Dead Parrots Don’t Talk: Florida Couple Arrested In Death Of Bird

Gainesville couple Luis Enrique Quinones, 29, and Myres Luanny Thomas, 29, are under arrest today for the death of their pet parrot. Police say that Quinones slammed the bird on the floor during an argument with Thomas.

Quinones had a curious defense. He hurt the parrot so he would not hit his girlfriend. He was upset after learning that his girlfriend told him that she had a beer at work. Thomas told him to leave and started throwing his stuff out the door. That is when Quinones decided to vent his anger at the parrot as a surrogate for his girlfriend. Thomas responded by punching Quinones in the face and throwing a vase at him.

It is not clear why Thomas was charged. Presumably, it was the punch in the face, though such a punch could be viewed as a response to the attack on the bird. The problem is that pets are treated as chattel under the law and, if the bird was already dead, it could be viewed as simple assault. Ironically, she is facing the more serious charges of simple assault and battery.

What do you think the proper sentence should be for Quinones if found guilty?

Source: Miami Herald

50 thoughts on “Dead Parrots Don’t Talk: Florida Couple Arrested In Death Of Bird”

  1. Woosty,
    I assure you the film/video is worth watching. To compare: it did not as yours did, have a high tech
    animation of the main person (the parrot). And there was no voice of the main person carrying the message not apparent in the visual message.

    This instead was a video made to accompany a music launch, if I understand it correctly. There are no words bearing messages. Little animation, mostly simple. But the effects are there. And the message is to me clear.

    A youthful adventure of breaking into a swimming pool, turns into a graphic depiction of a young girls refusal to enter adult life.
    Let me be explicit. Having ones first menstruation must be quite another thing than experiencing your first ejaculation, if you are girl or a boy.

    Some welcome it, others fear it, and others don’t notice it. The fearful girl is in the end overwhelmed by the demands of life around her, and enters insanity as a way out, which she discovers to her horror in the final seconds.

    The monstrous penis, the monstrous beasts who threaten her are all expressions of life’s threats.

    Contrast that with the derringdo exemplified by the other girl’s casting of herself into the water, and her view of the water rushing toward her inevitably as life in fact is for us all. Now there is high symbolism cleverly disguised in a simle parable of youth and the surprises and challenges of life.

    The offending part, the hand on her pubis, can seem offensive here, and the showing here is debatable.
    But, big but, it is necessary as to the real threat the other girl experiences. To make it something you feel FEEL because it is an intrusion of reality. The violation of her integrity. The violation of her youth which puberty brings with it.

    There is more, much more. But try it, look at least 3 times. So that the effect can diminish, the shock wave rushing through you the first time you see it.
    Then its greatness and cinema verité and novelle vogue feeling will coem—–it being a french production.

  2. GeneH,
    To be sure I understand you: did you pass on my comment to him, ie will he consider my points made there. Or is ít just the video he will consider?

  3. Id707,

    what challenge????!!!!

    but now I am in a state of not wanting to click on the vid to preserve myself from the droop after-effects of a pervy sex-violence mash-up and wanting to watch that damn vid because of all the hullabaloo….

    the choice is taking a lot of energy…..

    as an aside, I’ve heard that in America on tv we watch violence and behave w/sex as motivation and that Europe is just the other way around….true?
    who knows….

  4. Darren Smith
    1, June 23, 2012 at 9:48 pm
    Woostie wrote:
    !
    he grabbed the bird, held it over his head, probably taunted the angry girl with it, smashed it to the floor till it was dead. I don’t see the vaguaries….

    …are you a football player
    -=-=-
    Actually Woostie you prove my point. What is the difference in causing the death of an animal by throwing it to the ground or wringing its neck? It is still just as dead the reason might vary. How is it unlawful to throw a bird to the ground as its owner is in the midst of an argument with another person and another bird, a chukkar, dies as the result of a shotgun blast that results in shot severing a leg, piercing a lung and the diaphragm then the bird falls 120 feet and lands on a rock which caused certain death? Which caused more suffering, a shotgun blast and a fall onto a rock or a slam to the floor? Who knows! So we leave it up to individuals to decide probable cause to arrest based on personal opinions on what is right or wrong from a strictly legal sense? Should a person be able to have his neighbor arrested because he sharply scolded his son for stealing a baseball? The accuser under the same system as is applied here with animals could just arbitrarily declare “A scolding is child abuse” and the police can lock up the neighbor. Sound draconian? Well that is what is going on with regard to the bird issue with this defendant. I probably wasn’t very clear on this point. But arresting a person simply for causing the death of an ordinary animal is an abuse of state power in my view. I am certainly not going to object to an animal cruelty charge if REAL depraved cruelty was performed. (Like torturing an animal or burning it alive). But if you are going to arrest a man simply for killing a bird, you better ban hunting, slaughtering animals for food or clothing, or doing anything other than protecting yourself from attack. Otherwise the law would be as inconsistent and arbitrary as possible.

