Why Principal’s Charges Don’t Include Shooting Kittens
Sorry for the cliffhanger, yesterday. It wasn’t intentional.
Mr. Wade Pilloud, principal of the K-12 school in Indus, Minnesota, resigned after shooting and killing two kittens whose mother was killed in an animal trap. He could be charged with felony possession of a firearm on school
property and reckless discharge of a firearm, which is a misdemeanor,
as it put no one in danger.
The title of the article is
"Principal who shot kittens could face felony charges," which I found
misleading, because his potential charges have nothing to do with killing the
kittens. Why?
Let’s deconstruct:
- Because the kittens had no legal right NOT to be shot. It would be very difficult to prosecute Pilloud because he technically hadn’t committed a crime by shooting the kitties.
Why?
- Because they are not a legal entity, until they are "owned" by someone, at which time they become "property."
- As "property," their "owner" could probably shoot them and get away with it. But if Mr. Pilloud wasn’t the "owner" and shot them, on the grounds of the school or not, then he might be able to be prosecuted, and he might have to compensate the "owner" of the kittens for their fair market value. And if he wasn’t such a great shot and just maimed them, he might have to pay the "owner" for the decrease in value of the kittens as a result of the maiming.
How can this unfortunate situation be changed? As I see it, we have two options if we want change:
- Agitate for it on a case-by-case basis, and try to get law enforcement to treat cruelty to animals seriously. This is basically what we do now. Putting pressure on prosecuting attorneys and judges is part of this plan, and some don’t need any pressure because they’re waiting for the cases to come before them and would be happy to stand up for the voiceless. (I know this because I have spoken to several, and that’s what they told me.)
- Campaign for animal rights. And for the bazillionth time, that doesn’t mean my cat should be able to cast her vote for whomever is running in Mark Foley’s place. It means that she, and the kittens, and all of the animals we enslave, hold captive, and torture, would have the right to NOT be tortured because they would have the right NOT to be owned.
I believe, and call me crazy, that the people of the USA will eventually do the right thing, even thought they might go kicking and screaming. Some people were dedicated to ending slavery because it was wrong, and they fought for that. Some people realized segregation was unjust and fought to end it. Some people realized that women should be able to vote, and fought for that and to be recognized as equal members of society (and I’m not saying any of this is completely resolved). And now, in the third millennium, it’s time to address The Animal Question.
As inconvenient as it may be, it’s time to do the right thing and stand up for those who have no voice.