it certainly shows an incident where she had no real regard for the life of this cat. And that is disgusting and am sympathetic to expression of outrage. As a cat owner most my life it is very troubling.
Beyond that we are moving into speculation.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Texas Veterinarian Brags About Shooting Cat With Bow (Update: Fired)
- Thread starter B_Spooky13
- Start date
- Status
Beyond that we are moving into speculation.
But lack of regard for an animal's life is plenty enough to say she shouldn't be a vet.
Not really. Unless you say she had a personal vendetta against that cat, which doesn't exactly improve my impression of her capability as a veterinarian.
Where you see a peaceful effort to ask the board to review her license I see a letter that is pressuring the board to revoke her license and has no interest in any outcome besides that. Why? Because they have already determined her guilt by way of the framing of their letter and stating that "losing her job isn't enough," "she needs to be investigated and barred as an assurance that your organization stands against animal cruelty." It reads more like a threat then a suggestion for her to go through the process with an openness to possible outcome.
Is it? Is killing a cat for reasons we don't yet know enough to bar you? I am asking because this reads like you are intimately familiar with how veterinarian licensing works.
I assume certain things like a conviction for animal cruelty will have that effect, but I am just guessing.
This certainly looks bad for her and I can't imagine there is a story she has that won't end up getting her license revoked for some time. But I am not pretending to be an expert.
This isn't about you. This is about what constitutes enough evidence to bar her for life from practicing veterinary medicine.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
There are a lot, strays are considered a public nuisance and from what the person on their news was saying; crop owners can protect their crops from stray animals. Depends on how far people want to go with it. Those didn't look like farm fields to me and you aren't giving an animal a chance to go back to their owner if they kill them on the spot.
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/tx-dog-consolidated-dog-laws
http://www.spca.org/law
https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-texas-animal-cruelty-laws
LostCaress
Member
Come on, people are shocked at the cruelty displayed, they aren't going to write a perfectly neutral request to the board. Yeah death threats, harassment, etc... is too much, but requesting she loses her license is within reason.
Yeah it's enough for her to lose her license. For life? Don't know, but at least some time.
A documented case of animal cruelty is enough to ban a vet. That's not rocket science.
She also felt the need to broadcast it proudly.
I take issue any time mob justice seems to try and take the law into their own hands or pressure punishments that I think cross ethical boundaries. I am just being consistent here, despite me finding this lady pretty abhorrent based on the still incomplete context I have of her and what she did, I don't find a borderline threatening letter with presumption of guilt in it to be a ethical way to take action.
Like I said I assume that a animal cruelty conviction would be enough. But when punishment seeking comes before due process, and in a manner that seems almost threatening, that is when I say I am out.
eso76
Member
Well, not to play the devil's advocate here, but while it looks horrible an arrow through your skull is probably as painless as it gets. If you are sure you can get a clean shot that is.
I'm glad she lost her job, I hope she has to pay some huge fine and the clinic she was working for sue her for damaging their reputation and make her pay some more, if possible.
Still, it's probably more humane than poisoning and a lot of other things.
SolidusDave
Member
Why? (serious question)
I know those statistics that an outdoor cat kills x amounts of birds, rodents etc.
Which is btw not well accepted at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat#Birds
However, I would be very surprised if any significant number of these animals are from other species than garden birds and rodents thriving around humans.
Feral cats don't go and live deep in the forest (and basically compete with wild cats), they stick to human settlements. That's their default state and how they came to be our pets in the first place. They have lived among us like this for thousands of years.
So they are only a threat to the same dozen species that also happen to be able to live in the artificial environments we've created; that's not really an invasive species in my book. They don't start killing rare birds/rodents in some nature reserve.
However, sticking to humans gives them an unnatural advantage of finding food even if they overhunt their prey and they can therefore still sustain a high population which, yeah, would threaten the existence of garden birds etc. High populations also make it easier for diseases to spread of course. Therefore all outdoor and most feral cats should be neutered (at least the male ones which is rather cheap and reduces noise from cat orgies
) to re-introduce some control.But their mere existence? I just don't see what's so bad about it. If anything they can be used to keep the populations of "feral" rats, mice (and pigeons) in check - like they always have.
Oh and unlike feral dogs, they are also no actual threat to humans.
btw in Europe, where the general idea is that an outdoor cat is a happier cat and thus there are many free-roaming cats, we also see a decline in bird species:
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_419684_en.html
While that study makes no mention of cats at all, it reflects what I mentioned above, that it's just the common species that are affected here.
Though I have to say this depends on the environment. As pointed out in the wiki link, introducing cats in habitats that don't really have small-ish top predators for small birds&rodents can be damaging (the biggest threat by far is still the loss of habitat by humans though). Australia is a good example (and various islands). In almost all other places you have animals like weasels which actually kill birds at higher rates than cats, thus the existing species there have evolved to deal with this. Not in Australia though.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
http://www.thln.com/?pageID=D464BAE3-3048-C277-113A4575192410B4
This was a very touching story that I came across while doing research on animal cruelty laws in Texas. It's a shame that such things will still happen regardless. I wonder what the state is going to do.
