WI: bill to make animal abuse the same as domestic abuse

[Monkeyleg]

Yep. Get convicted for abusing an animal, and you'll lose your right to keep and bear arms, the same as you would if you were convicted of domestic abuse.

"WISCONSIN:* Bill Seeks to Make Animal Abuse Equal to Domestic Abuse!* Introduced by State Senators Fred Risser (D-26), Tim Carpenter (D-3), and Julie Lassa (D-24), Senate Bill 162 seeks to make "harm or threat of harm" to an animal a form of domestic abuse, potentially meaning the loss of one's Second Amendment rights.* SB 162 is outlandish because it not only equates animals to humans, but it does not include a definition of what "harm or threat of harm" is.* Animal "rights" extremists could consider the training of hunting dogs or everyday treatment of dairy cattle to be "abuse." *Please contact the members of the Senate Committee of Judiciary and Corrections and respectfully urge them to vote against SB 162 when the time comes.* Contact information for the Committee can be found by clicking here."

 

[Aries-]

im of mixed feelings on this. i dont think people that are convicted of animal abuse are hit hard enough with the justice system at the moment. (sorry, but hacking a horse up with a chainsaw while its alive warrents more than 3 months in prison or a $5000 fine).

but i dont think it warents you to lose firearms.

 

[kungfuhippie]

Those of us that view the RKBA as inalienable, endowed by our creator, irrevocable by man, don't really think anyone (not in jail) should lose their RKBA. If they are too dangerous to have a gun, why are they out of jail?

I don't know which side will be angrier: animal rights or women's rights?

People should be punished according to their crimes.
Animals are property, people are more than property. That's why you can be a dog owner but not a slave owner. (it's been that way for quite some time now)

As much as I see the abuse of your animal worse than the abuse of your tractor it is a lower crime than the abuse of your wife.

Liberals run-a-muck.:banghead:

 

[230RN]

Holy cow ! I swatted a fly yesterday !

I guess soon everything will be either a felony or mandatory.

 

[Monkeyleg]

The larger question is what constitutes "harm or threat of harm?"

In the late 1990's, my BIL had a loud argument with his girlfriend. Neither touched the other in any way. It was verbal.

Cops came, zip-tied my BIL, he copped to the plea, and he's forever prohibited from owning firearms.

What if I yell at my neighbor's dog?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Not About Animals

You are all aware, of course, that this is not about animals.

This is about punishing people.

This is about controlling people.

This is about disarming people.

They don't give a rip about animals.

Animals is a convenient, sympathetic excuse.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Any law or bill that even gets people thinking that humans and animals might be on the same level is outrageous. Animals are just machines. Maybe not metal and circuits, but machines nonetheless. People who abuse them might be sick, but it doesn't even approach the sickness of abusing an actual person.

In the late 1990's, my BIL had a loud argument with his girlfriend. Neither touched the other in any way. It was verbal.

Cops came, zip-tied my BIL, he copped to the plea, and he's forever prohibited from owning firearms.

That is the problem with "Zero Tolerance" laws. They are a Sawzall when a scalpel is needed. I'm sure there are some instances where a person who has committed real domestic abuse warrants not being able to have firearms(there's a place for that: jail). But that by no means should mean every who has even come close to maybe having a fight with a "domestic partner" should be treated like a guy who beats his wide to a pulp. It's just like sex offender laws. Sure they are a big help when punishing the 30 year olds who prey on 12 year olds. But what about when a 17-18 year old kid has a 16-17 year old girlfriend? Now he's gotta be on a sex offender list and go door to door explaining that he's less than human for the rest of his life, all because the people who put the law into place didn't think of all the repercussions.

Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.

 

[Andrewsky]

The larger question is what constitutes "harm or threat of harm?"

In the late 1990's, my BIL had a loud argument with his girlfriend. Neither touched the other in any way. It was verbal.

Cops came, zip-tied my BIL, he copped to the plea, and he's forever prohibited from owning firearms.

