Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / July 2004
what happened to the kitten torturers
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Helen Wheels - 01 Jul 2004 07:30 GMT I don't like to harp back on bad news stories, but there's some justice at the end of this one. For those who remember the nasty incident where some drunken yobs (who also happened to be Australian soldiers) tortured some kittens earlier this year, you may be relieved to hear that said yobs have been kicked out of the army. Not as much punishment as they deserve, but at least it makes it clear what the army thinks of their behaviour: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1144357.htm
Melissa Houle - 01 Jul 2004 18:22 GMT > I don't like to harp back on bad news stories, but there's some > justice at the end of this one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of their behaviour: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1144357.htm Good for the Australian Army! Not an adequate punishment for those jerks, it's true. But it's to the Australian Army's credit that they showed in a very public way that they won't tolerate such blatant cruelty to animals. I doubt much would have happened to those six guys if they'd been serving in the U.S. army, alas. =o\ But the thought there are people like those bastards out there... Well now I really AM determined to keep TK safe at home with me.
Meliss
Jeanne Hedge - 01 Jul 2004 19:16 GMT >> I don't like to harp back on bad news stories, but there's some >> justice at the end of this one. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >bastards out there... Well now I really AM determined to keep TK safe at >home with me. I thought the Related Story from June 2 was interesting too:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1121401.htm
*****
Police to appeal against cat torturers' sentences
The Queensland Police Service has bowed to public pressure to appeal against the sentences handed down to six soldiers who tortured a litter of kittens.
Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson says the appeal will be based on the grounds that the sentences imposed on the soldiers were inadequate.
The six men were each fined $2,000 and two had their drivers licences suspended for setting fire to the cats and dragging one behind a trail bike.
The maximum penalty is $75,000.
The Townsville magistrate did not record a conviction.
Mr Atkinson says the level of public interest and the lack of comparative cases with which to form a view of the sentences influenced his decision to appeal .
*****
I wonder if explusion from the Army is the revised sentence, or something the Army did in addition to the civilian charges?
Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha
http://www.jhedge.com
Steve Touchstone - 01 Jul 2004 20:11 GMT >I thought the Related Story from June 2 was interesting too: > >http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1121401.htm <snip>
>I wonder if explusion from the Army is the revised sentence, or >something the Army did in addition to the civilian charges? Speaking from my experience in the US Army, sounds like the Army and civilian sentences are separate. (Though 20 years in the US Army certainly didn't make me an expert on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which governs the US military.) As I understand it, in the US this would have been two completely different proceedings, and the charges would have been different. Which is why double jeopardy doesn't always apply to people in the military. In our military you can be tried both in the civilian and military court for the same crime, since the actual charges are different.
Same principle holds true with local versus federal law. You can be acquitted locally, then arrested and charged in the federal court. IIRC that's what happened in the Rodney King case (where the police were video taped beating on a black man, acquitted locally, then convicted on federal charges). It can go the other way, too, like with Terry Nichols. He was convicted in federal court of conspiring in the OK City federal building bombing. After being sentenced to life, the state tried him again hoping to sentence him to death. Didn't work, just spent lots of money and the jury sentenced to another life sentence.
 Signature Steve Touchstone, faithful servant of Sammy, Little Bit and Rocky
stouchst@JUNKsirinet.net [remove Junk for email] Home Page: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/index.html Cat Pix: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/animals.html
Richard - 02 Jul 2004 18:42 GMT Some people said things, and then:- Steve Touchstone added
>As I understand it, in >the US this would have been two completely different proceedings, and >the charges would have been different. Which is why double jeopardy >doesn't always apply to people in the military. In our military you >can be tried both in the civilian and military court for the same >crime, since the actual charges are different. More or less the same for our military here. At the very least you would go before a tribunal or even court martial for bringing the service into disrepute, even if they couldn't actually try you for the particular civilian offence that you committed.
 Signature Richard, whose Squeaky Chair can be seen at www.squeaky.demon.co.uk
Why isn't the word "symmetrical" symmetrical?
Helen Wheels - 02 Jul 2004 10:36 GMT <snip>
> I wonder if explusion from the Army is the revised sentence, or > something the Army did in addition to the civilian charges? I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Army's justice system is quite separate from the civilian one, so the sacking would be in addition to the original fines. I doubt whether the civilian appeal for a harsher punishment would have been dealt with yet - the courts don't always move fast.
Duke of URL - 01 Jul 2004 23:19 GMT > > justice at the end of this one.
