stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
qft!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Simply....unbelievable -
- Thread starter davidmcbeth
- Start date
- Status
qft!
davidmcbeth
Banned
And then I used to ride by dirt bike around .. then stopped doing that and went to car racing .. and stopped doing dat ... who knows what's next
Attachments
davidmcbeth
Banned
That's how I torture ... I get little information.
wrightme
Regular Member
Can't watch it, youtube removed it.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, that does not fit, if I understand the content the video originally presented.
Attempting to kill an animal by GSW would not in and of itself, be prima facie evidence of 'Torture.'
Shooting it once in the gut and leaving it to die, would probably be considered torture under that statute.
If the act is a violation of the statute, it is more likely to be the following:
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
The video shown at that link does NOT match the reports of the officer who was wielding the pistol.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/loca...-dog-shooting-prompts-investigation/17454235/
Fair-use excerpt:
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
In what world does a gunshot not cause pain or suffering, OR cause serious bodily injury?
Here's basically what we need for a violation here (edit: OF B1):
1. the act unjustified or unwarranted
2. the act permits or causes serious bodily injury, or pain or suffering to the animal
That's it.
So, unless you believe that the officer in that precise moment reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the death or seriously bodily injury of another I know of no justification for the use of force, without which he is in violation of this cruelty to non-livestock animals statute.
Edit: The violation must be of B1 because police officers get a free pass for violations of B6.
Edit: There is no arbitrary time frame for what constitutes torture, even though the act qualifying as torture isn't necessary for a violation b1. If the pain and suffering is 2 seconds, or 5 minutes, or 30 minutes after being "left for dead" as in your hypothetical, it makes no difference. All that matters is whether or not it was unjustified or unwarranted.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
What? I urge you to go reread it.
A gunshot wound would not in and of itself cause pain and suffering. In fact, it is very likely to NOT cause either of those, unless as in my post, the animal was gutshot and left to die.
No, that is not accurate.stealthyeliminator said:
You are resting your opinion upon an ersatz claim that killing an animal by shooting fits #2. It does not.
First, is it justified. At present, that is not clear, but given the video, it does not appear to be justified.
Second, does it violate any of the statutes. At present, that also is not clear, but it does not fit the 'torture' statute.
It is a much better fit for b(2), and since there are exceptions, it is quite clear why you refuse to view it logically.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
I do NOT like that the cop shot the dog, seemingly without justification. But, shooting and killing a dog is not 'torture' of an animal. It simply does not fit that section. The ONLY reason to even bring that section into discussion, is as an attempt to take the exceptions out of play.
First, logically judge events based upon the actual facts, and the actual verbiage and intent of the statutes.
Second, define a course of action.
In this case, there is still a lack of actual facts that would need cleared up before a complete analysis can be done. But, from only what is known, here is how I see it so far:
1) Citizens report that three dogs cornered some people in a car, and called 911.
2) Police responded, and one dog was subdued quickly.
3) Police relocated the other two dogs, and shot one of them.
Here is the closest I found to that sequence:
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/loca...-dog-shooting-prompts-investigation/17454235/
As I mentioned, the above quote does NOT accurately portray what is seen in the video.
At that point, to me, there is a violation of the statute cited, but not as 'torture'. Killing an animal by gunshot is simply not a 'torture.'
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(2) without the owner's effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.092#sthash.weTToFHw.Js8V7AnL.dpuf
Note that b(2) includes 'or causes serious bodily injury to an animal.'
Now, we are left assessing whether the exceptions do or do not apply.
Now we are at the point where we do not have enough information to determine if the killing happened within the scope of the person's employment as a public servant.
If not within the scope, prosecute the officer.
If within the scope, present legislation to change the statute to more clearly define the exception; as example, to require some justification such as a 'reasonable apprehension of injury to the public servant or to others.'
First, logically judge events based upon the actual facts, and the actual verbiage and intent of the statutes.
Second, define a course of action.
In this case, there is still a lack of actual facts that would need cleared up before a complete analysis can be done. But, from only what is known, here is how I see it so far:
1) Citizens report that three dogs cornered some people in a car, and called 911.
2) Police responded, and one dog was subdued quickly.
3) Police relocated the other two dogs, and shot one of them.
