Posted on 08/22/2002 12:43:36 PM PDT by Abundy
Man acquitted of animal cruelty
By George Dorsey
News-Post Staff
A Myersville landlord who killed a tenant's cats was acquitted Wednesday of violating Maryland's new Animal Cruelty Law in the first test of the statute.
Eric Grossnickle, 36, of Brethren Church Road, admitted shooting two cats but said he was justified because they were damaging his house and their owner refused to get rid of them.
Frederick County Circuit Court Judge Mary Ann Stepler delivered her verdict after reviewing the language of the law.
"It's not even close," she said in dismissing the felony charges.
She said the law fails to define what "cruelly kill" means.
"I don't like what he did, but what he did is not a crime under Maryland law," Judge Stepler said. "It's not what we want the law to be; it's what the law is."
Judge Stepler also acquitted Mr. Grossnickle of theft, but convicted him of two misdemeanor counts of destruction of property. He faces a combined maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He remains free on bond with sentencing set for early October.
Mr. Grossnickle admitted killing two of three cats owned by his tenant, April Ritch, on Oct. 1, 2001, the same day the new animal cruelty law went into effect. The law created a felony penalty for convictions of cruelly killing an animal.
Mr. Grossnickle said the cats were urinating inside his house. Ms. Ritch said she was told to remove the cats but never believed he would shoot them.
After the trial, Ms. Ritch was visibly upset. She said the cats were members of her family.
In rendering her verdict, Judge Stepler faulted the state's new law for not defining "cruelly kill." She said, "It's clearly cruel to place a cat in a microwave oven and cook it." But in the Grossnickle case, the cats were killed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a method used in the Frederick County farming community to get rid of unwanted animals.
The decision found little favor with State's Attorney Scott Rolle, who said he was "respectful but disappointed. I believe the facts supported that charge. Many people look at pets as children and she (Ms. Ritch) has suffered a large loss in her life.
"We will be taking a look at getting cruelty defined in the law. What is cruel? Is just shooting a cat cruel? We believe it is and will go back to the legislature in January," he said.
The decision was called "very disappointing" by representatives of humane societies and animal rights supporters. During the third day of trial, many animal rights supporters wore small tags saying "Cruelty is a Crime."
Ann Chynoweth, an attorney with the Humane Society of the United States, said she was very disappointed with the judge's decision. "I believe the law was not enforced. It was malice to shoot those animals with a gun. The killing was not necessary nor justified. He could have taken them to the humane society, not killed them.
"We are afraid that this will send the wrong message. It is cruel to shoot an animal with a gun. It was cruel because shooting by definition is cruel."
Judge Stepler announced her decision following a lengthy review of animal cruelty laws both in Maryland and in the United States. She noted that animal cruelty laws attempt to find a balance between advocates for animal rights and the view that animals are property. She said Maryland provided little appellate guidance in this case.
"The law must apply evenly to all animals. This action by the defendant is not a crime unless he cruelly killed the cats. If we see an animal treated cruelly, we know it.
"It is against the law to kill a police dog or a carrier pigeon. Cruelty does not apply; any killing of the K-9 dog or carrier pigeon is illegal. Here Mr. Grossnickle testified he's worked on a farm since age 7. He has killed more than 50 cats by using a shotgun, an accepted method in the farm community," Judge Stepler said.
"He believes that using a 12-gauge shotgun was more humane than taking the animals to the animal shelter. He had no intention of causing them unnecessary suffering.
"The law allows killing animals for food processing, hunting, scientific research, pest control and agricultural practices," Judge Stepler said.
If the law allows for killing by hunting, than killing a nuisance animal with a shotgun is not cruel. Gut-shooting an animal on purpose and letting it suffer would be cruel - but not killing with one shot.
The Humane Society, especially that attorney, needs a severe beat-down.
So all he had to do was to eat them and there would have been no case at all...LOL!
Actually, being a former flooring installer in a previous life, I can attest that animals in general and cats in particular are a landlords worse nightmare. When cats start soiling a house, nothing short of tearing out the flooring down to and including the subfloor will get rid of the smell. I side with the landlord on this one, as he gave the tennant ample warning...
