Felony animal abuse charges for killing Goldfish, This is getting out of hand

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
To those that are upset with the charges, answer me this.

If you owned a goldfish as a pet, or maybe they were your children's pet, and someone intentionally killed them how would you react?

Would you support charges then?

OK,

Charge the person with "reasonable charges".

FELONY ANIMAL CRUELTY for goldfish is a bit excessive. I don't want the authorities to have to power to charge someone for a damned Felony over a goldfish.

Typing while I finish off my can of sardines.

originally posted by: kiro8lak
a reply to: infolurker

Racism is ALMOST dead; next is speciesism. Why do the lives of goldfish have less contextual value to THEM, than your life does to YOU? Please don't answer, just think about it. . .

Goldfish. Period.

whatever. theres no way she will get the felony as long as she has a halfway decent lawyer. I doubt it will even be a misdemeanor. probably a citation so long as she gets mental help (which she needs).

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort
Goldfish. Period.

Pets are pets. Do you think the owner had no emotional attachment to them?

Yeah, sure it's a stretch but it goes along with the charges of destroying property. Of course not all states, shockingly so that Fl would have that added into abuse, have this. Seems like she's a danger to herself even. Also, seems pretty evident that she attacked the fish because of his attachment to them. Happy he had no other pets there. Nonetheless that was pretty nasty, to say the least, to do to the fish, what a sad way to go.

Some people would say it's just a dog, it's just a cat, it's just a gold fish. These are living creatures that feel pain when treated with cruelty, just as any human being would feel.

a reply to: infolurker

Florida statute 828.12(2) states that any CRUEL and INTENTIONAL act that causes an animals death is a felony.

Fish are animals. She intentionally killed them in a manner most reasonable persons would deem cruel.

That resulted in the felony charge.

It is not an officer's job to down charge a suspect. The state prosecutor will most likely do that with a plea.

Furthermore, if she was only charged with a lesser included offense the victim would probably complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The life of a cop...

a reply to: Answer

I don't agree.

This is a ridiculous charge.

While we're at it, it seems to me people have more of a problem with this womans state of mind at the time she offed the goldfish, her intent...so now, we have a situation where a human being is being charged with a felony, not because she killed a creature, a creature that is being killed by Americans in their millions almost everyday up and down the nation, commercial fishing causes the deaths of a great number of fish, yet nobody thinks to question the intent or state of mind of the commercial fishermen?

I'm fairly sure their intent is exactly the same as this womans...to catch and kill fish.

So what is going on trial here...the woman for killing fish...or a human being's right to be in any state of mind they happen to find themselves in.

This is getting dangerously close to a court case prosecuting thought crime.

They are fish...goldfish. I've seen people at fair grounds win a goldfish and promptly eat them alive for the amusement of their friends.

She probably has loads of squashed bugs on her car wind shield too...perhaps we ought to hang her..if you get dragged in on a felony charge for killing a bloody goldfish, she, and later on WE..will probably get the death penalty for intentionally killing and not caring about all those bugs squashed on our cars...she's a mass murderer after all.

a reply to: MysterX

Oof. Your legs must be tired from that ginormous leap you just made to get from "lady kills a guy's pets on purpose" to "we're all gonna get the death penalty for killing bugs."

Talk about a reach.

a reply to: infolurker

I keep hearing people say that they're just goldfish, and that felony charges are a bit much. All I can think about after reading the article is that she poured bleach into the fish tank. Bleach. Those poor goldfish suffered for who knows how long until they perished. Imagine being put in a room full of bleach vapor until you died. I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant.

I don't care if they were fish or not, those poor animals suffered until the end. She's a whack bitch, and I hope the felony charges stick. If she can easily do that while in anger, how much longer until it's a person??

a reply to: Aazadan

Ok they think. I'm not going to argue. Bye now.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
To those that are upset with the charges, answer me this.

If you owned a goldfish as a pet, or maybe they were your children's pet, and someone intentionally killed them how would you react?

Would you support charges then?

No. I wouldn't even involve the police. That person would never gain access to my home again. Then we'd get the kid a new gold fish.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: infolurker

Florida statute 828.12(2) states that any CRUEL and INTENTIONAL act that causes an animals death is a felony.

Fish are animals. She intentionally killed them in a manner most reasonable persons would deem cruel.

That resulted in the felony charge.

It is not an officer's job to down charge a suspect. The state prosecutor will most likely do that with a plea.

Furthermore, if she was only charged with a lesser included offense the victim would probably complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The life of a cop...

There you have it. The "they're just goldfish" folks have no legs to stand on.

a reply to: infolurker I think the charge is right. The fish were pets, not food for other pets.

My daughter went to a carnival with my mother some 7 years ago and she asked me what I wanted from the carnival. I said a goldfish. I named the fish Colour. Over 7 years, I learned that goldfish are smarter than one would think. It is also a myth that their memory is only some 10 seconds. Every day when I fed the fish I would call his name and he would swim to the edge of the bowl. I really bonded with this fish. Some 2 years ago, the fish became ill, wasn't able to swim upright. After some research, I was off to the per store for fish antibiotics, an antifungal and brine shrimp for food rather than flakes. He recovered. He passed about 5 months ago, of natural causes as far as I can tell. He hadn't been ill.He is buried in the yard with decorations and colored rocks form his tank. I have pictures of him that I put on FB that people enjoyed as much as pictures of my cats.

If someone had poured bleach in his bowl, I would be being charged with felony assault after I finished with that person. So, yes, charge her.

a reply to: MysterX

Another person who is not understanding this, 1st off they were not her fish, 2nd she did it to hurt and cause pain and mental anguish to a person..wtf is wrong with some of you.
Nevermind the analysis that a fish is not a pet either..look up the definition of pet.
SICK.

To kill any living thing other than using their body for vital things is wrong. Killing for fun is not right be it an ant or dolphin.
It is cruelty to any living feeling thing...killing for no reason is sick.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: infolurker

Florida statute 828.12(2) states that any CRUEL and INTENTIONAL act that causes an animals death is a felony.

Fish are animals. She intentionally killed them in a manner most reasonable persons would deem cruel.

That resulted in the felony charge.

It is not an officer's job to down charge a suspect. The state prosecutor will most likely do that with a plea.

Furthermore, if she was only charged with a lesser included offense the victim would probably complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The life of a cop...

There you have it. The "they're just goldfish" folks have no legs to stand on.

There are laws and statutes that prohibit certain kinds of sex between consenting adults too.
Along with the just plain silly laws....
Here is one from Boise, Idaho:

Residents may not fish from a giraffe’s back.

Source: Dumblaws.com
I wonder if that law is to protect the giraffe... or the fish?

Just in case people want to see what law she violated

section 2

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 828
ANIMALS: CRUELTY; SALES; ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION
View Entire Chapter
828.12 Cruelty to animals.—
(1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, commits animal cruelty, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(2) A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal, or a person who owns or has the custody or control of any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, or causes the same to be done, commits aggravated animal cruelty, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

a reply to: reldra

A pal of mine had his goldfish which he won as a boy at a fairground die only last year it was 32...
It surprised him how much he missed the fish, he told me he talked to that fish everyday for 32 years.
He is getting a tattoo of it next week.

a reply to: butcherguy

My question would be what happened in the situation to warrant making up that law?.
Did it happen and what was the outcome? lol.