I'm surprised Florida is doing so well in the poll since this has been all over the news for days.
The outrage that he was "cleared of wrongdoing" seems a bit silly. It is sad that he hurt little kids' feelings and he should probably get a stern talking-to from his boss for that, but the stories all seem predicated on the idea that "killing cute little kitties" is a criminal act rather than, say, the full-time job of an animal-control officer.
And my personal outrage isn't about "animal control euthanised a feral colony", it's about "a cop pulled out his gun and opened fire, on helpless (and thus nonthreatening) animals, in a suburb, in front of a crowd of small children."
I'm talking specifically about the outrage that he was cleared of wrongdoing, as opposed to the outrage at his gross insensitivity doing it in front of kids. The latter I get.
That said, using a gun to euthanize feral or wounded animals on the spot is perfectly normal in rural areas, and while it's less normal in the suburbs, geography doesn't change its moral character. I don't think it would be appropriate to jail or fire an animal control officer for doing that.
I think it's hella appropriate to question the policy, though.
Shooting a *wounded* animal, or one that is actually attacking? That, I understand.
Why these kittens couldn't have been live-trapped and euthanized in a less brutal fashion, if they had to be euthanized at all, is the question here.
I'm a cat-fosterer (AND someone who has called Animal Control regarding a nuisance cat -- someone's housecat who serenaded my ground-floor bedroom for 15 nights running, in an area with a leash law that includes cats -- but ensured that they live-trapped and would be looking for fosterers if they didn't find an owner), and while some cats are too feral to be socialized, having the policy of automatic euthanizing of any stray (particularly young kittens) is pretty fucking awful.
But I do understand that shelter resources are limited, and I regretfully acknowledge that they need to sometimes make a choice about which animals are most "adoptable" when it comes to spending those resources . . . but I still think that there are more painless ways to euthanize an animal, and that an animal control officer has no business using a firearm in these circumstances.
What if one of the kids had run outside to try and save the kittens? I know that, as a child (and as an adult), I sure as hell would have, after the first shot. This incident had the potential of turning into even more of a tragedy than it already was.
This officer showed an appalling lack of judgment, and if the policy was set by his boss, or the department, that policy needs to be re-examined. Seriously -- putting aside the question of "cute little kittens" or "rural vs. suburban" -- I don't expect firearms to be discharged on my property, PERIOD, and I live in fucking TEXAS.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
O-H!
Date: 2013-06-14 09:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-14 10:07 pm (UTC)The outrage that he was "cleared of wrongdoing" seems a bit silly. It is sad that he hurt little kids' feelings and he should probably get a stern talking-to from his boss for that, but the stories all seem predicated on the idea that "killing cute little kitties" is a criminal act rather than, say, the full-time job of an animal-control officer.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-14 10:20 pm (UTC)And my personal outrage isn't about "animal control euthanised a feral colony", it's about "a cop pulled out his gun and opened fire, on helpless (and thus nonthreatening) animals, in a suburb, in front of a crowd of small children."
That's monstrously inappropriate.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-14 10:38 pm (UTC)That said, using a gun to euthanize feral or wounded animals on the spot is perfectly normal in rural areas, and while it's less normal in the suburbs, geography doesn't change its moral character. I don't think it would be appropriate to jail or fire an animal control officer for doing that.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-14 11:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 01:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 02:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 02:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 03:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 06:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 06:56 am (UTC)And/or put the whole thing behind an lj-cut wit h a trigger warning.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 03:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 06:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 06:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-16 03:49 am (UTC)They say serial killers usually start out killing animals, you know.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 05:13 am (UTC)Shooting a *wounded* animal, or one that is actually attacking? That, I understand.
Why these kittens couldn't have been live-trapped and euthanized in a less brutal fashion, if they had to be euthanized at all, is the question here.
I'm a cat-fosterer (AND someone who has called Animal Control regarding a nuisance cat -- someone's housecat who serenaded my ground-floor bedroom for 15 nights running, in an area with a leash law that includes cats -- but ensured that they live-trapped and would be looking for fosterers if they didn't find an owner), and while some cats are too feral to be socialized, having the policy of automatic euthanizing of any stray (particularly young kittens) is pretty fucking awful.
But I do understand that shelter resources are limited, and I regretfully acknowledge that they need to sometimes make a choice about which animals are most "adoptable" when it comes to spending those resources . . . but I still think that there are more painless ways to euthanize an animal, and that an animal control officer has no business using a firearm in these circumstances.
What if one of the kids had run outside to try and save the kittens? I know that, as a child (and as an adult), I sure as hell would have, after the first shot. This incident had the potential of turning into even more of a tragedy than it already was.
This officer showed an appalling lack of judgment, and if the policy was set by his boss, or the department, that policy needs to be re-examined. Seriously -- putting aside the question of "cute little kittens" or "rural vs. suburban" -- I don't expect firearms to be discharged on my property, PERIOD, and I live in fucking TEXAS.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-19 06:43 am (UTC)