    As for your question of if I was a football player: No, I not much liked the sport, Baseball was my game. I am a retired Deputy Sheriff who now owns a former state liquor store.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    The locus of the act is the difference. In fact it is such a poor comparison I am almost at a loss to respond. As an ex-sherriff do you really not see the difference between violently killing an animal in an effort to control someone elses behavior and an(albeit) act of violence in hunting, which is currently legal????

    One of those behaviors is indicative of an anti-social behavior. It is a predictor of future (possibly escalating) behaviors towards other people.
    The other is one that is currently dying out as our civilization finds other, more humane ways to feed itself….

    The football player remark was poor humor secondary to a crappy day…..

  5. id707,

    “I explicitly request you pass this on to the Professor for his consideration. Will you do so?”

    That is precisely what I did.

  6. Gene:

    Actually I had a previous post in this article where I mentioned the Chattel issue with regard to the charging the person with whatever degree of Malicious Mischief the dollar value of the bird presented. WA has a law specifically for this RCW 9.08.070 Pet animals — Taking, concealing, injuring, killing, etc.

  7. Given the discussion about moderation, I will refrain from expressing any curiosity as to whether or not anyone took it into their heads to pluck the parrot during the incident.

  8. Woosty
    “..he grabbed the bird, held it over his head, probably taunted the angry girl with it, smashed it to the floor till it was dead. I don’t see the vaguaries….”

    Of course you don’t see them.
    The vaguaries were crouched down and hiding at the back of their cage. That saw what was happening to the parrot.
    One is probably saying to the other “Not a peep. Don’t even budgie”

  9. GeneH,

    Although on the principle of free debate and speech I would like to give you a battle over sexual explicit expression of graphic nature, you can instead forget it. That was not my intention in posting it. I leave that battle to those better equipped and so inclined.

    I posted it as a work of art, shocking in its naked exposure of human behavior, but art anyway. I was most taken myself by the visualization of surrounding reality, and the exaggerated views which might reflect the distortions of mental/emotional nature in the girl afraid of her sexuality.

    I frankly did not understand the endings, but regarded
    the two themes (horror of reslity symbolized by the monsters and the return to what was expected to be reality but instead turned out to be mental insanity) as a mashup to solve the unresolved emotional tension of the girl, and to provide a Hollywood ending.

    Be that as it may, if the Professor wishes to avoid being accused of showing such material whose content in other’s eyes, can be misconstrued, then that is his privilege.

    In the maantime I will desist in posting such challenges to Woosty.

    I note however that Woosty’s post depicted far more dangerous material than mine.

    The tyrannical homocidal repressive parrot is but a reflection of the themes and acts we see constantly on our tubes and screens. One which we should agree is damaging our children and ourselves.
    Sad that depiction of explicit sex is still tabu in comparison. The depictions with really dangerous content passes unnoticed. I repeat the old phrase: “Make love, not war”. It seems to have been unheard.

    Being sourced from YOUTUBES I regarded it as being acceptable in others minds, assuming utube as a norm. Apparently not, as you see it.

    The only item I disliked was that the Utube started with the obviously prurientlt intended preview of the hand under the panties shot—which distracted from the rest and in my eyes was aimed at attracting those so oriented. So I chose to start “mine” at the “time” where we see the feet running through the grass.

    Hope I haven’t caused a cause celebre. It was mainly meant as a pique at Woosty who challenged me, not a point on free speech, etc.

    Apparently prurient material with artistic value is excluded in your opinion. And the privilege to refer it to him is yours.

    I explicitly request you pass this on to the Professor for his consideration. Will you do so?

  10. Darren Smith,

    Have you considered the issue from a property angle? Animals are chattel and the Herald article is unclear to whom the parrot belonged although the implication was that it was her parrot. Although possibly mischarged from property angle, an arrest for willfully destroying another’s property is not unreasonable.

    To be clear, I agree with your differentiation on what constitutes animal cruelty, but I was just wondering if you’d considered the other option.

  11. idealist707,

    I am putting your post of 7:29 PM – the “Dr Eye – Fantasy – Official Video” – into moderation to be reviewed by Professor Turley. The video, although animated fantasy, contained sexually explicit images. Please refrain from posting such content until this matter is addressed.

  12. Woostie wrote:
    !
    he grabbed the bird, held it over his head, probably taunted the angry girl with it, smashed it to the floor till it was dead. I don’t see the vaguaries….

