There is an interesting case out of Pennsylvania where a dog groomer has been convicted of animal cruelty for ear and neck piercings. It is the defense of Holly Crawford that makes the case particularly notable.
Crawford, 35, was marketing “gothic kittens” on the Internet with ear and neck piercings. She was acquitted on two separate counts. Before she was convicted of one misdemeanor count and one summary count of animal cruelty, her lawyer argued that parents allow children to get piercings, so why should kittens have a higher level of protection?
What do you think of this defense?