Remember the idiot that managed to get shot while killing puppies?

[Viper GTS]

He got charged

Here's the specific section of Florida's code that covers animal cruelty. I trimmed the end of it since this doesn't involve torture, vets, or horses. If you want to see the whole thing I have included a link. I have italicized what he was charged under.

Florida Statute

828.12 Cruelty to animals.--

(1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

(2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
...

I have no problem with the law as it is written, but IMO the prosecutor is way out of line here. A gun is the most humane way to dispatch animals that most people have available to them, and is arguably more humane than methods used by vets (who are exempt from animal cruelty charges). Furthermore, in 828.05 shooting is officially deemed a "humane and proficient manner."

Florida law does provide guidelines for euthanasia of dogs & cats (828.058), basically lethal injection performed by a vet.

This guy (admittedly an idiot) now faces a potential sentence of 5 years in prison + $10,000 in fines.

It seems to me that the charges are purely to appease the public sentiment, hopefully the jury can see through the BS. As a test, we'll poll the population here.

Viper GTS

 

[mobobuff]

It's quick if they're shot in the head.

What if he was shooting them in say, the stomach? Or pelvis? Do we know? Otherwise, .1

 

[Kilgor]

A .22 would have been a better choice. Should have just taken them to the pound.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
It's quick if they're shot in the head.

What if he was shooting them in say, the stomach? Or pelvis? Do we know? Otherwise, .1

A .38 on a 6 week old puppy is going to be quick no matter where the shot is placed. Even a .22 would be quick. Short of all out torture, death would be quick. Since he attempted to give them away first (and obviously continued to provide for them in the mean time) it isn't very logical to assume that he was trying to torture them.

Viper GTS

 

[Spikesoldier]

1

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Having raised livestock. Which involved killing many of them at one point or another. The difference between what he did and what we did from an outsider's standpoint is that he shot and killed dogs while we stuck chickens upside down in a funnel, slit thier throats and let the blood drain. Compared to the act of slaughtering chickens what he did was downright humane. It's the word "puppies" compared to "chickens" that brings out the outrage.

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mobobuff
It's quick if they're shot in the head.

What if he was shooting them in say, the stomach? Or pelvis? Do we know? Otherwise, .1

A .38 on a 6 week old puppy is going to be quick no matter where the shot is placed. Even a .22 would be quick. Short of all out torture, death would be quick. Since he attempted to give them away first (and obviously continued to provide for them in the mean time) it isn't very logical to assume that he was trying to torture them.

Viper GTS

Nah. I've shot a raccoon before in the pelvis with a 20 gauge (it was an awkward shot, I was trying not to hit the siding of the garage, it was birdshot), and it took it a good 2 or 3 minutes to die. I would have shot it again in the back of the neck, but I only had one shell and didn't feel like opening another box. I've seen many 6 week old dogs larger than a raccoon.

But I still can only say he's guilty of part 1. Is it right or not? Well that's a whole other debate.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: mobobuff

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mobobuff
It's quick if they're shot in the head.

What if he was shooting them in say, the stomach? Or pelvis? Do we know? Otherwise, .1

A .38 on a 6 week old puppy is going to be quick no matter where the shot is placed. Even a .22 would be quick. Short of all out torture, death would be quick. Since he attempted to give them away first (and obviously continued to provide for them in the mean time) it isn't very logical to assume that he was trying to torture them.

Viper GTS

Nah. I've shot a raccoon before in the pelvis with a 20 guage (it was an awkward shot, I was trying not to hit the siding of the garage, it was birdshot), and it took it a good 2 or 3 minutes to die. I would have shot it again in the back of the neck, but I only had one shell and didn't feel like opening another box. I've seen many 6 week year old dogs larger than a raccoon.

But I still can only say he's guilty of part 1. Is it right or not? Well that's a whole other debate.

Birdshot? When did shotguns come into this debate?

Viper GTS

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mobobuff

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mobobuff
It's quick if they're shot in the head.

What if he was shooting them in say, the stomach? Or pelvis? Do we know? Otherwise, .1

A .38 on a 6 week old puppy is going to be quick no matter where the shot is placed. Even a .22 would be quick. Short of all out torture, death would be quick. Since he attempted to give them away first (and obviously continued to provide for them in the mean time) it isn't very logical to assume that he was trying to torture them.

