When a person is convicted of the unlawful killing of someone’s pet cat the owner seeks compensation for their loss; this is ‘restitution’.
A recent live and real case can be used to illustrate how it works. It concerns Pam Dowell, the lady who is moving home to get away from some neighbors, one of whom, Steven Mishow, pleaded guilty in a criminal court to two misdemeanour counts of cruelty to animals. He had shot at Dowell’s two cats. He admitted in a secret recording that he had ‘killed the motherfucker..’
He paid promptly!….
Dowell decided to move to a better neighbourhood and I agree with her decision. When your neighbours are consistently misbehaving and show no sign of letting up or changing their ways the best solution, even though it feels like a ‘defeat’ is to get out, to walk away. Life is too short to do anything else.
Back to restitution. The cats were never found but the judge decided, it seems to me (I’ll happily be corrected), that Mishow killed the cats as Judge Korey Wahwassuck ordered restitution on Dowell’s application.
“The State has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that P.D. [Pam Dowell] is entitled to restitution for the fair market replacement value of two cats.”
Dowell had asked for over $10,000. In her request she stated that ‘the cost of obtaining a new cat, including spaying/neutering, declawing, and other veterinarian bills, is approximately $500-$600’. Dowell had also asked for compensation in respect of other items such as the care costs of the two killed cats, Olivia and Emerald, for the period 2007-2017 amounting to almost $8,000.
The defendant, Mishow, objected to the amount and offered $100. He argued that the amount should be limited to the ‘fair market value of the cats’.
The judge stated in the court order that:
‘…restitution must be limited to losses incurred as a direct result of the crime for which the Defendant has been convicted.’ (i.e. the loss of PD’s two cats). Restitution would pay for replacement cats.
YOU CAN READ THE ENTIRE COURT RESTITUTION ORDER BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK – published with the permission of Pam Dowell.
This begs the interesting question as to why restitution does not cover emotional distress. The true loss by the cats’ owner amounts to more than two cats. There is the long term emotional distress caused as a consequence. This is real and tangible. Some judges do allow compensation to cover such ‘loses’ (loss of contentment) but rarely.
Judge Korey Wahwassuck stuck to the conventional decision and agreed PD’s figure of $500 per cat and granted restitution of $1,000. It felt like a loss to PD but I’d say it was a success. Of course, it is far short of compensating for the true loss.
I am sure that the concept of restitution is standard procedure in most countries. In California, USA, restitution is mandatory for all persons convicted of any crime including cruelty to animals.
In a well-known case of cat cruelty which I reported on some time ago, a drive by shooter of a cat, Kyre West, was ordered to pay $276 in restitution to the cat’s caregiver.
[weaver_show_posts cats=”” tags=”crime” author=”” author_id=”” single_post=”” post_type=” orderby=”date” sort=”ASC” number=”3″ show=”full” hide_title=”” hide_top_info=”1″ hide_bottom_info=”1″ show_featured_image=”1″ hide_featured_image=”” show_avatar=”” show_bio=”” excerpt_length=”” style=”background-color:HoneyDew; border:2px dotted darkgrey; padding:12px” class=”” header=”Associated pages (this is a selection. Please search for more):” header_style=”color:Indigo; font-size:130%;” header_class=”” more_msg=”” left=0 right=0 clear=0]
It seems to me that, if you’re so paranoid about others disagreeing with you, it would make sense to simply discontinue your comments section. Share your views with the world, but don’t accept any “back-talk”. Here’s my photo BTW:
https://media2.picsearch.com/is?pyXwy33PPFsl5UkyUKisuoIuC8os0H6t179KJVh1ogw&height=267
I accept back talk and I accept criticisms etc..I am far from paranoid. I am the most normal person you’ll ever meet. I am sick and tired of crazy cat shooting trolls. They need to have the courage to tell the world who they are but they won’t because they advocate criminal activity against cats. That’s why I have the rules. It stops them. Next time you comment you must be polite towards me otherwise it’ll be your turn to be banned. Anyone who has the stupidity to insult me and expect their comment to be published deserves to be removed from the site.
I believe the. S.E. King is meant to spoof me. Good luck with that.
Followup response. I have just seen your supposed photo. Clearly a visual insult. BBB. Banned and Bye Bye.
I concur with your statement
Micheal doesnt like when others have a different opinion. Pam found someone who thinks like her; in a different country. No one in the USA would. She has latched on. How many more pages are going to be dedicated to Pam. There is another blog now that gives the other side to the story. Micheal runs this blog to hurt innocent parties. Heaven forbid if he tailored insults for everyone. You throw the truth out about Pam, he needs to protect her feelings. This is her safe place. For some who was a couple for a short stint, she is very easily offended. Maybe she can spend the money n get a cat and find another feral. The judge should request proof of new animals. If no proof it should
be considered fraud. What a community joke. Her SE street corner is waiting for her.
You are very wrong. I am perfectly happy to be criticised when I am wrong. I support people who treat cats humanely and dislike people who treat cats inhumanely. I think you need to think more clearly. I am afraid you have it all wrong.