I think a petition seeking revocation of licensure cannot be fairly described as mob justice. Mob justice is posting her address, calling her house (harassment), making death threats, and so forth. Doing things outside of what the justice system would do.
A petition is encouraging the system to use legal options that were specifically designed to punish people for the type of actions that she took, posed for in a photo, bragged about, and was confirmed by her mom.
A petition is encouraging the system to use legal options that were specifically designed to punish people for the type of actions that she took, posed for in a photo, bragged about, and was confirmed by her mom.
You seem to be wanting to compartmentalize and create your own definition of Mob Justice and petitions. just realize not everyone shares your definition. Mob Justice doesnt have to be inherently bad or always be about things that are easily identifiable as illegal. Nor are all petitions created equal and always used to seek equitable justice.
IMO the petition reads more like a assumption of guilt letter with a bit of a threat tacked onto it. Which does not square with your definition of all petitions being an encouragement of using the process in place to make a just and fair decision. The petition presumes to already know the guilt of the accused and basically demands a very particular judgement or else they will not be satisfied.
Is it the same as doxxing her or threatening her life? Absolutely not, but it still crosses an ethical boundary for me personally that I can not support or stand by.
The woman posted a picture of her posing with it saying it was her first kill. Her guilt isn't in question.
In terms of the law it most certainly is. In terms of the process to revoke her license for an accusation of Animal Cruelty? That is more unclear(the letter itself seems uncertain about this as well). But my contention with the petition is not resting solely on the fact they are presuming guilt, it is the demand and threat toward the board to produce a specific punishment or the mob will not be satisfied.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You're caping for someone who illegally killed her neighbor's cat and took a selfie with the corpse out of hatred for "social justice bullies"
Examine yourself
What threat is there in the letter?
Im not "caping" for anyone, especially this person. Whatever the fuck caping even means.
If you have an issue with my position on the petition, make your case. If you are just going to continue to try this poor line of attack where you are seemingly trying to say that I am defending this woman, don't waste your time because that line of attack is just stupid.
You are upset that people sign a petition that says a vet who killed someone's pet in a barbaric manner shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine on other pets.
What an outrageous demand.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You are way too sensitive.
What the woman did was illegal, and disturbing to most people. She was fired over it, and most would agree rightfully so. Her behavior casts a doubt in people's minds as to whether she can perform properly as a vet, so they create a petition asking for her license to be revoked.
Ultimately that decision lies with the licensing body, NOT random internet people. Now matter how much disdain you have for the "mob" this is a fact.
Do you personally think she should keep her license? I for one don't feel strongly about it but in light of what she's done I could see it being revoked.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
I wouldnt take my animal to a vets office that has a person who did this working there.
I already quoted it for you. Are you not actually reading my posts? The second to last paragraph is easily interpreted to me as being a demand for a particular punishment of which the purpose is to assure the mob signing it or they will not be satisfied.
That is where I draw the line. It is one thing to make a petition to ask the board to investigate her. Laying out the accusations against her and asking for a review of her license. Even to make the case like they slightly do that if there is not a clause to consider outside work Animal Cruelty in the licensing process to consider adding one. To which I would hope a clear argument for why it should would be included. Which should be easy enough to do.
But once they go into the paragraph after not only assuming guilt(to which I can still accept), but what her punishment needs to be and what that purpose is meant to serve, which is the satisfaction of the mob gathering, I can't stand behind that ethically. It ceases to be just a petition asking for the process to investigate her license to a letter of demand with what amounts to me as a threat.
Again, if you cannot restrain yourself and actually address my points and feel you just have to make assumptions about me , don't bother. I would be more apt to discuss with you if you could manage to elevate your level of conversational maturity in discussing my points. And i would be more welcoming to answer your questions if it didn't feel like it is futile effort from someone who is clearly not interested in actually hearing what i have to say and is only interested in projecting on to men what you think my position is and then attacking that and trying to put me on the defensive to derail.
It may shock you but a person can be disgusted of an action, can personally pass a judgment, and still be of the mindset that a certain form of response is not ethically responsible.
ReplacementPelican
Member
Someone on my Facebook feed today posted a video of her friend shooting a BB gun at a squirrel.
Thought that was a bit fucked up.
Thought that was a bit fucked up.
What is the threat? Do this or else...what?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I'm more disappointed in myself for humoring the Mary Lou Retton of deflection
I guess personal attacks are now the go-to for some Gaffers. Nice to know out in the open who has the capacity to engage in adult conversation and who has to try and drag everything down to playground insults in order to feel comfortable discussing certain aspects of a topic.
I'll remember this in the future. Thanks for the heads up!
