Police Shoot Pet Cat

reply to post by FortAnthem


its a risk worth taking, since the average pet owner can't be bothered to get a rabies shot, it only takes one infected animal to quickly infect others. Then the other owners have an animal that they don't even know is infected, coming into their house.

More then once, a person has fed hordes of strays, to get scratched or bit, and every single stray has to be put down because no one can tell which one might be infected, I have seen 14 strays euthanized for one event because of people trying to be "kind".

reply to post by nixie_nox


No, a deer is a wild animal. If it has been injured and is running amok on the road, it poses an immediate danger. A cat in an ally doesn't.

reply to post by caladonea


If the cat was in the alley, how would they know if it was checked or not??

reply to post by kosmicjack


Cats that can carry any number of diseases, that can be passed onto humans. Do you know that once symptoms of rabies show, it is 100% lethal?

Do you know rabies can have a latency period of up to six months? But still remain infectious?

If an animal is sick, even if it has tags, its shoot on sight. It is not worth the risk.

There is a reason the humane society urges people to keep their pet indoors.


It is these very strict measures that there have only been a handful of cases in the states in the past few decades, as opposed to the tens of thousands that die a horrible death in India each year from proper control.


Funny how no one faults the owners for letting the pet out into an alley where it can be:
hit by a car
lost and then starved
killed by a dog
tortured by thugs (in my city, gangs take stray cats to sic their pit bulls on to train them and make them blood hungry, my friend saw a pregnant cat tied to a fence and had pit bulls unleashed on it in just this manner)

being shot is the most humane of its endings.

reply to post by nixie_nox


We're keeping our cat inside until I can arrange getting her fixed. However, she will not be wearing a collar, though I want one, with bells so the birds can fly away. But the 3 different types of collars she's had she has licked until they stuck to her tongue and thats not nice thing to happen. We had to unstick her tongue and take off the collars. Now we're looking for a special collar, haven't found one I trust yet.

Who determined the cat was sick?

The person who made the call?

The cops on scene?

Which one was the trained vet?

And what kind of a person calls the cops because they saw a cat?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Just wondering if you would be making all of the same arguments if the title of this thread was "Police Shoot Pet Dog"?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by caladonea

 

If the cat was in the alley, how would they know if it was checked or not??

Because...perhaps...the cat did have an id-collar on and/or it had a microchip. The fact that the owners are upset that the police did not check...implies to me that the cat had some form of identification.

Damn you Sting!



I say we lock them up for life!

reply to post by kosmicjack


Absolutely.And I have sat there watched rangers shoot pet dogs. The poor things come to the woods to die, they get put out of their misery, they are sick and quickly put down.

reply to post by Unity_99


You sound like a responsible pet owner. As for a cat that keeps getting its tongue stuck in the collar, that is a new one to me, lol.

Let me think on that.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The people who made the call said there was a sickly cat.

If the police see that a cat is sick, they put it down.

No, they are not vets. But they don't:

risk exposing themselves to dangerous diseases
or let a sick and potentially contagious animal to go around biting other pets and/or children or other adults in the neighborhood


Guess what animal control does with them folks.. they take it back to headquarters and put it down if its sick. The only difference is the transportation.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Guess what animal control does with them folks.. they take it back to headquarters and put it down if its sick. The only difference is the transportation.

Animal control doesn't spray bullets around a residential neighborhood. They also have the expertise to determine whether the cat is actually sick or just a little dirty looking. They have the equipment to humanely trap the animal for closer inspection and to determine whether the cat was chipped and to find the owner if necessary.

Most importantly, they put down the animal in a humane manner instead of just shooting holes in it 'till it stops moving.

If the police aren't specially trained to deal with animals, they have no business responding to this type of call if the cat is not attacking or threatening anyone. Assuming all sick animals have rabies is the same type of "zero-tolerance" mentality that's screwing up all aspects of society.

This was an issue for the Warren County Animal Control, NOT cops! Secondly....WTF!!!! These PIGS should be fiered and possibly jailed for such careless use of a firearm "in the alley behind their home!!!"

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by caladonea

 

If the cat was in the alley, how would they know if it was checked or not??

Exactly. They have no way of knowing that it was a stray, therefore they have no valid reason to shoot it, regardless of policy to shoot strays.

Just because it wasn't checked or verified doesn't mean it is acceptable to shoot it.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

The people who made the call said there was a sickly cat.

If the police see that a cat is sick, they put it down.