So because someone doesn’t have your same view point. They are wrong. You encourage and promote hate. Your double standard isn’t working.
No, I let trolls post comments all the time. Please stop being blind and annoying. I let people with alternative viewpoints post comments. I actually like it. I don’t allow non-compliance with comment rules.
I am scrupulously fair. If I did what you say I do your comment and many others would not be published! Wake up please.
You let others use hateful words to Steve n any support he had to fight against a cat owner who was not responsible. You violate you so called rules to frame you story. You will let Christine post her Wish for violence. If someone doesn’t agree with you, you yourself condemn them. Go figure. Your the only person Pam could find to contribute to her hate. The only person that would even listen to the so called tape. The tape was never played in court. No one heard it. You personally can not say personally which one was Steven. You personally do not know. You received it from Pam. She can’t even get the story straight on how she received the recording. So because Pam said, it must be right.
I disagree with you and Steve was convicted of a crime and admitted killing cats. I only condemn people who like to kill cats and who kill them for no reason other than a dislike of cats. The deserve condemnation. No one is a saint here but Steve and his supporters are less good than those on the other side. That’s clear.
Again that’s your point a view. Protecting property from bring damage by cats.
You again are saying that because people do not have your view point they are bad people. Pam neglected to keep her cats safe. She let them out to roam. She us at fault. She really has no idea what happened. She states she seen the wound in the cat. Why did she let it back out? What did. She do with her cat. Her victim impact statement doesn’t not match the original complaint. Did you read both?
Steven has a right to protect his property. With Pam not living in Cohasset. Who is going to feed her feral cats, raccoons and skunks. She now has abandoned them causing another issue. The new owners are going to have strays to deal with. Yet another typical character of Pam’s.
It is illegal and cruel to ‘protect property’ by killing cats. You don’t get that which is worrying.
I agree Steve was protecting his property against cats that we’re damaging it. That is not wrong. Why does he have to suffer damage to his house because someone invites feral cats in a neighborhood. If she loved her cat, she would have kept it in the house. If a dig attacks someone the owner is responsible. Pam should be responsible. She is not. That tape also does not give a date it was recorded. The people in the tape are not saying their names. The whole conversation wasnt recorded. You want to join n an ruin this family. Wonder who Pam’s next victim will be. It won’t be long till she calls eery single vmedia outlet for another. “Pamela Dowell was victimized” article. Maybe it will be the people who sold her her new house. I’m sure they lied about something. Like the Ford Dealership,the person who built her last house, and the Princeton and Malica law enforcement departments. She is always a victim of something. Only a matter of time.
Dean, you are ignoring the will of the people. The will of the people is reflected in the laws of the county, city or state or country. And if the law says that Steve did something wrong which he admittedly did (and convicted) then it is pointless to argue that he is protecting his property. Under these circumstances protecting his property is unlawful in the way he did it. I find it very surprising that you don’t understand that.
He had the option to protect his property in a humane and decent way without killing someone’s cats. These were not feral cats by the way because they were cared for by a human being.
If you don’t like it then there’s no point in criticising the person who owns the cats. You should criticise the law and the lawmakers and try and do something about it.
This seems to be an example of “be careful what you wish for”.
The potential for liability is far greater if an individual can demonstrate his neighbor’s animal had damaged or destroyed his property. This happens far more often than somebody deliberately killing a cat.
Also, the ones who even get charged with anything for shooting a cat are those careless individuals who forget the “SSS rule”–shoot, shovel and shut-up.
Those people who use the SSS rules are S’s
I forget to say. You are a troll so it’s BBB for you: Banned Bye Bye.
This above person is a friend of Rachel’s who used this exact saying on one of her posts. Classy bunch of losers.
Said the person who team is no better. Grow up.
We sued our murdering DVM despite knowing the odds of recovering more than the actual value of our cat was almost non existent.
They have a victory and they can now proceed to make sure his life is wrecked.
There is a record and my guess being he will not pay means they need to actively pursue it as it could result in jail time. Failing to obey the orders of the court is called contempt.
Since this was tried in criminal court she may now be able to move on to civil court where punitive damages and more life wrecking can be had by obtaining a judgment that can be attached to his property, cars, and even garnishment. You can find out how to file a small claims and your states limits and do it yourself for a minimum amount of money. Generally a conviction in criminal court is an auto win in civil since the balance of guilty in a civil case is much different.
And in all other cases the cat-shooter…(deleted because of non-compliance with comment rules. I need to see a photo of you. You can upload one. I will also need verification that your name is genuine – Admin).
Just curious–I see no photos of any posters in here. Some of them apparently not required to post their photos. I suspect if you require this of ALL your posters, you soon won’t have any, if for no other reason that it’s too much trouble, and most people value their privacy–the internet has become too invasive as it is. Just a thought.
That rule applies to trolls only.
So my asking questions, or polite observations, makes me a “troll”? Please explain what was “trollish” about my previous posts.
Your reference to SSS. The way it was written “those careless individuals’ indicate that you are part of this group. No more comments please. They won’t be published.