Re: Retardation On Other Forums

[reel]

Based on what he's posted, if the cat is still alive, there's likely a strong enough case under BC law to take her away from him.  That would be the best case scenario for the poor beast.

[Annie]

I don't know why he can't just give her to someone who would love to have her and take good care of her. He can put an ad in the paper at the very least. I think he has trust issues and won't just trust anyone to take her but then why does he want to kill her or if he has already.

[RW]

Based on what he's posted, if the cat is still alive, there's likely a strong enough case under BC law to take her away from him.  That would be the best case scenario for the poor beast.

He can kill his cat if he wants to according to the law.

[reel]

Based on what he's posted, if the cat is still alive, there's likely a strong enough case under BC law to take her away from him.  That would be the best case scenario for the poor beast.

He can kill his cat if he wants to according to the law.

Really?  Can you show me where it says that?

[Annie]

I know of people in my neighborhood who have had baby chicks and they're kids killed them and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I also know of a neighbor who killed they're pet ferret and they're frog, again nothing can be done, no proof, no body blah blah blah. Sick people all over the place :(

[RW]

Based on what he's posted, if the cat is still alive, there's likely a strong enough case under BC law to take her away from him.  That would be the best case scenario for the poor beast.

He can kill his cat if he wants to according to the law.

Really?  Can you show me where it says that?

Of course!



Pets in Canada are considered personal property, therefore an owner of said "property" may dispose of it.  In terms of the law, animals merely can't be disposed of in a way that causes an animal undue suffering:



According to University of Ottawa law professor Daphne Gilbert, these cases aren't as simple as they seem because it's perfectly legal to kill pets in Canada. Animals are considered personal property under the law, and people have the right to dispose of their pets as they choose, she says, as long as it's not done "in a way that was intended to inflict suffering."

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/no-law-bans-kitten-killing-experts-say/">http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/no-l ... perts-say/">http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/no-law-bans-kitten-killing-experts-say/



Pertaining to case law, R v DL (Alta Prov Ct, 1999)

The "kept animal" charge was dismissed on the grounds that, while the cat was a 'kept animal' the killing was authorized by the owner and therefore "lawful excuse" existed. However on this issue the court stated:



Though the cat's owners were able to authorize its death, they were not able to authorize criminal acts. The owner of an animal may be able to condemn it to death, but the owner is not able to authorize a method of death the carrying out of which would contravene the criminal law. In other words, an owner cannot legally authorize the putting to death of his or her animal in a manner which violates section 446 of the Criminal Code.



Likewise, an owner of an animal can authorize its maiming, but cannot authorize a method of maiming that violates section 446 of the Code. For example, an animal's owner might authorize the amputation of a dog's leg as part of medical treatment administered by a veterinarian. The amputation would constitute a maiming of the animal, but the method of amputation would not be contrary to section 446.



http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=offence1.animal_criminal_cruelty_law#%27Kept">http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?nam ... _law#'Kept">http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=offence1.animal_criminal_cruelty_law#'Kept' Non-Cattle Animals and Birds

[Anonymous]

I do not know what to say about the person who shot their poor kitty..



I do have empathy for him.

 ac_crying

[RW]

You might be the only one left who does.

[reel]

Thanks RW.  I think.



I wouldn't have thought it was legal if the animal was in good health.  That is disappointing.

[RW]

There have been many attempts to update the legislation but nothing has come down the pipe yet that says you can't kill your own pet in a manner than doesn't cause it intentional undue suffering.



Sorry Reel.

[Anonymous]

He can kill his cat if he wants to according to the law.

Really?  Can you show me where it says that?

Of course!



Pets in Canada are considered personal property, therefore an owner of said "property" may dispose of it.  In terms of the law, animals merely can't be disposed of in a way that causes an animal undue suffering:



According to University of Ottawa law professor Daphne Gilbert, these cases aren't as simple as they seem because it's perfectly legal to kill pets in Canada. Animals are considered personal property under the law, and people have the right to dispose of their pets as they choose, she says, as long as it's not done "in a way that was intended to inflict suffering."

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/no-law-bans-kitten-killing-experts-say/">http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/no-l ... perts-say/">http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/no-law-bans-kitten-killing-experts-say/



Pertaining to case law, R v DL (Alta Prov Ct, 1999)

The "kept animal" charge was dismissed on the grounds that, while the cat was a 'kept animal' the killing was authorized by the owner and therefore "lawful excuse" existed. However on this issue the court stated:



Though the cat's owners were able to authorize its death, they were not able to authorize criminal acts. The owner of an animal may be able to condemn it to death, but the owner is not able to authorize a method of death the carrying out of which would contravene the criminal law. In other words, an owner cannot legally authorize the putting to death of his or her animal in a manner which violates section 446 of the Criminal Code.



Likewise, an owner of an animal can authorize its maiming, but cannot authorize a method of maiming that violates section 446 of the Code. For example, an animal's owner might authorize the amputation of a dog's leg as part of medical treatment administered by a veterinarian. The amputation would constitute a maiming of the animal, but the method of amputation would not be contrary to section 446.



http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=offence1.animal_criminal_cruelty_law#%27Kept">http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?nam ... _law#'Kept">http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=offence1.animal_criminal_cruelty_law#'Kept' Non-Cattle Animals and Birds

I didn't know this RW, thanx. There was a case here in the Czuk not so long ago of a young guy went to prison for brutally torturing cats to death. I guess the reason he went to jail was because of this;

it's not done "in a way that was intended to inflict suffering

I agree with reel, I would NOT have thought it was legal either if the animal was in good health. It is indeed disappointing.

[Renee]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner. As an owner he is legally able to decide to do away with his pet but he cannot by law inflict undo harm in doing so. Mel clearly claims that he botched the job and the cat suffered; he is guilty by his own admission.



Enough finger fucking this issue; by Canadian law he can be charged with animal cruelty.



BTW, IMHO just the fact that the animal was living with a fucked up sick shit like Mel is enough to qualify as cruelty. Pets are very vulnerable to our moods and behavior; they are exactly like children in that respect. That poor cat had problem behavior because Mel and his ex-wife failed to give that animal the environment it needed to live a normal healthy life. He in turn killed that cat because he is a complete and utter emotional and intellectual failure.

[Anonymous]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

I didn't read the details of how that sick attention whore claims he killed his cat, but according to what RW posted I would interpret it that way too. It's a moot point though because he never discharged a firearm on his cat in a major city.

[RW]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

[RW]

I agree with reel, I would NOT have thought it was legal either if the animal was in good health. It is indeed disappointing.

Sad but true.