, and wonder what she thinks of her decision to shoot and brag now that she’s been dealing with the social fallout for a while now.
Indeed. That first insouciant response from her, about how of course she’s not going to suffer any professional consequences because of how awesome she is must, in hindsight, look horribly foolish to her now.
Only a very small percent of The Outraged Internet remains outraged about this a year later, but a lot of people were initially outraged, so a very small percent of that still seems to be a few hundred people. One of the reasons I offered up the bet is because I poked around at the potential infrastructure for legal harassment, and decided that the (for lack of a more PC term) crazy cat ladies of the internet had enough ability and desire to keep pestering the various powers that be long enough for some action to be taken, if only to make them stop writing letters. However, while I’m dependent on this brigade to keep my now slim chances of winning the bet alive, every time I check in with them I cringe. It’s a shame they’ve put their energy into such a worthless endeavor.
Article on front page of Huffpost today:
Interesting that the article claims she’s been able to keep practicing. I wonder if she works on people’s cats. I would be very unhappy if I found out my vet killed a cat for sport/lols/“varmit-hunting.” I want my vet to have empathy towards my pet, and I’m not seeing it in her case.
In case anyone is interested, the Veterinary Information Network (VIN) has a Facebook media page, where they followed the hearing, with daily testimony updates and video coverage. They will provide any updates as well.
There are conflicting feline expert testimonies, arguing whether or not the cat in the photo can be identified as Tiger (was the cat in the photo intact or neutered, were the markings the same), and the State’s expert claims he can determine from the photo that the cat was still alive when the photo was taken.
Was Tiger still alive after he was shot? Based on Dr. Lindsey’s photo, taken five to 10 minutes after she shot the cat, Dr. Folger thinks so. He pointed out that rigor mortis couldn’t have occurred in the time period described, yet the body showed signs of movement in the cat’s flexed leg.
“At the time of this photo, absolutely alive.” Folger said. “… You would have to assume suffering was involved.”
More cross from Lindsey’s lawyer:
Bishop is going hard at Folger, questioning how he knows the arrow didn’t kill the cat instantly. Folger says the picture Lindsey posted to Facebook shows the arrow piercing the cat in the lateral part of the eye, not the brain.
Folger: “I don’t think the arrow went through the cat skull. … That’s the only way to explain why the cat still has neuromuscular function.”
Bishop: “Do you think a veterinarian with two years of experience … can confirm whether a cat is dead or alive?”
F: “Confirmation is more difficult than it seems. I have to double and triple check myself.”
B: “Based on a fuzzy Facebook picture, your opinion is more readable as to the cat’s death and more credible than Dr. Lindsey’s who actually saw the cat?”
F: “I think the flexure of the leg makes it impossible for this cat to be dead at the time this picture was taken. That’s my testimony.”
Based on that excerpt, I am curious to know whether readers of this thread found Dr. Folger’s reported testimony convincing.