Jackson Jambalaya

Help me out here, Mr. Fish, is there any possibility that this bill could be used to protect the "rights" of chickens and cattle? I think that I am aware of the intent of the bill, but couldn't that be expanded to include even food animals?

Read the bill.

"(1) If any person with malice shall torture, 26 mutilate, maim, burn, starve, disfigure or kill any domesticated dog or cat, every such offender, for every offense, shall be guilty of aggravated cruelty to a dog or cat"

That is the language.

I do understand that, which seems good on the surface, but can this slope get slippery? Like that "Congress shall make no law" thingy?

No it can't get slippery. Quit the bull shit smoke and mirrors. This law is in effect in 46 states and NOWHERE has it been enforced in a slippery fashion.

Why is it bullshit to ask a question? My first inclination is to distrust government. Kinda Jeffersonesque, huh?

Paul, the bill itself says that nothing in it can be construed as preventing, among other things, the following:

(d) Engaging in practices lawful under the Mississippi Veterinary Practice Act, Section 73-39-51 et seq., or engaging in activities by any licensed veterinarian while following accepted standards of practice of the profession, including, but not limited to, the euthanizing, spaying or neutering, earcropping, taildocking, declawing, or debarking of an animal;
(e) Humanely killing an animal that is suffering from an incurable or untreatable illness or condition or if there appears to be no reasonable probability that the life or usefulness of the animal can be saved;
(g) Performing accepted agricultural and animal husbandry practices on livestock or poultry, including, but not limited to, slaughter, butchering, food processing and marketing practices.

And you HAVE to know that arguing a slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You can't prove that something is bad because something else bad MIGHT happen because of it later.

The slippery slope makes life itself a bad thing -- my sister and her husband are thinking of having another child, but that child MIGHT one day be kidnapped or die, causing them incredible grief, so just give up on having a kid.

Blogs COULD give voice and imagined legitimacy to people who previously relied on opinion leaders for their political views, so kill blogs.

Slippery slope arguments fail because they rely solely on an imagined future and ignore the issue at hand. What is the issue at hand? Take another look at that dog with the arrow in its head.

They also give amazing power to people who currently have nothing to do with anything. Exactly how involved in Mississippi IS PETA? How successful do you think they'd be here? Do you honestly see the people of THIS STATE siding with them? The folks who are for these bills eat beef, chicken, eggs, pork, turkey, etc. PETA has no claim over us and to refuse to pass common-sense legislation because of an irrational fear that they will come to Mississippi and hypnotize the population and judiciary into fringe behavior is not only insane, it's insulting, to me and others.

Many other modern countries have government-rationed healthcare and ban the lawful possession of firearms, should we follow suit there also?

I'm an animal lover, but I'm glad the law didn't pass. Regardless of how anything is written, laws that restrict individual freedoms and PROPERTY rights tend to be a springboard for more rigid dictates down the road...which was the goal when this bill was written.

PETA was not the group that I was thinking about. The Sierra Club got together and "freed" a bunch of hogs from a farm outside of Columbus a few years back. Most died from exposure.

The slippery slope argument in my opinion does not cover such things as not having a baby because they might get kidnapped, but it does cover the argument that "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion" and then basically outlawing religion on public property. There always appears to be a very fine line between logic and sheer insanity.

One more thing, most policies fail because they fail to take the future into account. Did anyone ever think that giving poor folks food stamps would lead to an obese poor population? Is there anyone suggesting we reduce the amount of food stamps to solve the obesity problem which would seem logical?

Most things require more thought that "we should not torture pets" to make sense. Again, on the surface this seems like good legislation, but where can it lead?

GG, what individual/property right? The right to set a dog on fire and it not be a felony?

Get real.

I remember hearing some of these arguments about seat belts ten years ago. Nothing wrong with the legislation and if something was, there was an amendment process. Farm Bureau was never interested in fixing the bill but killing it outright.

So what Luke Woodham did deserved only a $100 fine and a slap on the wrist?

