Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner

[cptrayes]

Tbh someone who maliciously stole a family pet and was caught would probably receive a stiffer sentence than some who wheeled off someone's bike .
I have been a witness in court many times and I have a great faith in the intelligence of the magistrates based on my experience.

Magistrates are bound by sentencing guidelines and the sentencing guidelines for theft and criminal damage are set by the value of the property. That's the whole point of my petition!

 

[cptrayes]

I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there is already a remedy under civil law (tort) to sue for emotional distress as I have stated earlier.

Also, there is apparently no higher penalty under criminal law for injuring a human simply because someone is fond of that person. So why should there be for an animal?

I am again assuming that you are wanting a higher penalty for the thief who steals "a family pet dog" compared with the thief who steals (for example) a rescue from the local dogs' home that would otherwise have been destroyed. Or are you proposing higher penalties for everyone wfho steals a dog regardless of its value or just whether it is a pet?

My objection is that what you are proposing is not (to me at any rate) logical. Criminal law has to be applied equally to everyone. That is why Justice is depicted blind folded. I think you are wanting the blindfold to be removed.

So what is wrong with letting the civil law sort out these cases as I have already suggested?

You say, "Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?"

How do you get into the mindset of the defendant and decide their motives at the time the deed was done? That would seem to put an impossible burden on a judge. Are you proposing to supply a qualified psychologist for every case that involves the killing or theft of a pet hamster? I can assure you, the hamster has no lesser value in the eyes of the child owner than the horse does to another!

Every sentencing exercise by Magistrates requires a judgement of the mindset of the offender. This is no different. Someone who does something recklessly, not caring what the result might be, receives a lesser sentence than someone who did the same thing completely intending the result which ensued. There is a multi point scale from intentional downwards to careless.

 

[YorksG]

I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?

 

[*hic*]

I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?

Goodness knows, I tried asking for that clarification days ago and got accused of trying to cause an argument! So I'm as much in the dark as you

 

[Goldenstar]

Magistrates are bound by sentencing guidelines and the sentencing guidelines for theft and criminal damage are set by the value of the property. That's the whole point of my petition!

Not only the value of the property but the ongoing loss the owner suffers .
I am not interested in your petition .

 

[Red-1]

I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?

That is certainly what I took it to mean.

 

[Overread]

Typically it takes major singular events to change many laws - or at least to set the wheels in motion. Many times laws can get left behind the changes in society so its not unsurprising that we can end up with a mish-mash of laws that don't all support current popular/common thinking in the country.

So events like this can bring to light these lapses or gaps in the laws (at least as seen by those affected by the law or potentially affected by it). Sometimes the result will be niche, only one sub-community picks it up - and within that only a select group. Where this happens enough times you get a wider spread social movement though it can take quite some time for individual events to spark off for different niche groups.

This might just be an niche group event; or it could spread out into other groups and influence them. The net result is that whilst this is an emotionally charged event; it will in turn have the potential to start serious debate and consideration.

I say niche because thus far this event hasn't really sent any ripples outside of the horse world. So the petition might not garner enough steam behind it. Social media might change that but we can't tell the future.

 

[Alec Swan]

Typically it takes major singular events to change many laws - or at least to set the wheels in motion. Many times laws can get left behind the changes in society so its not unsurprising that we can end up with a mish-mash of laws that don't all support current popular/common thinking in the country.

So events like this can bring to light these lapses or gaps in the laws (at least as seen by those affected by the law or potentially affected by it). Sometimes the result will be niche, only one sub-community picks it up - and within that only a select group. Where this happens enough times you get a wider spread social movement though it can take quite some time for individual events to spark off for different niche groups.

This might just be an niche group event; or it could spread out into other groups and influence them. The net result is that whilst this is an emotionally charged event; it will in turn have the potential to start serious debate and consideration.

I say niche because thus far this event hasn't really sent any ripples outside of the horse world. So the petition might not garner enough steam behind it. Social media might change that but we can't tell the future.

The argument doesn't actually include the 'change' in Law, but it's interpretation. Those who would 'judge' need to remain impartial. Can you imagine if someone swore at a horse, and then appeared in front of cpt? Were deportation still an option, they'd be gone quicker than abu Hamsa!

Alec.

 

[jools68]

I notice the GG Centre issued a 'statement ' on their website yesterday regarding recent events. Seems a little contradictory. The horse was shot in the interest of 'ensuring the safety of the public' . Surely, the original plan of taking and tying the horse in the loaners garden would have also created an issue of 'safety of the public' had the poor horse broken its tether and ended up loose on the road.!!