No, they are not vets. But they don't:

risk exposing themselves to dangerous diseases
or let a sick and potentially contagious animal to go around biting other pets and/or children or other adults in the neighborhood


Guess what animal control does with them folks.. they take it back to headquarters and put it down if its sick. The only difference is the transportation.

edit on 18-2-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

So the police act upon the callers' assumption, and without investigation kill it because it "appears to be accurate?" "Yep, well, it *looks* sick. Not sure if it IS sick, but shoot it Bob."

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Cats are the owner's responsibility, period, not the police, or the government's. It is not the police officer's jobs to run cats to the vets.

It is also not their job to expose themselves to diseases to rescue one of the millions of animals wandering the streets from negligent owners.

And it's not an officer's job to respond to stray cat calls and to shoot them. If they have that much time with so little crime, as i previously suggested they SHOULD be cross-trained to handle the variety of loads (since they were in fact called about it).

Nor is it their job or responsibility, unless it's a rabies situation, to "shoot strays." Regardless on the town's policy how the heck does one identify a stray based purely on site (some animals, yes)??? Or is any animal unleashed and without an owner present now considered a stray regardless of its overall condition?

It's not the owner's fault the cat was shot by police. A cat wandering is not negligent on the owner's part. Cats roam.

Police being subjected to diseases? Really? They are exposed to germs on a daily and hourly basis in dealing with far worse and dirtier things than animals. If they didn't want to get their hands dirty they need to find another profession. To even bring the fact that animals carry germs into the argument is just silly, and likely stems from an already help notion that animals are dirty germ carriers (aren't we all).

Sounds like the neighbor knew the shoot stray law and reported the cat as a stray so it would be killed.

Generally speaking, the shooting of animals that are not wild (dogs, cats, horses, e.g PETS) is considered animal cruelty, unless said animal is a direct and immediate threat (attacking people tearing up crops, etc), which this cat was likely not.

Uncalled for.

I'm surprised these cops didn't plant some catnip on the dead body.
Cop: "He was strung out of his mind! We had no choice." (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.)

Originally posted by caladonea

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by caladonea

 

25 million homeless cats and dogs in the US and you want the police to take time to see if they all have homes??

Did they owners have a collar on the cat? or are they usually negligent owners who let pets wander around without collars, vaccinations, or being neutered?

Yes...I do want the police to take the time and check to find out if the animal is someones pet. It is the right thing to do.

In the article provided in this thread it says: "What enraged the cat's owners is the fact that it was never checked for identification tags neither did the officers attempt in any way to determine whether it was a stray or a pet cat."

edit on 18-2-2012 by caladonea because: add more

I agree with this, if they are going to be responsible for taking its life, then they should at least be responsible enough to see if they can find the owner first before having to kill it for no good reason. Just because an animal makes it outside does not mean the owners are letting it run around. I have a neutered male, but hates wearing a collar. Once in a while he makes a dash for the door, and makes it out, but comes back after a couple of hours. Now I would hope, someone with common sense would either take him in and care for him, or attempt to find me, not "Oh Gee, a cat, lets kill it." that just does not sound right. That is like saying, lets shoot the homeless guy cause he might have HIV, and he obviously has no place to go. Killing someones family pet is about like killing a person. If somebody shot my cat or dog, I would have to shoot them, and thats the way it is. Point being...... the cops need to try and identify the animal first, and never put it down, let the shelter decide that one, or someone who is more qualified. I didn't know that veterinarian school was a pre req along with crim justice. just sayin..

This story is just wrong on so many levels.

Personally the whole story sounds like an idiot cop; and no I am not saying all cops are idiots, with an itchy trigger finger, just looking for any reason to engage in a little live fire target practice inside of city limits.

Though, cops do have the right to discharge fire arms in the city limits, it should be carefully restricted, ie only in defense of the officer and other citizens.

The fact is in most cities if a citizen steps out into their yard and takes pot shots at stray cats, they will probably be charged with illegal discharge of a fire arm. And, really it's for good reason, because the bullet could ricochet off the ground or go through a fence etc and hit an innocent bystander. It's just not safe or even smart.

Add to the fact that it was a cat and not a dog, it makes it even more unreasonable that the cop shot it. I mean I don't recall the last time I heard a story where someone stepped out of their house and were mauled to death by a pride of stray cats....

Not only that but most cities do have animal control officers and they have ways of catching stray cats without shooting them and risking the health and safety of nearby citizens.

Finally, I think to many people make to much of a big deal about stray cats. I can recall another time when people started wiping cats out in mass, during the inquisition, and it resulted in a large scale rat infestation and the black plague. So, by all means remove all the cats from your streets and neighborhoods, but then you better learn to love the rats and snakes. lol