Simply....unbelievable -

J_dazzle23 · Oct 19, 2014

wrightme said:
Nope, not at all. This is a non-livestock animal, and has nothing to do with self-defense statutes where 'stop the threat' is the goal.

Pardon my lack of comprehension.

If this was treated as anything other than a threat to be stopped, it seems it would have fallen upon animal control.

in my layman's understanding, it sounds like you are interpreting this situation as "he can shoot the dog because he is an LEO and that's his job"

within the performance of the office

Am I reading that right?

WalkingWolf · Oct 19, 2014

Cruel

—used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it

: causing or helping to cause suffering : terrible and unfair
merriam-webster

cru·el·ty

: a desire to cause others to suffer : the quality or state of being cruel

: actions that cause suffering

: an act or occurrence that causes suffering
merriam-webster

cruelty to animals n. the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Animal+cruelty

Cruelty to Animals. The infliction of physical pain, suffering or death upon an animal, when not necessary for purposes of training or discipline or (in the case of death) to procure food or to release the animal from incurable suffering, but done wantonly, for mere sport, for the indulgence of a cruel and vindictive temper, or with reckless indifference to its pain.
MSPCA

The infliction of physical pain, suffering, or death upon an animal, when not necessary for purposes of training or discipline or (in the case of death) to procure food or to release the animal from incurable suffering, but done wantonly, for mere sport, for the indulgence of a cruel and vindictive temper, or with reckless indifference to its pain. Com. v. Lufkiu, 7 Allen (Mass.) 5S1; State v. Avery, 44 N. H. 302; Paine v. Bergh, 1 City CL R. (N. Y.) 100; State v. Porter, 112 N. C. 887, 10 S. E. 915; State v. Bosworth, 54 Conn. 1, 4 Atl. 248; McKinney v. State, 81 Ga. 1G4, 9 S. E. 1091; Waters v. People, 23 Colo. 33, 40 Pac. 112, 33 L. R. A. 830, 58 Am. St. Rep. 215.
http://thelawdictionary.org/cruelty-to-animals/
What is the legal definition of animal cruelty in Georgia?
a. Cruelty to Animals (misdemeanor charge): A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals when he/she causes death or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act, an omission, or willful neglect. O.C.G.A. §16-12-4

§Willful neglect means the intentional withholding of food and water required by an animal to prevent starvation or dehydration. O.C.G.A. §16-12-4

§Adequate food and water means food and water that is sufficient in an amount and appropriate for the particular type of animal to prevent starvation, dehydration, or a significant risk to the animal's health from a lack of food or water. O.C.G.A. §§4-11-2, 4-13-2

§Humane care of animals means, but is not limited to, the provision of adequate heat, ventilation, sanitary shelter, and wholesome and adequate food and water, consistent with the normal requirements and feeding habits of the animal's size, species, and breed. O.C.G.A. §§4-11-2, 4-13-2

b. Aggravated Cruelty to Animals (felony charge): A person commits the offense of aggravated cruelty to animals when he or she knowingly and maliciously causes death or physical harm to an animal by rendering a part of such animal's body useless or by seriously disfiguring such animal… [paraphrased] except for conduct otherwise permitted under state or federal law. O.C.G.A. §16-12-4

Local law enforcement (municipal or county police department or county sheriff's department) enforces the criminal provisions of Cruelty to Animals, O.C.G.A. §16-12-4. An animal control officer is an individual authorized by local law or by the governing authority of a county or municipality to carry out the duties imposed by local ordinance and certain articles contained within the Georgia Animal Protection Act, O.C.G.A. §4-11-2

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

J_dazzle23 said:
Pardon my lack of comprehension.

If this was treated as anything other than a threat to be stopped, it seems it would have fallen upon animal control.

As to 'threat to be stopped,' I agree that if it were a s/d situation, it would be a 'threat to be stopped.'
And, if it were a 'threat to be stopped,' shooting the dog and not killing it would not be a violation of statute as a 'torture or in a cruel manner' act, but as an act of self-defense.

J_dazzle23 said:
in my layman's understanding, it sounds like you are interpreting this situation as "he can shoot the dog because he is an LEO and that's his job"

Am I reading that right?

No, I am saying that the point is still to be decided, if his actions fit within the performance of his duties as an leo or not.

I am NOT defending the actions of the LEO. I am presenting my interpretation of the applicable statutes, and following with how I think they are likely to be applied in this case.

My personal feeling is that the cop violated b(2). I also believe that the finding will be that the cop shot the dog 'in the performance of his duties as a public servant,' whether that is accurate or not.