 

[cptrayes]

Not only the value of the property but the ongoing loss the owner suffers .
I am not interested in your petition .

You are WRONG GS. The sentencing guidelines do NOT allow for an animal to be treated as anything but a piece of property with a monetary value. 'Ongoing loss' is not included.

Of course you aren't interested in the petition if you won't even accept the basic law. If you don't believe me Google 'sentencing guidelines criminIal damage' and pick up the pdf file that shows you exactly how magistrates and district judges must judge criminal damage, which is what death of an animal would come under if it was humanely (which only means quickly, not nicely) killed.

The only thing which can increase the penalty from damaging something inanimate of equal valIue is if the animal is an aid dog, which would slightly increase the sentence.

If your neighbour takes against you and hacks the head off your dog with one blow of an axe, he will be charged only with criminal damage to the monetary value of the dog.

It's up to you if you don't want to sign the petition. But I can't understand why you wouldn't.

 

[cptrayes]

Goodness knows, I tried asking for that clarification days ago and got accused of trying to cause an argument! So I'm as much in the dark as you

She's not in the dark, she understands it correctly. If you read her post again, is a very simple concept and she has it right.

 

[cptrayes]

I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?

Absolutely right, YG. I'm at a total loss to understand why people are having trouble understanding it. I think maybe they can't quite believe that the law is such an ass!

 

[Goldenstar]

You are WRONG GS. The sentencing guidelines do NOT allow for an animal to be treated as anything but a piece of property with a monetary value. 'Ongoing loss' is not included.

Of course you aren't interested in the petition if you won't even accept the basic law. If you don't believe me Google 'sentencing guidelines criminIal damage' and pick up the pdf file that shows you exactly how magistrates and district judges must judge criminal damage, which is what death of an animal would come under if it was humanely (which only means quickly, not nicely) killed.

The only thing which can increase the penalty from damaging something inanimate of equal valIue is if the animal is an aid dog, which would slightly increase the sentence.

If your neighbour takes against you and hacks the head off your dog with one blow of an axe, he will be charged only with criminal damage to the monetary value of the dog.

It's up to you if you don't want to sign the petition. But I can't understand why you wouldn't.

I fail to understand why you think I should agree with you we have enough damn fool laws in this country made in the wake of hard cases already they cost money and time to pass .
I do think there is recourse in current law to cover this case .
I think pets are property and that's how the law judges them, in most cases where a malicious person kills someone's pet it's would be easy to use welfare legislation the circunmtances of this case are unusual as the person who killed the poor horse was trained to do in a professional capacity that's what I mean when I say it's a perfect example of hard cases make bad law .
How often have you heard of livery owners putting horses to sleep in such circumstances , it's not a widespread issue so IMO it's OTT to want laws changed .
The horse is dead that sad and wrong do I think the loaner deserves compensation no I don't do I think the owner has suffered loss yes I do .
Everything in this case will hinge I feel on if an abdandoment notice was correctly posted and on what view is taken on the fact the loaner was round the corner so the yard owner can hardly say he could not find her .
If you really think it legal in this country to chop off dogs heads you are not in a good place, you are expressing your view that's fine ,I don't agree with you .
And as for proving suffering in this you know we only have the RSPCAS view on that it does not mean someone else would not take another view of what happened .
If I was the owner of this horses I can think of loads of avenues to get redress if I felt so inclined but the owner of this horse may well wish not to approach the issue like this and I completely understand they may feel it best got over with no fuss.

 

[cptrayes]

I fail to understand why you think I should agree with you we have enough damn fool laws in this country made in the wake of hard cases already they cost money and time to pass .
I do think there is recourse in current law to cover this case .
I think pets are property and that's how the law judges them, in most cases where a malicious person kills someone's pet it's would be easy to use welfare legislation the circunmtances of this case are unusual as the person who killed the poor horse was trained to do in a professional capacity that's what I mean when I say it's a perfect example of hard cases make bad law .
How often have you heard of livery owners putting horses to sleep in such circumstances , it's not a widespread issue so IMO it's OTT to want laws changed .r
The horse is dead that sad and wrong do I think the loaner deserves compensation no I don't do I think the owner has suffered loss yes I do .
Everything in this case will hinge I feel on if an abdandoment notice was correctly posted and on what view is taken on the fact the loaner was round the corner so the yard owner can hardly say he could not find her .
If you really think it legal in this country to chop off dogs heads you are not in a good place, you are expressing your view that's fine ,I don't agree with you .
And as for proving suffering in this you know we only have the RSPCAS view on that it does not mean someone else would not take another view of what happened .
If I was the owner of this horses I can think of loads of avenues to get redress if I felt so inclined but the owner of this horse may well wish not to approach the issue like this and I completely understand they may feel it best got over with no fuss.