What if I yell at my neighbor's dog?

No, he can get his rights restored. I'm reading a book called "Armed and Dangerous." The author is an ATF agent. At one point he talks about how his bosses had him processing applications to have rights restored. He said he had nothing against the program but he'd rather be doing stuff related to criminals. *shrug*

 

[SalTx]

Anyone who even attempts to argue that an animal equates to a human being must be quite insane and in my view an abomination to that which GIVES us our very breath. I don't believe in "cruelty" to animal. However, the state had damn better have locked up every rapist, murderer, armed robber, and any violent offender, before EVEN thinking about prosecuting a "animal abuser". And to those "pet owners", what are they feeding them??? Of the literal thousands of dog owners I've met in my life, they have all fed them canned dog food, dry dog food, STEAKS, CHICKEN...and all these are what??? OTHER ANIMALS. I believe they suffer from a yet unclassifed form of mental disease.

 

[RLsnow]

well if you wanna use that logic, i`ve been eating other animals all my life. i must be some sick bastard.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This is about punishing people.
This is about controlling people.
This is about disarming people.

Yep. Lots of whacko leftist extremists seem determined to turn Wisconsin into another East Germany.

 

[xjchief]

I've got mixed feelings on this. I think there should be more punishment available for the courts to use on people who abuse animals. The circumstances in each case should dictate the punishment.

I would not want to see an owner spank his dog that was misbehaving and end up charged with a felony but on the other hand, a guy who does something like Michael Vick allegedly did certainly deserves to be charged with a felony.

 

[Lew]

Here's the pertinent text:

813.12 (1) (am) 4. Other than for any legitimate and necessary agricultural or
veterinary purpose, any treatment to any of the following animals that would result in penalties under s. 951.18:
a. An animal that is owned by or in the care, control, or custody of any abuser
or victim, wherever located.
b. An animal that is owned by or in the care, control, or custody of the child of
any abuser or victim, wherever located.
c. An animal that is owned by or in the care, control, or custody of any member of the household of any abuser or victim, wherever located.

Since I couldn't recall what an "animal" was, I looked it up. It's pretty much anything living except plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria. This would include insects, spiders, sponges,...I think you see where I'm going. As long as you're in "custody" or whatever.

On a more serious note, if this bill warrants any, I gotta say that I don't feel strongly about criminalizing animal abuse. Yes, it can be sickening. Yes, you may feel it's immoral. Illegal? Let's just say I wasn't foaming at the mouth over ol' Vic and the dog fights. I could tolerate fines and more excessive punishment for repeat violators, but I just don't know about jail time.

To be clear, I'm not talking about destroying habitat or hunting to extinction. I'm not completely without a heart. I'm talking about a pet that is your property.

 

[rdhood]

Because Felony and misdemeanor assaults cause loss of 2A rights, we are well aware of the unintended consequence of this legislation. Animal lover and animal rights groups mostly fail to see this loss of 2A rights. They are just doing it for the animals.

This is an example of how you can further restrict gun ownership without passing any specific anti gun laws.

 

[StuckInMA]

If I'm reading it correctly it's not an across the board animal abuse law....yet. You have to harm or threaten to harm someone's pet in the same way you would threaten them or their children.

I don't think an animal should be in the same category as a human, but I do think a pet owner should have some sort of legal recourse against someone who harms (not threatens to harm) their animal in this fashion. Too much of a slippery slope though.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, “domestic abuse” is defined as actions by an adult family or household member, an adult caregiver, an adult former spouse, an adult in a current or former dating relationship, or an adult parent of a child in common with another person intentionally to inflict physical pain, physical injury, or illness upon another family or household member, intentionally to impair the physical condition of the other person, to commit sexual assault on the other person, to commit criminal damage to the property of the other person, or to threaten to commit any of those acts against the other person. A victim of domestic abuse may petition the court to obtain first a restraining order and then an injunction against the family or household member who committed the domestic abuse. This bill expands the definition of domestic abuse to include harm or threat of harm to the animals owned by the petitioner, the respondent, either of their children, or household members. It provides an exception for actions taken to animals for legitimate and necessary agricultural or veterinary purposes.