Further, if that IS the finding result, I would urge anyone in TX to lobby to have legislation presented to clarify how LE are allowed to interact with 'dogs at large' under such circumstances as this.

The owner failed to keep the pets penned up. That does not justify killing one of the dogs. In the video, I saw NONE of the aggression the cop claimed as justification for shooting, but I also understand that we could not see the dogs for the entire time of the video.

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
[/I]

Not sure what you feel that GA statutes have to do with a case in TX....

The TX statutes cited already included the definitions that will be referred to in any determinations.

WalkingWolf · Oct 19, 2014

wrightme said:
Not sure what you feel that GA statutes have to do with a case in TX....

The TX statutes cited already included the definitions that will be referred to in any determinations.

:lol::lol::lol:

§ 42.09. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:
(1) tortures an animal;
(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food,
care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody;
(3) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's
custody;
(4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel
manner;
(5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to
an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats,
belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's
effective consent;

Learn to read...
:lol:

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
:lol::lol::lol:

;

Miss.

Sec. 42.09. CRUELTY TO LIVESTOCK ANIMALS.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

Where are you finding 42.09 as pertaining to all animals yet?

42.09 is for livestock
42.092 is for non-livestock animals, and has been cited already, and is what I have been speaking of.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.09

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 42.09 : Texas Statutes - Section 42.09: CRUELTY TO LIVESTOCK ANIMALS - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.09#sthash.veVHWKzP.dpuf
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:
(1) tortures a livestock animal;
(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, or care for a livestock animal in the person's custody;
(3) abandons unreasonably a livestock animal in the person's custody;
(4) transports or confines a livestock animal in a cruel and unusual manner;
(5) administers poison to a livestock animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent;
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.09#sthash.veVHWKzP.dpuf

twoskinsonemanns · Oct 19, 2014

J_dazzle23 said:
How are we worried about how much pain the dog was in, as opposed to the fact that the dog got shot in the first place?

Any cop that is scared of serious permanant bodily injury that a 7 month old dog that he can get to obey a command to come to him, to the point of shooting it, is not fit to be a public servant IMO.

heaven forbid a 9 year old kid with a wrist rocket or paintball gun approach an officer.

(whistle.. whistle...whistle) "Come here! Come here lil piggy! Want a doughnut? That's a good boy..."

tcbrad98 · Oct 19, 2014

twoskinsonemanns said:
(whistle.. whistle...whistle) "Come here! Come here lil piggy! Want a doughnut? That's a good boy..."

[emoji95][emoji106]

WalkingWolf · Oct 19, 2014

3) Shooting “stray” Dogs and Cats (Penal Code 42.09 Animal Cruelty). Any person who shoots a non-livestock animal, which includes any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured, can be charged with a felony offense. Penal Code 42.092 of the State of Texas law states that a person must have the owner’s consent to kill the animal (exceptions to prosecution are provided in Section 42.092(e)(1)). It is clear that a “stray” dog or cat either has no owner or that the person who shoots the animal did not get the owner’s consent.

http://www.hcpawpals.org/TexasAnimalLaws.aspx

Texas Criminal Animal Protection Laws
James Key
1
Introduction
Criminal animal protection laws in Texas consist primarily of four provisions of the
Texas Penal Code which cover cruelty to livestock and nonlivestock animals, attacks on
assistance animals and dog fighting. This document sets out each of these laws and highlights
relevant case law developments for each.
All four of these laws have been modified in the past decade. A single “cruelty to
animals” offense had covered both livestock and nonlivestock animals until 2007, when the
statute was essentially split into two statutes. The 2007 changes also codified a definition of
“torture” that had been widely used by the courts. This document will offer a brief overview of
the history of these statutes to facilitate research.

http://www.apainc.org/files/DDF/Texas Animal Cruelty Summary.pdf

And to add even more further down in the statute

Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(2) without the owner's effective consent,kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

stealthyeliminator · Oct 19, 2014

wrightme said:
I am not mad, I am asking if you truly believe that shooting an animal to kill it fits 'in a cruel manner.'

The strawman was what you attempted to claim I had said or meant.
"If you want to rest on "the dog's death was instantaneous" go right ahead. "

That was what I called out as 'strawman' created by you.

If the act is unjustified and causes pain then it qualifies the definition of in a cruel manner.

