Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Read this
9 Answers
On 1-28-06 Humane Society Cruelty Investigators arrested Shane Searchfield and Tracie Stear on charges of aggrivated animal cruelty, a felony in New York State punishible by up to two years in jail and/or a fine not to exceed $5000. Investigators discovered by means of internet chat that the suspects had killed a cat in a manner they stated was intended to "humanely euthanise" it. having watched the cats health decline over a period of time without consulting a veterinarian to discover the cause they decided to put it out of its misery themselves. Tracie Stear admitted to investigators that Shane Searchfield picked up the cat and brutally broke its neck. When that failed to end the cats life Ms Stear then proceeded to smother the cat by placing her hand over the cats mouth and nose until it died of asphyxiation. In addition to the felony charges, Ms Stear faces a misdermeanor charge of cruelty for failing to provide adequate veterinary care. Test results later revealed the 7 year old cat was suffering from liver disease, had they sought medical attention during the first signs, the cat may have responded to treatment.
On 1-24-06 a grand jury was held to determine if the state should proceed with the prosecution of Mr. Searchfield. They voted to dismiss the charges. No explanation was given.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by peanut. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think the point is here that however far of the mark they may have been their intention was to humanely euthanise the cat.Whilst they clearly botched the job, if they did not intend to cause the animal suffering then I think a dismissal is entirely appropriate, as they obviously meant no evil even if that's the way it eventually turned out.
Always best to go to a Vet to euthanise injured or sick animals unless the creature concerned is in such an inaccessible place ( top of a mountain etc) that that's not possible.Always sad to hear about an animal suffering but you do have to consider the intent not just the outcome.
Sorry, but the way i see it is there are more appropriate ways of doing it. What kind of person do you have to be to do something like that ? I love my cat with every fiber of my being and i would NEVER even think of diong that even with good intention. Its just plain sick. Have him properly euthanised. Drunk drivers dont mean any harm either but people are killed every day by them. Does this mean they should walk because they didnt mean to kill someone ?
Completely agree with Peanut - if you cause injury to someone, even if you don't intend to, you are held responsible.
I believe that if you take on a pet, you owe it a duty of care, including proper veterinary attention. The report above states that they watched the cat's decline over a period of time. Let's face it, they didn't give a toss about the animal, they just didn't want to pay for a vet. What sort of a message does this case send out - that as long as you don't intend to cause an animal any harm, you can use any method you like to get rid of it when it becomes inconvenient or costly?
It makes my blood boil!
I should have known better than to try to post a reasoned response to a loaded question that clearly was merely calling for the death penalty for anyone who misguidedly attempts to euthanise their own animal.
I DID NOT say it was ok, acceptable etc. I said I understood why the court found the way they did and tried to explain why I thought they had, which I stupidly thought was the point of the question.
I now see that all I was supposed to say was "Oh my that's so awful lets go and find these terrible people and string them up from the nearest lampost having first removed their genitalia with a blunt knife".
Is that more to your liking?
1 to 9 of 9