 

[MICHAEL T]

State Senators Fred Risser (D-26), Tim Carpenter (D-3), and Julie Lassa (D-24),

Why does this not suprise me. All Dems, World be so much better off with out them. Dems never stop wanting to control you or to make something illegal. Except of course the border jumpers. They like them. Even open their cities to them as safe hide outs.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I don't know. I always consider how a person treats lower animals as a measure of his character, but for some reason, I am sure the law makers will screw it up royally.

 

[Jamie C.]

Any law or bill that even gets people thinking that humans and animals might be on the same level is outrageous. Animals are just machines.

Far as I'm concerned, humans are just another animal. Got a bigger brain rather than sharp teeth or claws, but still just another animal....

As for Domestic abuse equaling Animal abuse, and getting the same punishment.... Fine. So long as there's a CONVICTION and not just an ACCUSATION before that punishment is enacted.

It's been my experience that people that'll abuse animals will do the same thing to kids, women, or anybody else, eventually.

So, y'all feel free to call me crazy or disturbed if you like. Just don't come waving any religious texts at me.


J.C.

 

[GunTech]

So if i go hunting, will I lose my firearms rights?

WYF? They are animals. Right now you're more likely to go to jail over animal abuse than spousal abuse. I don't advocate animal abuse, but animals and people aren't equal.

 

[Cams29er]

I agree with guntech, animals and people are not equal, animals wont let you down.

 

[buck460XVR]

Animals are property, people are more than property

Any law or bill that even gets people thinking that humans and animals might be on the same level is outrageous. Animals are just machines. Maybe not metal and circuits, but machines nonetheless.

iffin I remember my ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS correctly, we humans are animals also. Tell me, just what is it that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom so much that we can consider ourselves that much better than them? Does the amount of wars and the damage to mother earth that we human animals have participated in make us better than our family dog? Apparently.

Altho, I too think that the loss of 2A rights is a bit extreme for a first time offense of animal abuse(as I do about many first time domestic abuses where the abuse was purely verbal), I think the media exploitation of the Michael Vick thing and the dragging of the puppy behind the truck bumper has a lot of folk(me included) thinking more has to be done to curb such things. Also considering the fact that many domestic abusers and serial killers had a history of abusing animals before moving on to bigger and better victims makes me think we should look long and hard at the potential for some of these idiots to do serious harm to others later in life.

Is the new bill a little extreme? Yeah.... in my opinion it is, but I don't know all the facts or what the extent of the abuse has to be before these extreme measures are taken. To me, there is a lot of difference between shootin' the neighbors dog in the ass with a bb-gun cause it constantly comes over and digs in you flower bed and the hanging of a dog by piano wire and watching it attempt to free itself as it suffers and dies. But to try and minimalize the brutality of some of these offenses by saying they're just animals is like saying the holocaust wasn't that bad cause they were just jews......c' mon, get real.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Careful. These comments violate the principles of an organization I hold in great esteem. BRAT is "Bacteria Rights of America and Transylvania" and we stand for the rights of microorganisms everywhere.

Microorganisms of all kinds have been harrassed, abused, murdered, belittled, and denied voting rights everywhere throughout history. Their breeding places are routinely destroyed. They have been subjected to genocidal practices and are executed without due process.

Microorganisms are discriminated against even by the entertainment industry. No microorganism has ever received any award; none have ever been invited to be a presenter. They have been enslaved, forced to survive without incomes, and required to live in inhuman conditions.

This tyranny must stop. Now.

Substantial monetary donations are welcome. Please send fresh, new money. The used kind carries disease.