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
3) Shooting “stray” Dogs and Cats (Penal Code 42.09 Animal Cruelty). Any person who shoots a non-livestock animal, which includes any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured, can be charged with a felony offense

Shooting stray dogs is no longer a part of 42.09, is it?
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.09

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:

(1) tortures a livestock animal;

(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, or care for a livestock animal in the person's custody;

(3) abandons unreasonably a livestock animal in the person's custody;

(4) transports or confines a livestock animal in a cruel and unusual manner;

(5) administers poison to a livestock animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent;

(6) causes one livestock animal to fight with another livestock animal or with an animal as defined by Section 42.092;

(7) uses a live livestock animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack;

(8) trips a horse; or

(9) seriously overworks a livestock animal.

Here is the bill that changed the statute. You should cite the statutes from the authoritative source, not from blogs and orgs that are referring to outdated information.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02328F.HTM

WW said:
And to add even more further down in the statute

Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(2) without the owner's effective consent,kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

Yes, 42.092(b)(2) is what I have been citing as the statute that I feel has been violated.

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
If the act is unjustified and causes pain then it qualifies the definition of in a cruel manner.

He shot and killed the dog. That fits b(2). If he was justified, it would not be a violation.

You really are working hard to get it to fit the 'no exceptions' violation category.

WalkingWolf · Oct 19, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
If the act is unjustified and causes pain then it qualifies the definition of in a cruel manner.

That is what it boils down to~~was it justified, if the dogs had not injured anyone I would say no it was not justified. And Texas law backs it up. Killing an animal is cruelty to animals when not justified. Just like homicide is illegal unless justified.

Saying it is not cruelty is as silly as saying shooting a drone is lethal force.:lol::lol::lol:

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
That is what it boils down to~~was it justified, if the dogs had not injured anyone I would say no it was not justified. And Texas law backs it up. Killing an animal is cruelty to animals when not justified. Just like homicide is illegal unless justified.

Saying it is not cruelty is as silly as saying shooting a drone is lethal force.:lol::lol::lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

stealthyeliminator · Oct 19, 2014

wrightme said:
He shot and killed the dog. That fits b(2). If he was justified, it would not be a violation.

You really are working hard to get it to fit the 'no exceptions' violation category.

No, I don't consider it hard work to apply simple logic. It fits where it fits. It fitting in b2 or b6 doesn't somehow disqualify it from fitting into b1.

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
No, I don't consider it hard work to apply simple logic. It fits where it fits. It fitting in b2 or b6 doesn't somehow disqualify it from fitting into b1.

Never said that fitting in b2 did disqualify it. That would be another strawman you are creating.

It doesn't fit in as cruelty under the statutes. It fits in as 'killing without consent.'

Like I mentioned, unless you consider shooting a dog for the express purpose of killing it, to be 'in a cruel manner.'

I do not feel it fits in the statute. Do you have any case law to present that supports your opinion?

WalkingWolf · Oct 19, 2014

Cite this "killing without consent" statute.

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Cite this "killing without consent" statute.

It is in the 42.092 that I, you, and others have cited.

It is 42.092 b(2).

WalkingWolf said:
3) And to add even more further down in the statute

Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(2) without the owner's effective consent,kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;

Do you not recall posting that?

se first posted it in post 11.

stealthyeliminator said:
Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS. (a) In this section:

(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;

stealthyeliminator · Oct 19, 2014

wrightme said:
Never said that fitting in b2 did disqualify it. That would be another strawman you are creating.

It doesn't fit in as cruelty under the statutes. It fits in as 'killing without consent.'

Like I mentioned, unless you consider shooting a dog for the express purpose of killing it, to be 'in a cruel manner.'

I do not feel it fits in the statute. Do you have any case law to present that supports your opinion?

Then you must believe that the shooting was otherwise justified, that a gunshot wound does not cause pain to an animal, or that death was instantaneous, since that's the only way this wouldn't qualify as in a cruel manner according to the definition of in a cruel manner in the statute. Fee free to search case law if you wish, I was considering it but with the way you've been acting I don't think I will.

Edit: oh, and no, that's not a straw man either... Give it a rest please.

wrightme · Oct 19, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Then you must believe that the shooting was otherwise justified, that a gunshot wound does not cause pain to an animal, or that death was instantaneous, since that's the only way this wouldn't qualify as in a cruel manner according to the definition of in a cruel manner in the statute. Fee free to search case law if you wish, I was considering it but with the way you've been acting I don't think I will.

No, that is simply how you are viewing it. Do you have case law that supports your opinion or not?
How have I 'acted' that changes your choice of presentation? I challenged your opinion on the statutes.

Simply....unbelievable -

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member