It's not about this case. This case was just my trigger for finally doing something.

I do not think you have to agree with me. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I just don't understand how anyone could not want a higher penalty for maliciously killing a family dog than breaking a window. But if that's how you feel, is how you feel. It's not how I feel.

 

[cptrayes]

GS, again you are wrong about the law. It is perfectly legal to chop off a dog's head if you own the dog or have the permission of the owner and the death is instant. Anyone can kill any animal they own or have permission to kill if it is done humanely. (Protected species are probably excluded from that!)

 

[Goldenstar]

GS, again you are wrong about the law. It is perfectly legal to chop off a dog's head if you own the dog or have the permission of the owner and the death is instant. Anyone can kill any animal they own or have permission to kill if it is done humanely. (Protected species are probably excluded from that!)

Of course you can kill your own dog , it would be appalling if you could not .
I thought you where referring to a third party killing your dog without your permission .

 

[cptrayes]

Of course you can kill your own dog , it would be appalling if you could not .
I thought you where referring to a third party killing your dog without your permission .

No, it's been clear in the thread all along that you commit a civil offence if you kill a dog without someone's permission, and if you did that then you could be sued by the owner for the value of the dog. Which would be zero in the case of a lovely old family friend who the victim has shared his house with for fifteen years, and therefore you would get away with it scot free

If you were unlucky and the Police had the time and the CPS thought it in the public interest, you might be charged with a minor public order offence of 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress' and get a slap on the wrist for that.

 

[Goldenstar]

No, isw been clear in the thread all along that you commit a civil offence if you kill a dog without someone's permission, and if you did that then you could be sued by the owner for the value of the dog. Which would be zero in the case of a lovely old family friend who you have shared your house with for fifteen years, and therefore you would get away with it scot free

You don't get do you I disagree with you , I think you could make a case in the example you give that some stranger getting your dog holding it still and chopping off it's head caused the dog unnecessary suffering verses the death a pet of would expect .
Any half decent solicitor could get the magistrates squirming in their seats telling that story .

 

[cptrayes]

You don't get do you I disagree with you , I think you could make a case in the example you give that some stranger getting your dog holding it still and chopping off it's head caused the dog unnecessary suffering verses the death a pet of would expect .
Any half decent solicitor could get the magistrates squirming in their seats telling that story .

I completely get you don't agree with me. I've told you so already.

But i have to keep responding because you keep saying things that aren't true about the law and how courts work.

There would be no offence for the solicitor to present in court if the dog was humanely killed GS.

You don't seem to understand about sentencing guidelines. If it did get to court, which would be as harassment/alarm/distress or as criminal damage, it matters not one jot how much the magistrates are squirming. They are limited to what the guidelines say, and the guidelines say it's property worth nothing and the penalty minimal.

Ditto theft.

Ditto divorce, the animal goes to the owner even if they intend to have it put down to spite the person who actually loved it and looked after it.

 

[Dry Rot]

No, it's been clear in the thread all along that you commit a civil offence if you kill a dog without someone's permission, and if you did that then you could be sued by the owner for the value of the dog. Which would be zero in the case of a lovely old family friend who the victim has shared his house with for fifteen years, and therefore you would get away with it scot free

If you were unlucky and the Police had the time and the CPS thought it in the public interest, you might be charged with a minor public order offence of 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress' and get a slap on the wrist for that.

What is stopping the owner suing the person who destroyed the dog for the emotional pain and suffering under the law of torts? If he has already been successfully prosecuted under criminal law, the civil suit should be a dawdle.

I am not a lawyer and it is over fifty years since I studied law, so perhaps someone can remind me?

I think I've asked this before and the fact that my question has been ignored does increase my reluctance to sign anything!

