Elderly woman who drowned baby opossum faces charges

[Curly]

 

Mr. Morgan is needs to get a clue.

 

[jasnt]

Mr. Morgan is needs to get a clue.

 

[bigtex]

A felony?  Really?

From reading the article it sounds like the city attorney is handling the case as a city ordinance violation. This means the most it could be is a gross misdemeanor. City attorney's don't handle felonies, and cities cant enact ordinances which are felonies.

[seth30]

A felony?  Really?

From reading the article it sounds like the city attorney is handling the case as a city ordinance violation. This means the most it could be is a gross misdemeanor. City attorney's don't handle felonies, and cities cant enact ordinances which are felonies.

Thank you for your input in this  

[Humptulips]

Mr. Morgan is incorrect. The law has not changed, at least not in the definition as to what constitutes animal cruelty in regards to this case.
Here is what the law says in part;


RCW 16.52.205
Animal cruelty in the first degree


(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized in law, he or she intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal.

(2) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal and as a result causes: (a) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (b) death.

So just read through that and think about some of the phrases like "substantial pain" or "unjustifiable pain".  Clearly though suffocation in (2) fits the case but it has to be done with criminal negligence. More to read:
RCW 9A.08.010
 (d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

All of that seems to be very open to interpretation. The only thing that keeps hunters from being impaled on this law is the clause "except as authorized in law"
Trapping is a little different as we are authorized in law to trap but there are no laws defining acceptable dispatch methods. You can read the guidelines on the WDFW site from AVMA but they are not law. WDFW will tell you they are only guidelines.
The only thing we do have going for us is that drowning is mentioned in our trapper education curriculum. It has never been mentioned in any of the regulations to my knowledge.
I have tried to get the department to put down acceptable dispatch methods for trapped animals in a WAC but they will not. WDFW will tell you they have sole enforcement powers over anything to do with wildlife. I am not sure that is completely true.
The whole thing is a potential danger to trappers and I have been concerned about it for a while but have gotten no where with WDFW on fixing it. I think the next step may be in the Legislature.
If I was going to write letters about this case in particular I would write the prosecutor  and in WDFW I would write Director Unsworth director@dfw.wa.gov

[jasnt]

Thanks Bruce for the info.

[Machias]

"hope that the tragic death of this little animal would not be in vain and would be a learning experience for the public."   MORON!!!!!!!

I doubt "Phil" enjoyed my response, POS.

[pianoman9701]

I had written back to Phil yesterday and got this reply. I think it's important to remember his job and his life is caring for animals. Walk a mile, as they say. I'm sure he's seen some very rotten treatment of critters. Here's the email:

"Hi John,
I appreciate your kind words and understanding in this delicate situation… I talked to the officer who filed the charges this morning… at this point… it is out of his hands and unless he is called to testify he will not be notified of the progress of the case… I asked him to have the City Attorney handling the case give me a call to discuss the pursuit of the case and if it did go to trial,  to  possibly suggest some lesser charges and /or less impactful punishments if she is found guilty…

I will let you know of any progress on my part…  "

He sounds like a reasonable man.

[UrbanTrapper]

The City Attorney should know enough NOT to take this case to trial. 

[Evil_EdwardO]

Funny, I know this is from 5 years ago, but looks like you can drown squirrels in Seattle.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/dinner-gets-very-local-for-squirrel-eating-seattleite/

[pianoman9701]

The City Attorney should know enough NOT to take this case to trial.

Yes, I agree it would be a waste of resources and an injustice. I couldn't find the Auburn city attorney's information anywhere online.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Try this?

Look under Legal:

http://www.auburnwa.gov/contact.htm

[Humptulips]

I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.

[jasnt]

I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.

[pianoman9701]

I spoke with the City Attorney today about this case. He told me they were not going to prosecute.

That's great news. I just sent off an email before I saw this. I'm glad to hear this idiocy went away.