Posted on 04/26/2016 9:40:48 AM PDT by bgill
Monday, Houston veterinarian Kristen Lindsey appeared in court to address the complaint against her, according to Lorris Jones with the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
Lindsey is accused of killing a cat in 2015 and then bragging about it on Facebook. The social media post shows Lindsey holding up the cat by the arrow she shot it with. Along with the image of the dead cat, Lindsey posted “My first bow kill, LOL.” The State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners was in attendance at the court. Critics want the board to pull her veterinary license.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxan.com ...
A real 'tough guy'!
Because the animal didn't suffer doesn't mean it isn't animal cruelty, no one has a right to go around shooting animals as if they are target practice.
I never said animals don’t feel pain, I said that in this case arguing “cruelty” is nonsensical. That animal was dead before it hit the ground, it did not suffer. If that is your definition of cruelty, then I certainly hope you are out protesting every beef, pork and chicken processing plant in your state.
This is not a case where you have an animal tortured for sport or sadistic entertainment, or killed in an inhumane way. That animal was killed cleanly, can’t get a more clean and effective kill than what this animal had. So to argue its “cruelty” is nonsense.
The woman was not charged with cruelty, or anything criminal by the DA, so arguing she engaged in cruelty is nonsensical. I am more than willing to throw the book at someone who’s engaged in animal cruelty, starved or beaten their animals or countless other sick and disgusting things that true sick people do to animals... however, this woman’s actions aren’t cruelty.
That animal was killed about as effectively as you could manage, right through the brain pan. It did not suffer, it did not linger.. if your intent was to engage in cruelty, this is not how you would deal with an animal. This isn’t some case where an animal was set fire, and tortured and wound up dead as a result.. or starved or denied medical treatment for days, months or years... this was a quick effective kill, and that’s not “cruelty”.
I will gladly advocate for the prosecution of folks who torture animals, but that is not what this is a case of in the least. This isn’t “cruelty”
Cruelty is defined as:
“callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.”
That animal did not suffer and I truly doubt its brain had any time to process any pain signal before it no longer existed. As much as you may be upset by the fact this was a cat that was killed, this was is not a case of pain and suffering, you couldn’t ask for a more clean kill that this one.
Again, had this been a groundhog or a raccoon no one would be raising an eyebrow, but because its a cat, to some folks its the end of the world. This is not a case of Cruelty by any remote definition of the word.
The eastern portion of the US. They were eastern whippoorwills.
Freegards
This was NOT a rabid cat and the veterinarian knew it.
She Lied
This was NOT a nuisance, feral cat, and the neighbors were aware of it.
She Lied
Please, that’s a clean kill, couldn’t get much cleaner than that.
Can't disagree with that, right in the forehead while it was sitting there looking at her..probably 10 feet away.
Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you brother, you have your opinions which I totally disagree with.
The facts are:
This was not a feral cat
The cat was not rabid as the vet previously claimed and subsequently recanted her statement in court.
THIS VET IS A LIAR!
What state specifically? The eastern portion could be anywhere between the east coast of Florida all the way up to Maine..........
The fact that the arrow killed it quickly is irrelevant to the intent, it could have easily missed the head and hit another part of the body!
She was using the animal as a toy, as target practice and was indifferent to any kind of suffering it could have potentially caused it.
Moreover, any one looking at the animal could tell it wasn't feral, more then likely, it had no fear of her and was an easy target for the 'great hunter'.
Cruelty is defined at:
“callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.”
If the animal did not suffer you cannot call what was done cruelty. For something to be cruelty it must, by the very definition of the word, involves pain and suffering.
I hate to break this to you, but as has been pointed out many times, this woman was not charged with any crime. The DA investigated and brought no charges, what she did, as much as you may not like it, is not animal cruelty.
Has nothing about being a tough guy, it has to do with understanding the difference between something that is cruel and something that you just don’t like.
Unless you live in a state that expressly makes it illegal for you to kill a nuisance animal, you aren’t violating laws by killing one, even if that animal happens to be a cat or a dog... (and yes some states do make it expressly illegal to kill a nuisance animal if it is a cat or a dog, but most do not).
Virginia. Why?
Freegards
Spot on.......thanks
“You are just as sick as she is.”
Over the top. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing feral cats, as long as it is done humanely. Your idea of trapping them and letting them loose elsewhere just passes the problem along to someone else. Eventually those cats will probably be killed anyway, whether it is by predators, starvation, disease, automobiles, or being poisoned/rounded up and killed by the local government.