> very public way that they won't tolerate such blatant cruelty to animals. I > doubt much would have happened to those six guys if they'd been serving in > the U.S. army, alas. Now THAT is an extremely ignorant and foul thing to say. For your benighted information, anyone in any American Service caught torturing animals would not only get stomped on by the Military Justice system (such disgusting crimes are covered by the UCMJ), but in most cases would also be turned over to the Civil Court system.
hpickering@austin.rr.com - 02 Jul 2004 00:19 GMT >> > justice at the end of this one. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >system (such disgusting crimes are covered by the UCMJ), but in most cases >would also be turned over to the Civil Court system. Article 134 Reckless Endangerment Conduct Unbecoming Plus Included and lesser charges.
Melissa Houle - 02 Jul 2004 00:42 GMT > > > justice at the end of this one. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > system (such disgusting crimes are covered by the UCMJ), but in most cases > would also be turned over to the Civil Court system. I apologize for having offended you. I am glad to hear that the Armed Services would take this seriously.
Melissa
Sherry - 02 Jul 2004 13:16 GMT >> Now THAT is an extremely ignorant and foul thing to say. >> For your benighted information, anyone in any American Service caught [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Melissa I'm glad also...I wonder if anyone knows any particular case stats where anybody has actually been court martialed (?) for animal abuse. It would be interesting to know the level of punishment for such a crime. Because our civilial judicial system does not take animal abuse nearly seriously enough, nor are the penalties stiff enough. Yay, Australia! For setting a "no tolerance" policy. For recognizing that harming kittens is an offense worthy of being thrown out. I hope the discharge *does* follow them and come back to haunt them in their pursuits now, and thirty years from now. Shrry
hpickering@austin.rr.com - 02 Jul 2004 16:07 GMT >>> Now THAT is an extremely ignorant and foul thing to say. >>> For your benighted information, anyone in any American Service caught [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >haunt them in their pursuits now, and thirty years from now. >Shrry Here is one from the UCMJ (USA)
(1) That the accused wrongfully abused a certain public animal; and
(2) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Explanation. A public animal is any animal owned or used by the United States; and animal owned or used by a local or State government in the United States, its territories or possessions; or any wild animal located on any public lands in the United States, its territories or possessions. This would include, for example, drug detector dogs used by the government.
Lesser included offenses. Article 80attempts
Maximum punishment. Confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months.
Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 61
Web site : http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blucmj.htm
Steve Touchstone - 02 Jul 2004 22:13 GMT >I'm glad also...I wonder if anyone knows any particular case stats where >anybody has actually been court martialed (?) for animal abuse. It would be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >haunt them in their pursuits now, and thirty years from now. >Shrry It's been awhile, back before I retired, I remember a big stink out at Fort Sill when a unit on the range spotted elk on the range and didn't call a cease fire and killed a couple. Caused a pretty big stink at the time on post, but I don't remember if it made the news off post. About all I'm sure of as to punishment was that those in the chain of command were reprimanded, with a couple NCOs being relieved and transferred.
gross warning - with happy ending
Many many years ago, while at Fort Ord, I remember a guy in our platoon who had his departure to Germany deferred so that he could testify in civilian court about a neighbor who had severely beaten and burned a great dane.
The guy in our unit fostered the d*g, and brought him to work to help socialise him. We all got to watch him change from a skittish walking bag of bones into a wonderful dog - though scarred by the cigar burns and missing an ear. I haven't known many great danes, but from those I have met the biggest problem with them is that they have no idea how big they are. This one, once he got to know you and stopped trying to hide, thought he was a lap dog.
Eventually, the civilian case was settled - no idea what the sentence was, this was in the late 70s and I've forgotten if I ever knew. Anyway, the guy who was fostering him ended up keeping the dog when his deferred orders were canceled and he stayed at Ord. When I ended leaving Ord myself about a year later the dog was happy and well adjusted, and a regular visitor to the unit.
 Signature Steve Touchstone, faithful servant of Sammy, Little Bit and Rocky
stouchst@JUNKsirinet.net [remove Junk for email] Home Page: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/index.html Cat Pix: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/animals.html
Duke of URL - 02 Jul 2004 14:02 GMT > > > > justice at the end of this one. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I apologize for having offended you. I am glad to hear that the Armed > Services would take this seriously. Apology accepted.
 Signature The One-and-only Holy Moses?
Jo Firey - 01 Jul 2004 19:59 GMT > I don't like to harp back on bad news stories, but there's some > justice at the end of this one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of their behaviour: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1144357.htm If they got what we here call a dishonorable discharge, it will haunt them the rest of their lives as well it should.
Jo
|
|
|