Here is the closest I found to that sequence:
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/loca...-dog-shooting-prompts-investigation/17454235/
As I mentioned, the above quote does NOT accurately portray what is seen in the video.
At that point, to me, there is a violation of the statute cited, but not as 'torture'. Killing an animal by gunshot is simply not a 'torture.'
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
(2) without the owner's effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.092#sthash.weTToFHw.Js8V7AnL.dpuf
Note that b(2) includes 'or causes serious bodily injury to an animal.'
Now, we are left assessing whether the exceptions do or do not apply.
I think it is clear that the cop was operating within the scope of the person's employment as a public servant for being in contact with the dogs. I state it like that to differentiate between how this went, as opposed to the cop simply discovering two dogs and shooting at them without ANY prior knowledge of what transpired.
Now we are at the point where we do not have enough information to determine if the killing happened within the scope of the person's employment as a public servant.
If not within the scope, prosecute the officer.
If within the scope, present legislation to change the statute to more clearly define the exception; as example, to require some justification such as a 'reasonable apprehension of injury to the public servant or to others.'
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Well said and explained. +1
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Gunshot wounds don't cause pain to non-livestock animals. Good to know.
wrightme
Regular Member
Strawman.
To be clear, they are NOT a 'torture' as defined in statute, unless the animal is intentionally shot in a way to prolong suffering. Are you really that emotionally invested in anti-cop anger that you cannot evaluate the statutes logically?
Beat them with logic and legislation, not with hate and hyperbole.
Last edited:
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
Did the police officer have reasonable cause to kill the animal?
Meaning, if it was you that did this, would a juror look at you and think, "that was reasonable, I would have done the exact same thing"?
Meaning, if it was you that did this, would a juror look at you and think, "that was reasonable, I would have done the exact same thing"?
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I'm evaluating them programmatically - probably far more logically than you are. Where are you deriving "intentionally in a way to prolong suffering" and why are you still using the word "torture" which isn't required to be in violation of B(1)?
wrightme
Regular Member
No, you are not. You are falsely assigning 'torture' where it does not apply.
But, I have followed the statutes programmatically, from beginning up to the point (or points) where violations seem likely. b(1) does not match events.
stealthyeliminator said:
Actually it was you who kept presenting 'torture,' was it not? I assumed you were still going on at that.
But, you are incorrect about B1:
So you agree it was not torture. So you are now moving to 'in a cruel manner?' Do you claim that gunshot is 'in a cruel manner?'
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
It is a state jail felony to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, in a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain, cause serious bodily injury to an animal.
My statement was not a strawman. If the act causes unjustified or unwarranted pain it meets the definition of "cruel manner." If the act causes serious bodily injury as well, then what you have is: in a cruel manner causes seriously bodily injury. Unless the act is otherwise justified by statute, you've made a violation of B1. This is not that difficult.
Edit: The only way it could not be a violation is if a gunshot wound does not cause pain, or if shooting the animal was justifiable.
My statement was not a strawman. If the act causes unjustified or unwarranted pain it meets the definition of "cruel manner." If the act causes serious bodily injury as well, then what you have is: in a cruel manner causes seriously bodily injury. Unless the act is otherwise justified by statute, you've made a violation of B1. This is not that difficult.
Edit: The only way it could not be a violation is if a gunshot wound does not cause pain, or if shooting the animal was justifiable.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
There are the portions you chose to place in bold. It appears that you felt 'torture' was applicable.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
That is where it does not fit.
And, here is the actual statute definition:
Is it your claim that killing an animal with a firearm 'causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering?' Without seeing the actual shooting result, I would assume the cop shot until the dog stopped moving to ensure a kill. How is that considered ANY level of 'pain or suffering?'
If it were 'hacked it to death with a meat cleaver,' you might have a point.
It if were 'forced it to drink a gallon of radiator fluid,' you might have a point.
As it is, you seem to only have 'if a cop did it, it wasn't justified.'
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Unless you ignore the definitions section of the statute, it fits perfectly. Unless the dog was paralyzed and incapable of feeling pain, that is.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
No, in the video the animal was still moving seconds after the officer stopped firing. Try again.
Edit: That's what you get for making assumptions. You get wrong conclusions.
Last edited:
- Status