Audrey Deen Miller has proffered a unique defense to charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon: she shot her husband to protect her cat. The police report that Miller’s husband threatened to shoot one of her cats with a pellet gun. She did him one better and shot him in the abdomen with a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun.
Source: KHOU
Miller has several cats and dogs . . . and one apparently non-cat loving husband. Assistant Chief Mark Herman expects her account that “[t]he husband was trying to do something to the cat and the wife was just trying to protect her cat.”
It does raise an interesting issue in the treatment of pets. If this were a human, there would be a viable claim of defense of others. Yet, animals are treated in the law as forms of chattel or property and the common law has long held that you cannot kill or maim in defense of property (in both torts and criminal law). Should this change to allow a defense for someone uses potentially lethal force to prevent the killing or maiming of an animal?
When the husband came home (still in a hospital gown), he found that he was locked out. It was not clear if that was the work of his wife or the cats.
Please keep us up to date like this.
=====================
http://www.news8000.com/news/Wisconsin-woman-tries-to-shoot-husband-gun-misfires/-/326/17945296/-/yogrpw/-/index.html
Here’s an update.
At last report the cat is doing OK.
It’s actually a nice and useful piece of info. I am happy that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.
When the husband came home (still in a hospital gown), he found that he was locked out. It was not clear if that was the work of his wife or the cats.
==========================================================
The cats did it.
It’s pretty well documented that people who choose to harm animals, especially smaller and domesticated animals, are basically cowardly scum and if using it as a threat, skank slinkin terrorists to boot. I suspect he was just another low life sociopath on the cusp of graduating to another level of harming human beans.
to quote clint eastwood in unforgiven
“deserves got nothin to do with it”
patricpar, I agree with you but I have never killed a cat, either.
Upon introspection, as a recovering former-Catholic altar boy, I find it just a bit disconcerting that I’ve reached the point, where I actually believe some other lifeforms are more deserving of life than some humans.
Not that we know enough in this case, ’bout the cat or the dude.
indio007 said:
” the common law has long held that you cannot kill or maim in defense of property”
You might want to inform the police of this.”
Indio – You may be right with regards to Texas. But some states are literally changing the human from “owner” to “caretaker” with regards to creatures.
And caretaker just might come with a whole new list of mandates.
I know someone in NJ who, back in the 1970s, declared two dogs as dependents. I think she got away with it. Their names (the dogs) were Cindy and Toddy.
She might have a viable claim because Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect personal property.
Section 9.42 limits it to prevent only a few specified crimes, of which robbery, theft & criminal mischief are relevant here. The threat must also be imminent and the person must reasonably believe that their property can’t be protected or recovered any other way.
Assuming she is the lawful owner of the cat, his threat to shoot the cat certainly qualifies as intentionally damaging or destroying her property without her consent under the criminal mischief statute, Section 28.03. It likewise qualifies as attempting to exercise unlawful control over (i.e. – to appropriate) her property under the theft statute, Section 31.03
(definition at s.31.01(4)).
Both of those, however, are further limited to nighttime incidents. It’s reported that this incident occurred around 7:30a. Sunrise in Houston was at 7:11a, so she may be out of luck. Miller v. State, 741 S.W.2d 501, 504 (Tex. App. 1987) (defense not allowed because the predicate crime occurred during the afternoon).
Robbery doesn’t have any such hours of operation, but it requires the attacker to place another person in fear of serious injury or death (Section 29.02). She’d need to show he threatened her as well as her cat.
In any event, a person might be justified in using deadly force to protect their pets in Texas under the right factual circumstances.
It’s also worth noting that just yesterday, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether pet owners can sue for emotional damages rather than just property value in the death of a pet. Down here in Florida, a family whose dog was shot & killed by a police officer recently received a $20,000 settlement from the City of Ft. Lauderdale. The owners argued that their pet was not just property, but a living member of the family.
All you dog-lovin’ cat-hating husbands, beware. Wotever the wife loves in the way of pets had to be respected. Women rule where pets are concerned.
Woosty,
Clint lost what was left of his rep for doing that to a chair. Steep penalty.
Just imagine the sudden new twist in the George Zimmerman defense:
I saw this guy; he looked real suspicious, like he was up to no good. SH*T, he ran. I heard a catcall. Or it might have been a caterwaul. Cats are God’s creatures too you know. I had to shoot him. I only shot him once.
Yet, animals are treated in the law as forms of chattel or property and the common law has long held that you cannot kill or maim in defense of property (in both torts and criminal law).
————————————————–
what is the penalty for being cruel, callous and inflicting harm to a chair?
good girl!
Waldo, LOL!
ID, I know they went zip lining yesterday, they plan to go to Tulum on a cloudy day. They’ve both been to Cozumel. We took our family there twice when they were kids. There’s also a turtle sanctuary nearby. They make good soup ala Bookbinder’s soup w/ a little sherry. I’m sure they would get evicted if they mentioned Bookbinders.
“Should this change to allow a defense for someone uses potentially lethal force to prevent the killing or maiming of an animal?”
It certainly would make deer hunting season much more exciting!
Nick S.
Hyperbole is permissable in the defense of helpless women. How would you like to hear in a divorce proceedings that there must be something wrong with you just because you complain about your wife.
You are such a bounder—by definition.
Any reports from Playa del Carmen. Do you really think that they went to Tulum. So much else to do!!!
“Texas was also the first state to award damages beyond the replacement value of a pet if killed. That case is setting precidents accross the country. Maybe this case will have some legs.”
I’m pretty sure Texas was not the first. Also, the Texas Supreme Court has just recently accepted cert in that case. The Texas Supreme Court is very business friendly and hates any kind of new tort or damages. I expect them to overturn the appellate decision, although I hope I’m wrong.