Quote:
Originally Posted by herp_huggs
"Chris Walton was charged with multiple counts of cruelty to an animal after snakes and dead rats were found in a rental home on Larson Street."
|
I already addressed that, it was a mistake on my part, I had assumed that he had been charged with something else, seeing as without a cause of death, charging him with cruelty doesn't really make sense unless there was more to that than the media explained.
Quote:
|
I'm not sure what the definition of "inflict" has to do with anything..no one has said he "intentionally" did jack....
|
It means everything, for it to be animal cruelty he'd have to have inflicted their suffering/death.
Quote:
|
what he did do is cause the death of over 40 animals that were in his care. (depending on him entirely) I don't really see how this relates to a barn fire unless maybe the person involved with the fire saw it coming from a long ways away and did nothing to remove the animals (which I'm sure is not the case with your friend).
|
It's basically the same thing, an unexpected circumstance killed the animals. IF a loss of electricity had killed his animals, it'd be no different than an barn fire killing someone's animals, or a preventable disease killing someone's entire lifestock, etc. If we're going to say a sudden loss of heat killing someone's animals when they weren't home is grounds for animal cruelty, then what's to stop every one who's ever had poor husbandry, accidental or preventable circumstances from being charged with animal cruelty as well?
Quote:
|
Do you know the man in question or something? Because at this point in time your grasping at straws to defend him is starting to get a little redundant... obviously the man is "innocent until proven guilty" etc etc but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to at least stand before a judge and explain how animals in his care suddenly died (and decomposed to some extent even) and then were left behind for someone else to deal with....
|
I don't know this man, I'm simply defending logic and if anyone here is grasping at straws here, it isn't me. I also addressed the fact that a charge of improper disposal of animal carcasses would be fitting based on the information given, but until we actually know how the animals died, we mustn't assume "animal cruelty" when there's no evidence to back it up. As I keep saying, there are other plausible ways those animals could have died.
Quote:
|
P.s. I did not "change the definition" I posted, I simply stated that in my opinion, letting an animal freeze to death is no better than letting it starve (which is actually included in the definition) and as far as we know, he could have let them starve....
|
So you amended it, or added on to it? How is that much different? It's unlikely they starved from the looks of the animals in the bucket, even long dead they still appeared to have had some girth on them.