Kingfish, I agree with Woodham's actions being felony level material. I am certainly saying that this seems like good legislation, but there does need to be clearly defined limits. Immediately it just appears that chickens could be included in the INTENT even though they are excluded by language.

10:47, Regardless of the emotional attachment associated with them, pets are PROPERTY.

Paul, please post a picture soon of you in your backyard bunker with your aluminum foil suit and hat on.

And be sure to let us know which orifice the aliens put the transmitter in.

All right knucklehead, that went a little too far.

Dang it, unfair.

I'm right there with you on this one KF. The bill is narrowly tailored and specifically permits certain types of conduct that will not be covered.

It's a shame that the legislative process can get hijacked in committee. It at least deserved an up or down vote.

For shame. For shame.

This is horrible legislation.

If any person shall knowingly or with criminal negligence torment, unjustifiably injure, deprive of necessary sustenance, food or drink; or cruelly beat or mutilate; or cause or procure to be tortured, unjustifiably injured, tormented, or deprived of necessary sustenance, food or drink; or to be cruelly beaten or mutilated or killed, any living vertebrate creature, except human beings and fish, every such offender, for each offense, shall be guilty of cruelty to animals, which is a misdemeanor punishable by not more than one (1) year in jail, a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both.

All courts in the State of Mississippi may order the seizure of an animal by a law enforcement agency, for its care and protection upon a finding of probable cause to believe said animal is being cruelly treated, neglected or abandoned. Such probable cause may be established upon sworn testimony of any person who has witnessed the condition of said animal.

Within five (5) days of seizure of an animal, the owner of the animal may request a hearing in the court ordering the animal to be seized to determine whether the owner is able to provide adequately for the animal and is fit to have custody of the animal.

While we need cruelty laws, having poorly written and/or bad law shouldn't be applauded.

When I kill a rat (I'm not a professional) I'm guilty of breaking a law.

All someone has to do is swear to witnessing, without any further evidence, cruelty and it provides for seizure. Then which the owner has to prove they did not act cruel towards the animal.

The paranoia continues.

JD, what's wrong with that dipshit? The provision you cite is a misdemeanor? I'd be willing to bet existing law says something to that effect. If it doesn't, it should.

GG, have fun punting your cat around the living room. Yeah, pets are property. Children arguably are too and a divorce court would certainly say they are in a custodial dispute. Want to set them on fire?

Jesus. You rednecks amaze me and just get a misdemeanor.

Anon 2:20, if pets are not property, then what exactly are they? Your idiotic suggestion is that someone can just take your pet from you and that is fine. Sorry, I disagree.

You equating children with pets is why I am concerned with this bill.

Geez, you Harvard educated elites are something else. The next thing you know, one of you doofus yahoos will be President.

I think JD is very fond of his pet ewe sheep.

The paranoia continues.

JD, what's wrong with that dipshit? The provision you cite is a misdemeanor? I'd be willing to bet existing law says something to that effect. If it doesn't, it should.
There's plenty wrong with that dipshit.

First, it creates a criminal out of an otherwise law-abiding citizen, much like the rest of the poorly written and employed laws, solely through being poorly written. That is, unless the intent is to truly prosecute those that kill rodents and the like.

Secondly, it allows for seizure of one's pet or animal just on the say-so of one individual to where you are then required to prove you are not being cruel. I, for one, do not believe having a single person swearing to something and it be the sole basis to seize, falls under reasonable.

Perhaps if one was truly concerned with protecting pets, they would do their best to get good law written, instead of attempting to bully everyone else with ad hominem comments.

Law shouldn't be used as a tool to justify any means to an end at the expense of law-abiding citizens' liberties.

PM, I didn't go to Harvard. I can tell you didn't without asking.

JD, the paranoia knows no ends.

The problem with your argument JD, though in keeping with your limited cognitive abilities, is that even if our House rubes McCoy, Ward and Bailey thought, as you, that the bill as written was overly broad and could be the subject of abuse then they should have fixed it by amending the damn thing, sent it to the floor for a vote and then back to conference with the Senate.

Pull your binary thinking head out of your ass and quit having sex with your sheep.

Just to clarify:

The bill was first referred to House Agriculture. Under House rules, Rep. Bailey, chair of House Judiciary B, could not by rule take up the animal cruelty bill unles the House Agriculture committee passed the bill. Since the bill died in House Ag, Rep. Bailey and Judiciary B was not able to take up the bill.

Rep. Bailey did tell WLBT (see news video in a Blog post below) he was in favor of the animal cruelty bill.

All of our criminal statutes make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, smartypants.

Criminal = someone who breaks laws, i.e. commits a crime.

So, the statute doesn't "make a criminal," it prohibits certain activity. Nothing is ex post facto or anything in the bill.

The only thing it seeks to do is punish the people who case 15 animals in a case not large enough for one to fit comfortably.

Also, please don't tell me we're equating animals with people. We don't allow people to destroy or harm other people's property - that's a crime - it's called malicious mischief and it's a felony.

Spare me the nanny-state melodrama...

Kingfish,
1) Did this occur in MS?
2) If it did, was it prosecuted?
3) What sentence did the offender receive?

In MS we have laws on the books against this type conduct. We don't enough law enforcement officals, nor prosecutors to handle these cases, much less room in our jails to accomodate more offenders. Isn't it more important to enforce the crimes we have, before we start making additional crimes?

Mr. Holmes. Please share what Chairman Bailey did to convince/lobby/cajole/persuade/request Chairman Ward to pass the bill out of his committee?

Being inert with a TV expressed fondness for pets doesn't count for diddly squat if Mr. Bailey wasn't also using his status/prestige/heft/leverage as a fellow McCoy Democrat leadership insider to get Ward to move off of his fat white patsy ass on the bill.

We're all ears.

[JD must be off humping his sheep again]

Dude, what is up with the JFP homers in the comments here? I have to hitch my brain at the door to read some of this junk.

Because even conservatives with a conscience realize that brutally torturing an animal should be a felony. Given that 46 states agree, and that the four of the states that don't are Idaho, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, and MS, with minimal populations, the overwhelming - overwhelming - populace agrees.

Not just some flakes at the JFP.

I am sorry, Anon 5:08, I did not realize that we had simpering, blithering children on our side, too.

You learn something every day, I guess.

Well I knew we had a few unconscionable assholes. Glad you went ahead and outed yourself as one of them.

Look at the picture asshole. Look at the picture. Wonder if you would think it should be a felony if someone stuck an arrow through your head. It would, of course, because you, and all humans, can speak for themselves.

Look at the picture you phucking asshole.

PM,

You're a joke.

Stick to your blog.

I'll take my conservative politics from KF - at least he makes cogent points and has a sense of decency.

I am a conservative Paul and the only thing I do with the JFP is walk past it there in the stand when I'm exiting McDade's.

Here is a hypothetical. Tell me what you think should be done and to whom.

You live in your average middle class neighborhood. You live with the good and the bad. A neighbor a few doors down has an aggressive dog that isn't always leashed. The breed doesn't matter. The neighbor means well but isn't diligent about leashing the dog nor keeping the dog in his backyard. The kids in the neighborhood fear the dog because it charges them and bears its teeth. The dog has nipped at children a few times and parents in the neighborhood have brought this to the neighbor's attention. Some of the older kids in the neighborhood riding bikes have been known to taunt the dog. One day the dog goes unhinged and mangles the leg of a little child requiring minor surgery and an extensive number of stitches. Coming home from work that day and distraught after having been told of what transpired the neighbor retrieves his handgun from the house and shoots the dog in the head right in the driveway in full view of the neighborhood including many children.

How should the law handle the situation Paul?

The fact that there are such personal attacks makes me believe that none of y'all are conservatives. Sorry, but the conservatives that I know are not all gangbusters to force their opinions down other's throats.

Anon 5:28, I do not care one iota what you think of me, your opinion was rendered worthless to anyone with a brain when you commented. As far as the photo, yes, it is heart rending, however, I am a man and my emotions are held in check for my intellect to govern the way that I behave. Try it sometimes, it is pretty cool and you will not look like a pantywaist with no brain.

