HomeAnimal lawsTexas law on animal cruelty does not make sense

Comments

Texas law on animal cruelty does not make sense — 10 Comments

  1. You missed these too:

    Sec. 42.092. CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS.

    (d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

    (1) the actor had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the actor or to another person by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code; or

    (e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) or (6) that:

    (1) the animal was discovered on the person’s property in the act of or after injuring or killing the person’s livestock animals or damaging the person’s crops and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery; or

    (2) the person killed or injured the animal within the scope of the person’s employment as a public servant or in furtherance of activities or operations associated with electricity transmission or distribution, electricity generation or operations associated with the generation of electricity, or natural gas delivery.

    (f) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful:

    (1) form of conduct occurring solely for the purpose of or in support of:

    (A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or

    (B) wildlife management, wildlife or depredation control, or shooting preserve practices as regulated by state and federal law; or

    (2) animal husbandry or agriculture practice involving livestock animals.

    (g) This section does not create a civil cause of action for damages or enforcement of the section.

    If she knew the cat was stalking her own animals, or wildlife, or knew it was stalking and killing native animals deemed game-animals for hunting or trapping, all of those are legal grounds to kill anyone’s cat, even if you know it is owned and don’t ask the owner. Even if the cat was found urinating in someone’s garden, that falls under damaging someone’s crops. That too is legal grounds to kill a cat, owned or not. Animal husbandry also falls under these rules in having to kill someone’s cat if they have any livestock, to prevent their own livestock from stillbirths, miscarriages, and hydrocephaly and microcephaly caused by a stray cat infecting their livestock with Toxoplasma gondii. The #1 cause of dead lambs is cats’ Toxoplasma gondii parasite. Any cats within miles of anyone raising sheep are disposed of by any means possible. This is common-knowledge on all farms and ranches.

    Her and her lawyer could have used quite a few of those to prove the legality in killing any cat, owned or not. If the one law she’s using now to prove she legally killed the cat doesn’t work, she has plenty more to choose from.

    • I did not miss this section of the law. I deliberately avoided discussing these sections because I wanted to focus on a specific point. The points you make are irrelevant because they were not used by KL’s attorney. I am discussing what the attorney argued. Sorry you are way off the mark.

      • I believe at one point she tried to say Tiger was stalking her chickens. Or rabid. Her defense changes with each failure with also highlights that she is a liar.
        Also important is the fact that one veterinarian testified that Tiger may have still been alive in that photo due to his body position.
        You also have to consider the disturbing mental picture of a veterinary professional skunking around her back yard with a bow and arrow looking for something to kill. As a vet she knows and likely had access to humane traps.
        At one point she tried to say that the arrow was the same as using a captive bolt gun. These are meant to be used on large livestock and require skill and exact placement to be effective. Most vets use them as a last resort when chemical euthanasia is not possible.
        Playing fast and loose with laws meant to allow farmers and ranchers to protect their livestock and crops from animals wild and domestic is not going to fly.

  2. Makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I must be missing something, too. Either way, how do you brutally kill a cat if you are a Vet that is to do “no harm” to an animal that is healthy, etc.? She laughed and boasted about this. That is cruelty. Not a HUMANE WAY to “euthanise” a cat….whether the owners gave “permission” or not! What a load of B.S. I don’t see how this “holds water” as they say.

    • I am pleased that you have the same thoughts as me. The idea of “effective consent” was put in the statute by someone but they don’t appear to have told us what it means.

    • Yes, that’s quite a neat solution. But if that is the case the words used in the statute are very peculiar and misleading I feel.

    • The word “consent” is not defined in the statute. If it meant something particular the word or phrase (effective consent) should be defined.

  3. I don’t think I can explain this very well but it’s not going to work for Lindsey no matter how they twist it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>