Sounds like a jury made up of us!
Mistrial Declared in Cat Shooting Trial
November 16th, 2007 @ 8:01pm
GALVESTON, Texas (AP) - The trial of a prominent birdwatcher accused of animal cruelty for shooting a cat ended in a mistrial Friday after jurors couldn't reach a verdict.
Jim Stevenson, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society, has admitted he shot the cat last fall because he saw it hunting a threatened species of bird near the San Luis Bridge Pass. If convicted, he would have faced up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The trial sparked an Internet debate between cat lovers who decry Stevenson's actions and birders upset by the toll feral cats take on bird species. It's also raised questions about what makes an animal a pet, especially if it lives outside.
Jurors deliberated for more than eight hours before the judge declared the mistrial.
"The jury was hopelessly deadlocked, so the government has to decide if they are going to waste more of taxpayers' money trying this again," said Stevenson's attorney, Tad Nelson. "But they can try this a thousand times and they will never get a guilty because he didn't commit a felony."
First Assistant District Attorney Joel Bennett said prosecutors would not retry the case.
"We have gathered all the evidence that is there to be gathered, and a jury that heard all this evidence could not reach a unanimous verdict," Bennett said in a story for Saturday's editions of The Galveston County Daily News. "There's no reason to suspect another jury would be able to do so, and we're considering the matter closed."
Nelson said he was relieved that the case wouldn't be pursued.
Nelson said his client thought the cat was a stray. A state law bars the killing of domesticated animals without the owner's permission.
But prosecutors argued that a toll bridge worker took care of the cat and named it "Mama Cat," effectively becoming the pet's owner. And they say Stevenson could have easily realized that if he'd looked around the bridge before firing.
While the jury deliberated, Stevenson told The Associated Press that he thoroughly researched local and state law and thought long and hard about what he should do before he killed the cat. He said he decided to shoot it because he believed it was a threat to the birds. He added that he felt sorry for the animal.
The bridge, Stevenson said, "is a revolving door for cats. Dozens and dozens of cats go through there and disappear. They're getting run over ... they're getting killed by coyotes. It's no life for a cat out there."
A revision of the cruelty law that took effect Sept. 1 broadens protection to stray animals, but it does not apply in Stevenson's case.
November 16th, 2007 @ 8:01pm
GALVESTON, Texas (AP) - The trial of a prominent birdwatcher accused of animal cruelty for shooting a cat ended in a mistrial Friday after jurors couldn't reach a verdict.
Jim Stevenson, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society, has admitted he shot the cat last fall because he saw it hunting a threatened species of bird near the San Luis Bridge Pass. If convicted, he would have faced up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The trial sparked an Internet debate between cat lovers who decry Stevenson's actions and birders upset by the toll feral cats take on bird species. It's also raised questions about what makes an animal a pet, especially if it lives outside.
Jurors deliberated for more than eight hours before the judge declared the mistrial.
"The jury was hopelessly deadlocked, so the government has to decide if they are going to waste more of taxpayers' money trying this again," said Stevenson's attorney, Tad Nelson. "But they can try this a thousand times and they will never get a guilty because he didn't commit a felony."
First Assistant District Attorney Joel Bennett said prosecutors would not retry the case.
"We have gathered all the evidence that is there to be gathered, and a jury that heard all this evidence could not reach a unanimous verdict," Bennett said in a story for Saturday's editions of The Galveston County Daily News. "There's no reason to suspect another jury would be able to do so, and we're considering the matter closed."
Nelson said he was relieved that the case wouldn't be pursued.
Nelson said his client thought the cat was a stray. A state law bars the killing of domesticated animals without the owner's permission.
But prosecutors argued that a toll bridge worker took care of the cat and named it "Mama Cat," effectively becoming the pet's owner. And they say Stevenson could have easily realized that if he'd looked around the bridge before firing.
While the jury deliberated, Stevenson told The Associated Press that he thoroughly researched local and state law and thought long and hard about what he should do before he killed the cat. He said he decided to shoot it because he believed it was a threat to the birds. He added that he felt sorry for the animal.