The more you drive over a cat, the flatter it gets...
The landlord most likely had the right to file an eviction notice. I am aware of nothing in the law or in any normal lease agreement that would give the landlord the right to cause deliberate harm to a tenant's property.
As a non-animal example, suppose a tenant routinely played her stereo exceptionally loudly at 4:00am. A landlord may be able to file eviction or seek other redress. He would not, however, have the right to smash the stereo, no matter how tempting that might be.
If a tenant is causing property damage to a property, most states allow the property owner to do what is necessary to mitigate any further damage. Case closed. Only in the soviet republic of Maryland would such a case even get this far.
Good enough reason IMO. But I think if it were me I would have trapped them and relocated them to a City Pound about 80 miles away!
"We are afraid that this will send the wrong message. It is cruel to shoot an animal with a gun. It was cruel because shooting by definition is cruel."
Uh oh, here it comes... hunting is gonna go bye-bye...
LOL what a great answer!
Note that there is an exemption in the law for killing an animal while hunting...for now.
First of all there were better ways for Mr. Grossnickle to handle the situation than destroying someone else's property. But instead of the usual hand-wringing over the verdict in the trial of Mr. Grossnickle by the animal-rights fascists and everyone who was horrified that he shot two cats with a shotgun, how about everyone consider the law itself.There is an exemption for killing an animal while hunting. Most hunting is done with a firearm. The cats were killed with a firearm. I don't think there was any evidence that the Defendant did not kill the animals with one shot, or intentionally shot them in a manner that made them suffer. So the "cruelty" required by the statute had to be attributed merely to the act of shooting an animal.
Those who equate the mere killing of an animal, or the killing of an animal with a firearm were championed in the paper by Ann Chynoweth, an attorney with the Humane Society of the United States, who said, "We are afraid that this will send the wrong message. It is cruel to shoot an animal with a gun. It was cruel because shooting by definition is cruel."
You've got to love an attorney with a cause. Had the defendant been found guilty of violating the cruelty statute the verdict would surely be overturned on appeal. For if the thousands of Maryland hunters that regularly shoot animals with guns are not violating the law, neither did the defendant.
Or maybe this law is just the first step for the lawyers from the HSUS - who are on record as wanting to ban all hunting. Sure does seem like that is their agenda, given the comments by Mssss. Chynoweth and this statement from their website, http://www.hsus.org/ace/12039: The HSUS strongly opposes the recreational hunting and killing of wild animals, as the sport is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just, and caring society.
Let's re-write the law and give it some common sense by taking the animal-rights fascists and their agenda out of the equation. If I live on a farm and I have a feral cat that is creating a health hazard around my livestock and children it is not cruel to kill the animal with a clean shot. True cruelty to an animal - torture, maiming and the like should be severely punished. But not the intentional killing of an animal if it is done cleanly and humanely.
___
We'll see if it gets printed. Likely that it will as everyone loves a good cat-fight...
Pretty poor example of a mother - letting her kids go an pee all over the house. Maybe she didn't clean the litter box often enough. Someday, I'll have to tell you about the ex's house and the 13 cats she has there.
...one for every round in the magazine of my Glock 23....
LOL!
Maybe she didn't clean the litter box often enough
Hey you have a point there. She probably was one of those indulgent/negligent animal owners. Feeding them too many gourmet treats and not giving them what they really do need.
Yes that's the biggest bunch of crap I've heard in a long time...a just and caring society neither tortures nor coddles animals, but functions within the realm of reality, taking death in stride as a part of life, sad as it may be at times. I was watching Texas Trophy Hunters the other night and they profiled some tough judge in Texas who mentioned during the show that he does not see kids who hunt up in front of his bench for domestic abuse, theft, etc. etc. It's those people who never learned to live in and accept the harshness of life on this planet that are always causing trouble.
That's what Nugent means when I heard him say something like "if everyone killed a chicken once a year the world would be a much better place." (my paraphrase).
It's also a felony in Oregon to "maliciously" kill an animal. Anything to create another felon...and disarm them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.