You might love cats, but your subjective opinion doesn’t constitute a moral rule that anyone else needs to follow. If you really care about the plight of these cats, do like Bob Barker and encourage people to sterilize their cats so that they don’t contribute to the public nuisance.
glad I do not live in texas
She was unconcerned with the suffering of the animal, and if the arrow hadn't killed it quickly, another one would have been needed!
The fact that no charges were filed is also no relevant, since most of the time animal abuse aren't filed.
You have no idea that it was a 'nuisance animal' but guys like you are always find excuses to defend cruelty to animals and then telling us 'that they are only animals'.
Why do you persist in your failed attempt to justify the killing of this animal?
It's already been proven that the animal was not feral, was not rabid and that the veterinarian that killed it with a target arrow as it sat in front of her was a liar?
Bull, she killed it with a clean shot between the eyes, that’s not callous indifference to pain and suffering. You are engaging in complete pretzel logic trying to claim there was anything that remotely falls into the “cruelty” category of this kill.
If someone is callously indifferent to pain and suffering of an animal, they aren’t going to go out of their way to kill it in a way that inflicts little to no pain or suffering.
There is absolutely nothing that equates to “cruelty” here, and rightly she was not charged with anything.
You seem indifferent to anything but the fact that because it was 'only' an animal' anything can be done to it with impunity.
The woman clearly has some kind of mental problem to kill a helpless animal in this manner, something you defend.
But 'tough' guys like you show on every animal abuse case, telling us that animals aren't human and if you are concerned with animal cruelty you must be a member of PETA.
'Real' conservatives kill animals with no concern since they are 'only' animals, (isn't that the term you used)
I said her decision to kill it was legal and it was not cruel.
I will sit by and have some bleeding hearts say that its an example of “cruelty” when it clearly does not fit any definition of the word.
There is real animal cruelty in this world, and I’ll be the first person to throw the book at someone who’s truly engaged in it, but this is not remotely a case of it.
Had the animal at the end of that arrow been any other small animal, a groundhog, a squirrel, a raccoon, a skunk, or anything else along those lines this conversation wouldn’t be happening, the only reason it is is because its a cat, and there are people in this world who think every cat that exists is just like their pet and cannot separate the emotional attachment they have to their pets with every other animal of that type.
Cruelty is cruelty and I’ll be the first to say throw the book at someone engaged in it, but this, like it or not, is not an example of cruelty. You may not like her actions, but that doesn’t make them cruel.
It is cruelty by any normal definition of the word, since it was indifferent to the suffering to the animal she could have caused had she missed the head and hit another part of the body.
For her, it was a game and that is why she was bragging about it.
How many animals do we not know of where she missed and had to use more then one arrow?
Do you think this is the first time she has done this?
Why would handling a dead, bleeding, rabid animal pose a problem? Rabies is not spread through blood contact.
Because I wanted to address your following comment:
I think they disappeared with the rise in cats and feral cats.
The decline in ground nesting birds such as whippoorwills and quail is primarily due to the loss of habitat from advanced farming techniques that utilize herbicides that eliminate the ground cover that would normally protect the nesting birds after hatching.
Add to that, there are the skunks and opossums that feed on the eggs in the nests, then there are the coyotes, foxes and birds of prey that feed on the chicks that successfully hatch.
Feral cats get a bad rap when it comes to game birds and their ground nesting because the ferals in the field are prey to the coyotes and foxes. Feral cats only survive around civilization where they are discarded, then ultimately allowed to take up residence under decks and sheds where the ignorant feel sorry for them and set out food.
Along with the food set out for the poor feral cats, it also brings in skunks and opossums.........
I live in a subdivision in S.E. Michigan and on the first night I set up a trail camera, I caught 3 different cats, a rabbit, one possum and two skunks in my back yard. I have subsequently caught two deer in my back yard.
With that being said, my sub has hired a critter control company that has set up two traps behind my deck to trap the skunks living under it.........
But to get back to your statement about feral cats, they're not the problem with your whippoorwills......
You could be right. I have seen all those theories on the net, but at least around here nothing seems to fit. Most places seem to include cats as problems for them. Of course something also could have happened at the southern end of their migration too, and I wouldn’t know.
The reason I think cats is that we had several older ladies in the neighborhood that were crazy cat ladies. Like you said, feeding strays. In large numbers.
Freegards
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.