ArcaMax

In April, after Texas veterinarian Dr. Kristin Lindsey posted an image on her Facebook page of a cat she boasted of having shot with an arrow, the story made international headlines. Accompanying the image, Lindsey wrote: "My first bow kill, LOL. The only good feral tomcat is one with an arrow through its head. The vet of the year award ... gladly accepted."

What didn't make headlines was the puzzling response from an Austin County Grand Jury, which on June 24 declined to file charges against Lindsey for animal cruelty.

After her Facebook post, Lindsey was swiftly relieved of her job at Washington Animal Clinic in Brenham, TX. Within days, the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Animal Hospital Association and other organized veterinary groups, as well as animal welfare agencies and trap-neuter-return organizations posted statements online condemning Lindsey's actions.

According to a press release issued by Travis J. Koehn, criminal district attorney of Austin County, "The Grand Jury examined all the evidence and determined there was insufficient proof to charge Kristen Lindsey with a crime."

So, how is intentionally taking an arrow and shooting a defenseless animal not a crime? I'm no attorney, but I can easily answer each of the three points used by the Grand Jury to defend their decision to waive prosecution.

1. Grand Jury statement: "lf the State could prove an incident did occur in Texas, Texas Penal Code 42.092 essentially requires the State to prove that either a) a defendant killed a stray cat in a cruel manner, or b) a defendant killed a cat without the owner's consent."

My comment: Lindsey herself conceded where the incident took place. And if shooting a cat with an arrow through the skull isn't defined as cruel, I wonder what it would take to define cruel. Obviously she killed the cat without the owner's consent.

2. Grand Jury statement: "Investigators were never able to positively confirm the identity of the cat seen in the social media photograph. Although one witness believes the cat to be a pet named Tiger, three different area residents had fed similar-looking cats at one time or another that had no collar and had strayed. Evidence was insufficient to positively identify an owner for the cat in the online photograph."

My comment: Based on several local media reports, it's clear the cat shot was Tiger. Even if it was another cat, experts have pointed out (based on where the arrow entered the cat's head) that the cat was approaching Lindsey, rather than running off, which is what an unsocialized feral cat would surely do. Being a veterinarian, Lindsey should have understood the difference.

Why does it matter if the cat was Tiger? Clearly, Lindsay killed a defenseless cat. Clearly, the Grand Jury is suggesting that if a cat is un-owned and feral, it has less value, and shooting the animal is deemed acceptable. While this could legally be true in Texas, it's reprehensible.

...continued

(c) 2015 DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.