Velcro Fly
Member
I wouldn't really call it a personal insult. I mean he's got to have his due process right?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I posed you a straightforward question and you ignored it. I addressed you position and you ignored it. I see where you stand from your posts in here and the other thread. If it was just members of her community making the petition would you still take issue? You see it as demanding and threatening, then fine. Ultimately it's not up to the people signing the petition to take her license or not and vaguely threatening Internet petitions should not change that. Responsibility lies with those with actual decision making power, which is something people like to ignore.
It's about ethics in shooting cats in the head. With arrows.
Christ, this is not some lady complaining about a gross shirt on some space engineer, nor someone asking to cancel a parody sketch on Comedy Central, this is a person that killed an animal and put it online for the world to see, if your quest to fight the fabricated evils of tumblrs and the liberal mobs take you to stand next to a sociopath then you gotta re calibrate your compass a little bit.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Truly a blood-curdling threat from the bowels of the Tumblr pit.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think the revocation of her license is the only reasonable response to this situation.
I see this thread has taken a turn for the awful and the immature.
No, you made a series of assumptions followed up by a question meant to derail. You continue to defend making your assumptions.
You could of started your response to me in a much more mature way but you decided to go down the road of accusing me of defending this woman who disgustingly killed a cat and trying to belittle my resistance to this particular instance of social justice because of your perceptions of me in the other thread.
You don't get to now act like you have been some model of good conversation simply because I refused to answer a question you injected into one of your transparently hostile posts meant to go after me personally.
Im not saying that revocation of her license is unreasonable though. Im saying that this particular instance and attempt to achieve that I am not in support of for the reasons I listed.
That isn't where my issue stemmed from.
Your issue are nebulous fears of faceless internet mobs wielding ungodly amounts of power over people's lives, when in reality it's an internet petition with no actual authority whatsoever asking for a reasonable punishment of a disturbed individual, based on your own personal interpretation and astounding amounts of conjecture.
Truly mind blowing nobody is following you into battle on this one.
For someone decrying conjecture you just made an entire post of it as an argument,
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That's fair. I know she's entitled to unbiased due process. But you really can't blame people for trying. She was flagrant, and the process is so slow that from the outside it looks like nothing is happening.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Who was the advocate for the animal? What's the causation of her actions. She may link her scientific knowledge to the reason behind her actions, but she did not do that period. She killed a cat with a bow, photographed it, and talked about killing tomcats pleasantly. She did not assess the animal, nor did she try to put the cat in a cage for further examination. She did this like she was on a hunt. Why would she be shooting a cat? It's not a proper method for anything. She could have used other various methods, which have already been brought up. Surgeons get sued for carving their initials into a patient and they are most of the time suspended from practice. What she did was not in her office. She did it with the intent to kill and to humiliate the animal. We should examine what we are about to make extinct a lot more carefully, or we should leave it alone period. The causation to do harm versus the reasons to why she did this should be brought up. There is no other justification. That cat could have been in her yard for no more than a couple minutes. There was no reason for her actions. Let's try not shutting this thread down just yet. I want to know what happens next.
Your statement. I provided the emphasis (and a bit of hyperbole, admittedly).
I don't agree with him, but who would want to engage with you or labor considering the petty attacks and bad faith put on display on this page.
His argument is that the petition to revoke the license of a sadistic vet is worded too harshly. There's no reasonable debate to be had there.
And I didn't attack him at all. Neither did Labor.
Everyone keeps injecting their own interpretations for the reasons people are signing this. I am not concerned with that. I assume a lot of well intentioned people signed this.
My issue stems from the petition itself and what my interpretations of it are. To me it crosses an ethical line. For reasons I have now explained a number of times. That doesnt mean I am excusing this ladies behavior, defending her, personally think she should keep her license or don't want the justice process to visit her. It is strictly about this particular petition and the problems the petition arises for me ethically.
I made a statement that this petition embodies for me some of the issues I have with mob justice on the internet in general and the mindset to seek punishment of the accused over justice. But more specifically, that this petition, to me, reads more like a demand of a particular punishment with a line inferencing to me what comes off as a threat. So to me I can't find an ethical basis to support it.
Im ok with people taking issue with my points. I know my interpretation isn't likely the only one(ironically though no one has provided me too many alternatives, just said I am wrong or made a point unrelated). But I don't think it is an unreasonable interpretation.
Diprosalic
Banned
this makes me so mad but she'll soon find out that the internet will destroy you when you harm cats.
You can quibble over semantics whether these are attacks or not. The point is you aren't engaging with his argument in good faith. If you don't think he's worth engaging with then don't.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
That came after I actually put the claws away, tried to be more civil, and got deflected.
Do you just want to pick at us from the sidelines?
Thing is I do and I did, but he ignored the posts and kept circling back to his personal interpretation in an effort to paint the petition far more menacing than it is.
Edit: as evidenced below
- Status