The bridge, Stevenson said, "is a revolving door for cats. Dozens and dozens of cats go through there and disappear. They're getting run over ... they're getting killed by coyotes. It's no life for a cat out there."
A revision of the cruelty law that took effect Sept. 1 broadens protection to stray animals, but it does not apply in Stevenson's case.
0
-
If it had been a GunBroker jury, they would have still been debating the following issues:
What is the perfect caliber for shooting cats
Was the cat given a verbal warning prior to the shot
Was the bird in the country legally
Was the cat in the country legally
Couldn't he build a fence between the cat and bird
Is this a case where speceism is a factor0 -
A Felony to kill a cat? In Texas?[V] 0 -
--
Nah! We'd be debating whether the guy shot the cat clean or if he butt-shot it and had to chase it down.
Also, what method did he use to skin the cat. You know what they say, don't you?[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
--
Nah! We'd be debating whether the guy shot the cat clean or if he butt-shot it and had to chase it down.
So true!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
--
Nah! We'd be debating whether the guy shot the cat clean or if he butt-shot it and had to chase it down.
Also, what method did he use to skin the cat. You know what they say, don't you?[:D]
And how did it taste?0 -
Any follow-up shot?[B)] 0 -
But prosecutors argued that a toll bridge worker took care of the cat and named it "Mama Cat," effectively becoming the pet's owner. And they say Stevenson could have easily realized that if he'd looked around the bridge before firing.
Jim Stevenson, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society, has admitted he shot the cat last fall because he saw it hunting a threatened species of bird near the San Luis Bridge Pass.
If the toll bridge worker owns the cat and the cat, because of the toll bridge worker's neglect in confining the cat, hunts a CITES endangered species then the toll bridge worker commited a crime. If the tool bridge worker, charged with a crime, denies owning the cat then the part about "A state law bars the killing of domesticated animals without the owner's permission." does not apply to the shooter. If he admits to owning the cat then the goverment can waste more taxpayer money going after the toll bridge worker.[}:)]0 -
What kind of laws do you have down there... Cats are considered pest here!!! And a a legal kill if on your property!!!
Around here pest control won't even respond to a cat complaint....
I think it rude to kill it though. without giving the owner fair warning and opportunity to contain it....0 -
In Oregon they would have hung the guy. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by chollagardens
But prosecutors argued that a toll bridge worker took care of the cat and named it "Mama Cat," effectively becoming the pet's owner. And they say Stevenson could have easily realized that if he'd looked around the bridge before firing.
Jim Stevenson, the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society, has admitted he shot the cat last fall because he saw it hunting a threatened species of bird near the San Luis Bridge Pass.
If the toll bridge worker owns the cat and the cat, because of the toll bridge worker's neglect in confining the cat, hunts a CITES endangered species then the toll bridge worker commited a crime. If the tool bridge worker, charged with a crime, denies owning the cat then the part about "A state law bars the killing of domesticated animals without the owner's permission." does not apply to the shooter. If he admits to owning the cat then the goverment can waste more taxpayer money going after the toll bridge worker.[}:)]
Dude should call up the DA and file charges against the Toll Worker and be the "witness for the Prosecution"[:D]. Being charged with cat killing and then go after the cat owner for negligent birdicide. Hell the toll worker maybe charged with Terrorist Act since the cat was fed and cared for while it did it's assasination on US soil[:D].
quote:Originally posted by The Dutchman
In Oregon they would have hung the guy.
Really? I figured if it's ferrel or general pest which the owner dumped or let loose it be up to the property owner to do as he saw fit. Trap it and take it to the shelter or take it for a ride like it's previous owner might've done. I like Cats just fine but once it's killing chickens or breeding like rabbits I say they're pests. Now mousers out on the plot is out there to do a job. Keeping the rodent under control but I'd make sure they were fixed.
I'd trap it and take them to the pound, I don't think I'd shoot it for just roaming on my plot. Once it starts to use my car as a toilet or do damage the safety's off.0 -
No one "owns" an outside cat.
All it is, is a glorified stray that someone feeds on a regular basis.
D.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments