The dog belonged to Rollins and was her emotional support animal, Sheriff's Sgt. Sean Swain told CNN.

In addition to the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be unlawful and constitute a public nuisance for any person to (1) willfully or maliciously overdrive, overload, torture, destroy or kill, or cruelly beat or injure, maim or mutilate, any animal in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to another, or (2) deprive any such animal of necessary food, drink or shelter; or (3) cause, procure or permit any such animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, tortured, destroyed or killed, or cruelly beaten or injured, maimed or mutilated, or deprived of necessary food, drink or shelter; or (4) willfully initiate, instigate, engage in, or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty. Any law enforcement officer or Animal Control Officer finding an animal so maltreated or abused shall impound the animal, and the charges shall be assessed against the violator as a cost of abatement.

Clearly, she needed more support.

Here is the local regulation:



http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/animal_c ... tions.aspx

LOL

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the fundamental question, but I think in this case the reason for shooting the dog indicates mental problems best addressed with something other than a felony conviction.

That's an absolutely ridiculous statute. Not only is there no exception for protection of property (i.e. shooting a raccoon trying to steal your chickens), but there's no method to harvest a chicken, or put down an injured animal, or even go hunting. Hell, technically fishing would be against the law.

I'm hoping that's not right.

Totally. Clearly one emotional support dog wasn't enough. I recommend 2 next time.

There's considerably more at the link, so that isn't the entire statute. I didn't bother to read all the provisions thought.



No, no. A larger animal is what's called for. I think a support bear or perhaps a support cougar would be appropriate.

I feel like we're being unfair to the Orca.

Orcas are merciless killers of the deep. They are not concerned with your human notions of "fairness" or "mercy" or even "humanity".

Plus, the heinous ***** will make a good snack after she drowns and the dissolving restraints set her free.

They look pretty cuddly to me. Not sure what kind of weird Orcas YOU hang around with.

Not if you're a seal

Thoughts on this? I don't think destroying your own property in a humane manner should be cause for arrest.

Thoughts on this? I don't think destroying your own property in a humane manner should be cause for arrest.

What she did was not humane. There was no reason for the maltreatment and death of this animal. Aside from that, you are correct.

I put a dog to sleep a while back, and used a vet for this. If I had taken her out back and shot her, should that be illegal?

Again, I'm not sure. Shooting the dog in the head is not inhumane. As for "no reason" - you may very well be right, but again - does that matter? If you believe your property should be destroyed, and you do it humanely, should the reason why you thought that really come into play?

I put a dog to sleep a while back, and used a vet for this. If I had taken her out back and shot her, should that be illegal?

First of all, condolences on your dog. I had to put mine down last fall, and I'm still **** wrecked over it. Anyway, to the discussion at hand....

I think there's an argument to be had about whether or not shooting a dog in the head is "humane" when the vet option is available. If it's a clean and immediate kill, maybe, but there's no guarantee of that. Setting that aside, though, there's a lot that goes into the question of whether the reasons for killing an animal matter. I believe they do, and I think your instinct that killing an animal should be done humanely is related. If the dog is purely just "property", why is there any obligation to treat it humanely? We don't worry about destroying a chair or other inanimate object that is our property, so why an animal? Obviously, it's because the animal is a living thing that's capable of suffering, and most people believe, as I do, that we have a moral duty not to kill or cause suffering needlessly. As the word "needlessly" indicates, that duty can be overridden if the reasons are compelling enough, and there's a sliding scale for that based on how sophisticated we think the animal is (and hence how much it loses by dying and how capable of suffering it is). Dogs and other domesticated animals are really high up on that spectrum, so killing them for shits and giggles is a violation of that moral duty.