Anon 5:42, was the neighbor that pulled the trigger the owner of the dog? What if he was not? Does it matter? I still have no clue what this has to do with the topic at hand of the felony law.

As an anecdote, my neighborhood has plenty of dogs that are not fenced or leashed. Yes, it is technically illegal and I have been in situations many times where I felt threatened by large dogs. Dangerous? Yes. Is something going to happen? Certainly. But, still this doesn't even fall in the same realm as the topic.

Anon5:42
I hope the distressed neighbor doesn't do it within 200 yards of a platted subdivision in Rankin County ... or the Rankin S.O. will be him in a heartbeat.

Again, Paul, you are right....."I(you) have no clue"....

You won't--or can't--answer simple questions.

You spout a lot a gobbledegook and
expect others to take you seriously.

Go play with your hair products.

Anon 7:07, am I wrong to assume that you are the one continually clouding up this comment thread with useless drivel or do you have other Anons that are helping you out? I find it hard to believe that only one person could possibly be that useless, usually it takes a committee to produce as much bullshit.

Anon 5:42, was the neighbor that pulled the trigger the owner of the dog?

Yes, the owner of the dog.

Anon 7:34, if the dog had attacked a child, I see no problem with the owner putting the dog down. Actually, even before the attack, I have no problem with the owner putting the dog down.

There IS however the way that is was done and the circumstances surrounding it. I do not see this as cruelty at all. I am sure that plenty of folks would disagree, though.

Also, I know of many hunters that have put their own dogs down as those dogs got too old hunt anymore. I do not see that as cruelty, either. And again, I am sure that plenty of folks would disagree.

Thanks Paul.

Kingfish what is your take on the hypothetical?

Anyone else who wants to weigh in should.

PM, thanks for people like you, our state continues to be #50.

Keep it up, Sport.

Harvard would have laughed at you. You're dumb enough to probably think that is a compliment.

Anon 8:39, what gives, Champ? Life not treating you right?

Harvard's footbaw team sucks, by the way and our current president is a Harvard grad. I ain't impressed.

I just KNEW somebody would do the " just because others do it successfully and it works, doesn't mean we should do it".

Sometimes it feels like we are bound and determined to be dragged kicking and screaming into THIS century!

Hey, I just realized with a few PBS quorum's under my belt...the State is really waiting for a "Katrina Disaster" when it comes to paying for the infrastructure catastrophe awaiting Jackson. This would be the only way to fund the gutting of the governmental resources for personal compensation, given the unfortunate future of the demise of Jackson across the board.

Forget the dogs, they don't care. They just want the whole place to go to Hell in a Handbasket. Then, when the Federal monies flow, they might, maybe, hopefully, pray that the money comes their way.

The bill should have passed.

livestock are already protected from malicious abuse with a felony level punishment under the law in a different code. it is already a felony to set your cow on fire, just not your cat or dog.

how many people posting here against the bill have actually read the entire bill and tried to understand it without all the hype of one side or the other?

That is so true on livestock! The bill for cats and dogs was exactly the same one that is already in place for livestock except it was for cats and dogs and allowed exemptions for hunters, farmers, vets, etc. Actually, just read the bill! So why if livestock can have this bill, can't one exactly like it in place for dogs and cats? Let's move into the 21st century and stop letting the cavemen rule our state!

We are last for a REASON. We are governed by REDNECKS, by and large. Simply LOOK and LISTEN to these hicks.

This bill is an absolute NO BRAINER and the reason it didn't pass.

Anon 8:04, listening to the rational arguments from your opposition is a no brainer.

paul. I am the poster that just came into this conversation and posted that the law for livestock is already on the books, we are asking for the same for dogs and cats. we did ask for rational arguments from our opposition - we got input from hunters associations - put in what made them happy, we got input from farmers - put in what made them happy, we got info from the kennel clubs and put in what they said would make them happy, unfortunately they still opposed it. we never ever got the reason why the farm bureau opposed it.

