Comments on: Ummm… What’s There to Think About?

By: A few more thoughts on the Wellsford Massacre… « The Solution

A few more thoughts on the Wellsford Massacre… « The Solution — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:04:40 +0000

[...] welfare system. Incidentally, if you haven’t done so, it’s probably worth reading what I had to say on this yesterday, as I don’t plan on repeating any details of the case that I talked about then. But here [...]

By: Peter Sankoff

Peter Sankoff — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:11:49 +0000

UPDATE: Looks like charges will be laid after all – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10622842

By: Peter Sankoff

Peter Sankoff — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:09:47 +0000

The problem is that the law needs to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard burden of proof in these cases. There’s a High Court case where a dog was shot in a vital area, and the Court was unwilling to infer that the dog suffered without any proof of such. Thus, it’s not enough that the method looked problematic, or is obviously problematic. There needs to be some proof, and in cases like this, a court “could” be worried – and the SPCA often shies away from cases that might be tough to prosecute. In any event, as I suggested in the blog, I don’t think physical pain and suffering should be the main focus – although the evidence might reveal clear indicators of such – but rather the stronger case is emotional suffering, which can be inferred from the screams and the dogs running to hide, etc.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:52:11 +0000

I know nothing about evidence or criminal procedure, but it seems to me to be the most obvious thing in the world that individual dogs suffered, based on the facts. I understood humane killing to be something like a bolt to the head or a slit throat, where animals presumably lost consciousness within seconds. A bullet to any other part of the body would necessarily involve suffering, until death ensued. What would the law see as individual pain and suffering?