Originally posted by: alkemyst
No I did not. I said the average person could not have determined BASED on what the OP has stated that the animal was ready to be put down. Purring doesn't mean anything as well...
......
No, I have said it as the law looks at it. You clearly do not understand the issue. Having someone else kill your pet, even with consent that is not legally sanctioned to falls under another higher level of crime usually.
......
The law as well as animal medical experts begs to differ on that view. There usually should never be any reason anyone would need to wait overnight for treatment except in very rural areas.
.......
If you don't understand the difference in a feral cat and a house cat and the reasoning behind the laws, there is nothing to explain. Shooting something point blank esp with a .22 doesn't mean much.
..............
Is it? There are many many cases of temporary paralysis from auto accidents. The point is many times those same toddlers turned out ok when the parents thought they were dead.
...............
Mass opinion esp when most are commenting based on emotion and not knowing any facts really makes that easy. #1 fact is he broke the law....that's really the main issue. #2 fact is most without a science background think they understand things they do not.
If the animal was truly needing to be put to sleep a vet should have handled that properly and humanely. It doesn't cost a fortune like people ASSUME.
What you said was this:
Originally posted by: alkemyst
If the cat was purring, I don't really see how you could have determined it was beyond help as well.
It really could be interpreted either way. Sorry if that's not what you meant.
From what I could find, the NJ law you posted earlier are just regulations applicable to "Sanitary Operations of Kennels, Pet Shops, Shelters and Pounds". I'm sure there is some law somewhere in NJ relating to animal cruelty, but I'm not so sure the passage you posted applies to regular Joe. The only thing I could find was
here. Basically, it would be open for the court's interpretation as to whether or not the OP was justified in putting the animal down.
Lots of laws, especially animal cruelty laws, are designed to stop sickos from killing animals without reason, and to prevent them from enacting any morbid curiosities they might have. You don't always need a science background to know your animal is going to die....some injuries are obvious, and it sounded to me like the OP and family had done enough to determine that. It seems the crux of the argument here is whether or not someone without a vet degree can be qualified to sanction mercy killing an animal. That may just be something we're not going to agree on. I have no ethical objections to what the OP did.
It's not a always a lot of money to euthanize, but if my cat had smashed by a car, the prolonging of suffering in order to scientifically determine the obvious would be unfair to the animal.