Viper GTS

Nah. I've shot a raccoon before in the pelvis with a 20 guage (it was an awkward shot, I was trying not to hit the siding of the garage, it was birdshot), and it took it a good 2 or 3 minutes to die. I would have shot it again in the back of the neck, but I only had one shell and didn't feel like opening another box. I've seen many 6 week year old dogs larger than a raccoon.

But I still can only say he's guilty of part 1. Is it right or not? Well that's a whole other debate.

Birdshot? When did shotguns come into this debate?

Viper GTS

Are you implying a pistol is more lethal than a close-range shotgun?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Where is the option for, "What, you expect people that are too stupid to operate a punch card voting machine to be able to interpret legal code?"

 

[Thraxen]

Quite clearly guilty of #1.

or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal,

Also, it should be pointed out that he only claims to have attempted to give them away. The article doesn't appear to give any specifics on if that is true or not. Even if he did he still should have simply taken them to the pound. Also, where did the puppies come from? I'm guessing he has a dog that he wasn't responible enough to have had fixed. Judging by his picture (which may not obviously be fair), he looks like a redneck that wanted a quick fix to what was likely his fault to begin with (i.e. not having his dog fixed). But all that is simply speculation, so don't bother pointing that out. Thanks.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Are you implying a pistol is more lethal than a close-range shotgun?

At short range, of course not. My 12 gauge would be absolutely devastating at close range.

But you shot a wild animal (ie not puppy killing range) and at a range sufficient that you were trying to avoid hitting your garage, not to mention poor shot placement.

I was implying that a .38 at essentially point blank range is more lethal than poorly placed birdshot from 20' away.

Viper GTS

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Are you implying a pistol is more lethal than a close-range shotgun?

At short range, of course not. My 12 gauge would be absolutely devastating at close range.

But you shot a wild animal (ie not puppy killing range) and at a range sufficient that you were trying to avoid hitting your garage, not to mention poor shot placement.

I was implying that a .38 at essentially point blank range is more lethal than poorly placed birdshot from 20' away.

Viper GTS

I'll accept that.

But slightly off-topic... how'd he get all of those puppies in the first place?

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Quite clearly guilty of #1.

or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal,

Also, it should be pointed out that he only claims to have attempted to give them away. The article doesn't appear to give any specifics on if that is true or not. Even if he did he still should have simply taken them to the pound. Also, where did the puppies come from? I'm guessing he has a dog that he wasn't responible enough to have fixed. Judging by his picture (which may not obviously be fair), he looks like a redneck that wanted a quick fix to what was likely his fault to begin with (i.e. not having his dog fixed). But all that is simply speculation, so don't bother pointing that out. Thanks.

If you choose to interpret it that way it would essentially be illegal for anyone to kill any animal they own. Population control is explicitly condoned by the state, why should that not qualify as "necessary?" Not to mention it is his animal. By that definition it would be illegal for someone to butcher their own animals.

Also, #1 is merely a misdemeanor - Nowhere near the severity of what he was actually charged with.

Viper GTS

 

[Pepsei]

It's not a crime to not fix your dog.... he's just trying to fix it, what kind of socieity we live in when we can't abort .... oh wait...

 

[Thraxen]

If you choose to interpret it that way it would essentially be illegal for anyone to kill any animal they own. Population control is explicitly condoned by the state, why should that not qualify as "necessary?" Not to mention it is his animal. By that definition it would be illegal for someone to butcher their own animals.

Sorry, but I don't condone allowing people to simply kill pets because they found they were too irresponsible to care for them. Own up to your responibility and at least take them to the pound, a pet store, or put out some adds for free pets. Yeah, they may end up dead at pound, but at least you're clear of any legal issues. I also have a hard time believing that guy actually made any real effort to give them away. Sorry, he simply doesn't look that responsible.

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Quite clearly guilty of #1.

or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal,

Also, it should be pointed out that he only claims to have attempted to give them away. The article doesn't appear to give any specifics on if that is true or not. Even if he did he still should have simply taken them to the pound. Also, where did the puppies come from? I'm guessing he has a dog that he wasn't responible enough to have fixed. Judging by his picture (which may not obviously be fair), he looks like a redneck that wanted a quick fix to what was likely his fault to begin with (i.e. not having his dog fixed). But all that is simply speculation, so don't bother pointing that out. Thanks.

By that definition it would be illegal for someone to butcher their own animals.

Apparently in Florida, it is.

 

[Mo0o]

This is how we should deal with unwanted children too, just take em out back.


totally kidding.