 

[Goldenstar]

I am saying that cutting a dogs head off would cause unnecessary suffering and you would use the welfare laws and you could prove that I was a witness in a case where someone was banned for life was having a horse with lice it is about how you present your evidence .
It would not be necessary to cut off your neighbours dogs head and it would be very easy to say it caused suffering verses say putting the dog to sleep at the vets or at home
When people where executed it was extremely difficult to do in one go and the executions where specially training and person is a much better shape to execute in this way .
Of course someone who has 'custody 'of the dog after a divorce can put it down I am alarmed you think it wrong that they can.

 

[cptrayes]

What is stopping the owner suing the person who destroyed the dog for the emotional pain and suffering under the law of torts? If he has already been successfully prosecuted under criminal law, the civil suit should be a dawdle.

I am not a lawyer and it is over fifty years since I studied law, so perhaps someone can remind me?

I think I've asked this before and the fact that my question has been ignored does increase my reluctance to sign anything!

I didn't ignore you DR, I told you that as far as I am aware, the law in this country doesn't allow for punitive damages of that sort, but I don't know civil law and the advice I was given was thirty years ago. Perhaps a lawyer will come on and tell us.

But even if you can, I personally would still like the criminal law changed to reflect the fact that pets and horses are more akin to family members than they are to inanimate property of the same value. The law was made when horses and dogs had jobs. Society has moved on but the law has not moved with it.

 

[cptrayes]

I am saying that cutting a dogs head off would cause unnecessary suffering and you would use the welfare laws and you could prove that I was a witness in a case where someone was banned for life was having a horse with lice it is about how you present your evidence .
It would not be necessary to cut off your neighbours dogs head and it would be very easy to say it caused suffering verses say putting the dog to sleep at the vets or at home
When people where executed it was extremely difficult to do in one go and the executions where specially training and person is a much better shape to execute in this way .
Of course someone who has 'custody 'of the dog after a divorce can put it down I am alarmed you think it wrong that they can.

How many more times?


Welfare issues are well covered.

Theft and humane but malicious death aren't.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse GS, But the issue with divorce is that the dog is treated solely as property and goes with whoever owns it, not with the person who cares for it and has the relationship with it.

 

[Goldenstar]

Cutting off a dogs head in practice cannot be done inIMV without causing unnecessary suffering I think this could be easy to prove and you would use the welfare laws to prosecute .

 

[Goldenstar]

And again cutting off your neighbours dogs head would be a welfare case .

 

[cptrayes]

Cutting off a dogs head in practice cannot be done inIMV without causing unnecessary suffering I think this could be easy to prove and you would use the welfare laws to prosecute .

OK GS, if your imagination is not as vivid as mine and you are completely unable to envisage killing a small dog with one blow of a machete, then let's imagine the dog is shut cleanly with a legally held gun instead. The method of killing is irrelevant. The penalty is derisory.



Now as much fun as this discussion has been, I need to go out and ride horse in the sunshine. I'm sure you will have had more to say when I get back in

 

[cptrayes]

And again cutting off your neighbours dogs head would be a welfare case .

Not if it was killed with a single blow from a sharp blade.

You are focusing on such minutiae!

The point is, should an animal you have owned loved and cared for for many years really be worth nothing in the eye of the law?

 

[Goldenstar]

Not if it was killed with a single blow from a sharp blade.

You focusing on such minutiae!

The point is, should an animal you have owned loved and cared for for many years really be worth nothing in the eye of the law?

I am not interested in the value of my pets to others only to me .
I am very interested to hear how you think you might prove the neighbours dog did not suffer unnecessarily when you cut off it's head on a whim.

 

[cptrayes]

I am not interested in the value of my pets to others only to me .
I am very interested to hear how you think you might prove the neighbours dog did not suffer unnecessarily when you cut off it's head on a whim.

Actually it would be up to the RSPCA to prove that cruelty took place, not the perpetrator to prove that it did not. And with any single shot, blow, stab, cut that caused instant death with no other marks they'd have a devil of a job doing that.

If you would be happy to have one of your dogs stolen, see the police put no effort into finding it because is only a low value piece of property, catch the person who took it yourself and then see them given a caution, conditional discharge or a low fine because of the low value of the property stolen, then you feel very differently from me.

There's no problem with that, but I am puzzled why you seem to be hell bent on putting other people off signing a petition that can do little harm and might just do some good. I keep replying to you because I don't want you to succeed in putting off others, not because I want you to change your mind.

 

[merrymeasure]

Hasn't put me off signing cpt. And if it can do a bit of good, so much the better. Hope it does!