In an extraordinary and desperate attempt to get her veterinary license back, Kristen Lindsey (KL), through her attorney Brian Bishop, has argued that Tiger’s owners tacitly consented to KL’s killing of Tiger with an arrow to the head. The phrase that the attorney used in his written argument is “apparently assented”.
KL is challenging the decision to suspend her license by an application for judicial review of the decision by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (“the board”). As I understand it she is doing this by arguing that two of the board’s rules are invalid and unlawful. She won’t win this one.
In short KL wants her license back and she is finding any way possible to achieve that goal even when the argument is as bizarre as the one presented by her lawyer.
The idea of Tiger’s owners giving her consent to kill their cat comes from the law itself. The law is Texas Penal Code 42.092. It states that a person commits an offence [of animal cruelty] if “without the owner’s effective consent, kills….an animal'”
This weird phrase “effective consent” is puzzling. KL’s lawyer appears to have used it to dream up a defense to his client’s criminal behaviour. The lawyer is arguing that as KL had implied permission to kill Tiger she has not committed a crime and therefore her license should be reinstated.
According to the Justice for Tiger FB page, in Texas a person can kill an animal on their land if the owner of the animal gives consent. This is very odd and I can’t fathom it out. However, KL’s attorney has argued that as Tiger’s owners know Texas animal welfare laws they gave their tacit consent to the killing of Tiger when he walked across a field rented by KL. On a common sense basis this argument is hopeless. It is a measure of the desperation of KL’s attorney to find something, anything to get her off.
To add insult to injury KL has never apologised to Tiger’s owners. Also she refused to admit that she killed Tiger. She must have argued she killed some other cat. It was proved she had killed Tiger. And to show the world what a nasty individual KL is she refused to return Tiger’s body to his owners for cremation having been asked to do so. She probably did this as a means to defend herself and muddy the case against her. It just goes to show how nasty this has become.
It has to be said too that the lawyers argument is hurtful to Tiger’s owners. It is insulting and immoral. I’d be livid if I was the owner.
The results of the hearing to reinstate her license is due out at any time. Elisa Black-Taylor will report on it the moment she hears. I presume that KL’s parents are paying her legal fees and the tax payer is paying the fees of the lawyers acting for the board. They’ll be expensive.
Note: the word “tacit” means: understood or implied without being stated. The word “assented” means: express approval or agreement.
Source: Tiger’s Justice Team News Page on FB.