 

[Docgmt]

SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT START TO BAN HUNTING. Once kicking your neighbors dog is a felony (and take away the right to own a gun) then they can move on to the shooting of Bamby. Not that I advocate kicking dogs, mine is fat and happy, but shooting poor Bamby could be the ultimate abuse. PETA has been trying for years to grant the same rights as humans to animals. You should hear what they call me for having horses. The fact that I have them is abuse according the loons of the animal rights movement. Watch your back.

 

[Richmond]

animal laws

I have not studied the WI law in great detail, as I don't take cases there often, and then with local counsel. Across the river in MN, however, I know the background of this type of law. Maine was the first state last year to include protecting domestic animals in the context of domestic abuse scenarios, but similar legislation is spreading across the country. The proponents of the laws are not animal rights groups or humane societies (although these groups do support the measures), but women’s rights groups focusing on domestic violence and battering.

Women’s rights advocates argue that potential abusers threaten, torture or kill pets to terrorize their human victims.

Studies of victims of domestic abuse show there is a direct connection between violence against animals and harm to spouses, partners, children and other family members.

Accordingly, battered women hesitate to leave an abusive relationship because few shelters allow pets and they don’t want to abandon them.

The primary goal of these laws is to get domestic abuse victims into shelters or to seek help sooner.

Whether you agree or disagree, this is what the WI and similar laws are about, and who are the players.

It's been my experience that people that'll abuse animals will do the same thing to kids, women, or anybody else, eventually.

Of course, Jamie hits the nail on the head here. I agree to him, while some of you may not. Nonetheless, this is the information that legislatures around the country are acting on when they enact animal cruelty laws.

In applied criminology, predictive clinical psychology is used to identifiy tendencies and predict behavior. Clinical psychology is concerned with mental health, defined as the capacities to think rationally, cope effectively, and demonstrate growth. Mental disorders are conceived as existing on a continuum, and the current approach is multi-axial, which means diagnosis is made along multiple dimensions on the basis of a manual, or “bible” of the profession, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (currently in the 4th edition), called the DSM-IV:
Axis I Any disorder or condition other than personality disorders and mental retardation
Axis II Personality disorders, mental retardation, and maladaptive defense mechanisms
Axis III Medical conditions relevant to the case
Axis IV Psychosocial and environmental problems, stressful life events, adjustment difficulties
Axis V Global assessment of functioning (GAF) on a scale from 1 to 100, a low score indicating danger to self or others


The most serious disorders are along Axis I and Axis II:
Axis I Disorders: Schizophrenia or other psychosis, Mood Anxiety, Somatoform, Factitious, Dissociative, Sexual and Gender Identity, Eating or Sleep, Impulse control, Adjustment, Delirium and Amnestic, Other: not specified

Axis II Disorders: Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal, Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissistic, Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-compulsive, Other: not specified, Mental retardation

The area of Axis II that has received the most criminological attention is the antisocial personality disorder. Of importance to us here is the MacDonald triad, named after a researcher who popularized it in the 60s. He posited that three childhood behaviors were associated with antisocial personalities: (1) bed-wetting; (2) fire-starting, or fascination with fire and destruction; and (3) cruelty to animals. MacDonald said that these three behaviors in childhood were warning signs for the tendency to become a serial killer, with bed-wetting being a problem beyond the age when it normally stops being a problem, fire-starting involving the thrill of just destroying things, and cruelty to animals involving such things as pulling the legs off of spiders, or occasionally hurting larger animals, like dogs and cats, frequently for solitary enjoyment or to impress peers. While the simple MacDonald triad is questioned today, cruelty or violence towards animals is widely considered highly correlated with violence towards humans.

In recent years over 40 states have made animal cruelty a felony. The laws linking pets and domestic abuse restraining orders don't change anything in that regard.

If you want historical information about these laws generally or Minnesota in particular, the following article from the William Mitchell Law Review:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus28wmmitchelllrev1649.htm

 

[hso]

Isn't the thinking that people who are violent threats to society in general got their start abusing animals as a precursor to graduating to people.