    …are you a football player
    -=-=-
    Actually Woostie you prove my point. What is the difference in causing the death of an animal by throwing it to the ground or wringing its neck? It is still just as dead the reason might vary. How is it unlawful to throw a bird to the ground as its owner is in the midst of an argument with another person and another bird, a chukkar, dies as the result of a shotgun blast that results in shot severing a leg, piercing a lung and the diaphragm then the bird falls 120 feet and lands on a rock which caused certain death? Which caused more suffering, a shotgun blast and a fall onto a rock or a slam to the floor? Who knows! So we leave it up to individuals to decide probable cause to arrest based on personal opinions on what is right or wrong from a strictly legal sense? Should a person be able to have his neighbor arrested because he sharply scolded his son for stealing a baseball? The accuser under the same system as is applied here with animals could just arbitrarily declare “A scolding is child abuse” and the police can lock up the neighbor. Sound draconian? Well that is what is going on with regard to the bird issue with this defendant. I probably wasn’t very clear on this point. But arresting a person simply for causing the death of an ordinary animal is an abuse of state power in my view. I am certainly not going to object to an animal cruelty charge if REAL depraved cruelty was performed. (Like torturing an animal or burning it alive). But if you are going to arrest a man simply for killing a bird, you better ban hunting, slaughtering animals for food or clothing, or doing anything other than protecting yourself from attack. Otherwise the law would be as inconsistent and arbitrary as possible.

    As for your question of if I was a football player: No, I not much liked the sport, Baseball was my game. I am a retired Deputy Sheriff who now owns a former state liquor store.

  13. Swimming pools are reporting a marked decline in attendance. I stopped some years ago when some prevert ran around with his whang in his hand and the staff just said: Ho hum. If I’d seen him again I might have done my version of Malisha’s “Who are YOU!!!”

  14. Afraid of flying. Something for you. Woosty started it!

    If you’re not, then you can see what “boys” can do with a deserted desert strip, and a remote control and some old junk.

    Just imagine you see TT’s on the horizon.

  15. Me, a football player? Let’s say I withstood the bully test. Then to top that led them in a creek cross jumping trail, until I ended up neck deep in the water.

    As for utube, I come from the generation where freaks collected at sites, and one could watch the thread and ask for files.

    Now, u2by is based on search words. And I don’t know the open sesames. And don’t say search on parrots, or exotic cartoons, or high tech visual effects.

    Just learned by chance about social bookmarking and the use of tags instead of little labeled boxes. I wonder if that will hold out until I’ve learned how to use that. Does anybody use social bookmark sites now?
    And no, do not twitter nor face the world either.

    Sounds like internet true confessions.

    Such esoterics are like spiritistic marvels. Not easily known by ordinary mortals.
    Must I become a Mason first. My doom awaits.

    Thanks for this one anyway. Will follow where it leads.
    Serendipity is my biggest helper.
    Thank god the manholes have covers.

  16. How can we hold an individual to be criminally liable simply for causing the death of an animal when the social and legal ground for doing this is so vague and inconsistent?
    —————————————-
    !
    he grabbed the bird, held it over his head, probably taunted the angry girl with it, smashed it to the floor till it was dead. I don’t see the vaguaries….

    …are you a football player? 🙂

    Id707, go to utube u2 can be a video master….

  17. Vegan or veg, the only way out. And maybe a fish or two if they bite me. Too serious to be taken seriously. My bucket is full today already.

  18. What do you think the proper sentence should be for Quinones if found guilty?

    ========

    Whatever the value of the bird was ($) should determine the what degree of Malicious Mischief he committed. Animal Cruelty? A bit vague in this case. Consider this…

    The following activities are legal:

    Killing a fish for recreational fishing (some persons under 12 do not need licenses in some states)

    Shooting nuissance starlings or pigeons if they infest grain silos

    Hunting Coyotes for fun

    Raising chickens in cages so that in the end you can wring their necks and eat them for dinner.

    Killing slugs with table salt

    Using chemical and biological warfare against termites and roaches

    Launching ground hogs off rocks with a 25-06

    Killing millions of cattle in slaughterhouses.

    Killing billions of unborn chickens for the egg industry.

    So with all this killing abound in human nature, a few groups excepted, how is the legal system to equally assess a punishment against an individual for the sole fact of killing an animal. What list of animals are considered not chatel but have the rights we do? Or, what means are denoted that are considered per se cruelty? How does an average person know these rather arbitrary rules?

    Realistically, in the past I have hunted or otherwise killed animals for various reasons mostly related to my employment. I don’t hunt any more because I lost interest in it. But realistically how can we allow for the above examples to be legal while other acts determined by interpretation of probable cause are considered crimes?

    I’m not saying that we should all become vegans and not kill animals but if someone wants that it’s cool with me. Not my decision. But consider this. Animals have intelligence, to whatever degree might be the case they love their children, they feel pain, they want to live. Killing an animal for food causes distress in each of these areas. So if we hold these same values for people to be of paramount importance how can we not recognize that animals have these same interests. But, since we have in all our history chosen to forego this to serve our own interests and kill animals for whatever reason and this is sanctioned by various societies and government agencies.

    So what is the individual to do? How can we hold an individual to be criminally liable simply for causing the death of an animal when the social and legal ground for doing this is so vague and inconsistent? My position is that any ambiguity in the law should be held in the light most favorable to the defendant / citizen.

Comments are closed.