I ask again, those posting against it in this conversation, have you even read the bill? why is it not ok to abuse a cow, goat, chicken, pig and is ok to do so to a dog or cat

Anon 8:11, the Farm Bureau opposition really doesn't make sense, and I do wish that Kingfish would elaborate on their reasoning behind their opposition.

I do not necessarily oppose this legislation, it appears good on the surface, we all know how things seem one way, but loopholes allow others to bastardize the intent.

And in case you haven't noticed, we voters do not elect the best and the brightest. It seems quite the opposite, like everyone wants their Village Idiot sent to the State House just to get them out of the village.

livestock are already protected from malicious abuse with a felony level punishment under the law in a different code. it is already a felony to set your cow on fire, just not your cat or dog.

how many people posting here against the bill have actually read the entire bill and tried to understand it without all the hype of one side or the other?



That is so true on livestock! The bill for cats and dogs was exactly the same one that is already in place for livestock except it was for cats and dogs and allowed exemptions for hunters, farmers, vets, etc. Actually, just read the bill! So why if livestock can have this bill, can't one exactly like it in place for dogs and cats? Let's move into the 21st century and stop letting the cavemen rule our state!


paul. I am the poster that just came into this conversation and posted that the law for livestock is already on the books, we are asking for the same for dogs and cats. we did ask for rational arguments from our opposition - we got input from hunters associations - put in what made them happy, we got input from farmers - put in what made them happy, we got info from the kennel clubs and put in what they said would make them happy, unfortunately they still opposed it. we never ever got the reason why the farm bureau opposed it.

I ask again, those posting against it in this conversation, have you even read the bill? why is it not ok to abuse a cow, goat, chicken, pig and is ok to do so to a dog or cat


Interesting that you are so willing to openly lie, albeit anonymously. Unfortunately for the effort to protect our pets, your willingness to lie and bully only clouds the issue further.

There is already a law written just like the livestock law, except with regard to the felony portion. Instead of attempting to rewrite that specific statute so that it reads as a felony, like the livestock statute, a grossly misdirected bill was introduced.

§ 97-41-16. Malicious or mischievous injury to dog or cat; penalty; restitution.

(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any dog or cat, or cause any person to do the same, shall be fined not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or be imprisoned not exceeding six (6) months.

(2) In addition to such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of such dog or cat. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other cost incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.



§ 97-41-15. Malicious or mischievous injury to livestock; penalty; restitution.

(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any livestock, or cause any person to do the same, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not less than twelve (12) months nor more than five years, and fined an amount not less than One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).

(2) In addition to any such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of any animal listed in subsection (1) of this section. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and/or the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other costs incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) For purposes of this section, the term "livestock" shall mean horses, cattle, swine, sheep and other domestic animals produced for profit.

JDBerry, so there is NOT a felony statute for livestock?

Paul,

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

JDBerry, you appear to be arguing against the bill and stating that is in not parallel to what is already in place for livestock. Honestly, I have no idea what is already in place for livestock, therefore my question.

I was just under the assumption that none of the other comments would be untrue. Silly, huh?

Paul,

I copied and pasted the current code that deals with cruelty with both respects. So, you should have an idea of what is already in place for livestock and for pets.

It's wholly disingenuous and corruptive to lie and bully about the bill just to get ANYTHING written and passed, with disregard to the other implications the poorly written law brings with it.

It is certainly NOT me lying about it, I asked initially about the slippery slope. I also said that on the surface, it seemed like a good bill. Check my comments, I am NOT anonymous.

as one of people involved in writing SB2623, I can safely answer most everyone's concern. We are not memebers of PETA; we have tried to distance ourselves from any "animal rights" group. If any of you actually want to get educated, read the bill. It addresses every concern you may have. The bill is not intended to be a "slippery slope." It is intended to identify people who commit violent acts on animals and keep them from working in hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. These violent offenders are four times more likely to commit violent acts on people, as was in the case with Luke Woodham. If you want to read the misinformation sent out by the Farm Bureau, read the Columbus Packet for Feb. 18.

These pictures break my heart:(

Wait til you see my post tomorrow. Won't be a pic but you will go from heartbroken to angry.