Did the man who shot a cat in Florida commit a crime?
Yes he did. I am referring to the recent article I wrote describing the shooting of a community cat in broad daylight. A man shot the cat twice. The second time he finished the cat off by a shot to the head and am told. The whole thing was witnessed at close range by two ladies. The evidence is as good as it gets.
This person has committed a crime under the animal protection laws of Florida. Some of the comments argue that he did not commit a crime. The police have said he did not commit a crime and failed to arrest and charge the man. They appear to be ignorant of the law they are paid to uphold.
This page contains the entire animal welfare laws (PDF file):
Florida Animal Protection Laws
I’ll refer to the section that is relevant to the this incident:
| Useful links |
|---|
| Anxiety - reduce it |
| FULL Maine Coon guide - lots of pages |
| Children and cats - important |
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.
In my opinion 828.12 (2) is applicable.
In the case referred to, witnesses said that the person shot the cat twice. The first shot would have caused unnecessary pain or suffering and the second shot killed the cat. The person’s actions caused the cat’s cruel death.
This is a common sense interpretation of this statute. Where the cat was killed is irrelevant. There are no exceptions in the statute that refers to the location of the animal at the time of the cruelty.
The time after the cat was shot up to the time he was killed he would have suffered which is unlawful.
Woody
First of all Michael is more of a man than you ever hope to be; he is a gentleman and unlike you he doesn’t hide behind a facade of self imagined intellect. You are a coward and you are very likely guilty of plagiarism; there can be no other explanation for the unfounded scientifics you spout time and again as there is no room in your head for anything other than sick, evil, malicious rubbish. You are indeed a Troll of the worst possible kind and I can’t be bothered to read even the first paragraph of anything you write because I know it will be nothing but the most boring repetition.
He most certainly committed a crime, if the law states “(1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal” the part about killing said animal applies in this case. He shot the cat, the initial shot will have caused pain and suffering, another thing mentioned in the law Michael posted. I am SO pleased we have the gun laws we have in the UK.
Me too Vicky, it’s very frightening that so many people have guns in the USA and that a person like that man can kill an animal in cold blood and get away with it.
LOVING IT that this balderdash is clocking up all the 5 cents donations for the next needy cat, whayyy hay what an idiot you are Woody.
” They appear to be ignorant of the law they are paid to uphold.”
I think that has always been a statement of the obvious in many parts of the US concerning police. I would bet they don’t even know why they do protect what they do think they protect.
It’s funny that somebody would think you live in a basement. Is that really the best argument somebody can make when they don’t like what you say…. lol. Probably they are the ones in the basement. Afterwll one would assume it takes one to know one. General Keith Alexander (the fracking mongrel of a shit that he is) claimed that all hackers live in basements and don’t meet people of the opposite sex. But have you seen him? Methinks he doth pre-emptive object too much.
The rest of the world may as well face it – there are Americans who think guns can do no wrong. They will immediately say to that “well obviously they can” – but that is purely for the sake of argument. They just can’t see it in reality – only in a fantastical argumentative situation.
This person, Sueanne, is making up the law as she goes along. Perhaps she is Woody. Could be just pure trolling.
If she is real she has no conception as to what the law means. She has never quoted the law or set out a reasonable argument about why the killing of this cat is within the law, which it obviously is not.
There is a fascination with guns in America and “guns can do no wrong” sort of sums it up.
lol I’ve just asked on another article if it’s a transvestite Woody or if it’s his sister, it’s just such bitter twisted unprovable rubbish he/she/it writes
I just find it interesting that Micheal has so far not deleted nor edited any of my posts if I use a feminine moniker. Apparently he’s far too much intimidated by anything even slightly related to masculinity. This says much about him. LOL
He doesn’t delete trolls comments because he likes to show other visitors what bitter twisted people there are in the world.
You don’t make any friends here by your nasty comments under your various aliases Woody and you convince no one you are right so I don’t know why you waste so much time.
Goodnight, I’m off now to spend time with my cats because they are far more worth it than you will ever be.
You have that wrong, Woody. Your Sueanne persona does not rant or use the F word but she is still barmy. Remember I wanted to talk to you on the phone etc. and you ran. You’re a sad troll.
I think one needs to work on being human before assigning any gender to themselves.
lol good one Dee
p.s. You didn’t use your highlighter properly.
“…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, …”
As already explained to you, killing an animal with a gun is not considered “inhumane” — anywhere on earth.
Your desperate myopia is getting the best of you. You should have just highlighted “kills”, or only quoted the word “kills”, then people wouldn’t realize you’re grasping at straws.
Where the hell does that come from? Your head no doubt. A head full of gun fantasy and basic instinct. Pathetic. In the UK is would be a crime to do that. You are so ignorant.
You are a human animal. Do you think if someone shot you, you’d understand how much it hurts? How much suffering it causes. Would you say it was humane?
As Marc says you think guns can do no wrong. You have regressed. You are going backwards.
Same old broken record, maniacal content. Just a different day. You’re beginning to bore me, Woody.
Got anything fresh and new that you may have evidentiary support for?
Bow-hunters who must (by law) track down a deer they shot, sometimes for a whole day, to find where it finally died, are also not guilty of animal cruelty. That’s the way the world works Michael. I’m sorry that you can’t comprehend that from your mommy’s basement bedroom that is the sum of your world and only known reality.
You are admitting that the animal may well have been in pain for a day! So you are causing animal suffering for your own pleasure.
Why don’t you try and quote some real law and apply it to the case in point rather than admitting that people who shoot deer with arrows cause animal suffering.
I don’t live in a basement, I am almost 65 years old and a former solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales and my mother died two years ago.
Quoting unrelated laws out of context isn’t going to change reality.
I am quoting related law in context and you know that 😉