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:
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.