NY duck gets "order of protection" after attack

[DogPoundPup]

Source: Reuters

A pet duck named Circles, shot and wounded by a neighbor with a pellet gun, has received an order of protection to keep it safe, the first duck in New York state's Suffolk County to benefit from such an order.

Circles was in its owner's backyard on Long Island -- long known as a habitat for wild waterfowl -- when it was shot by a neighbor through the neck, said Michelle Auletta, prosecutor at the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

Circles, a white, yellow-billed duck, was treated by a vet and survived, she said.

The neighbor was charged with animal cruelty. At the attacker's arraignment on Thursday, Circles' owners received an order of protection.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0421449420080404?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[xchrom]

1. a duck. -- the neighbor just had to shoot a duck.

god above -- humanity can be a bottomless pit of cruelty.

[realisticphish]

2. The NY Ducks

sports team or band name? You decide

[grilled onions]

3. How Foul Can Hummanity Sink

Whether spurred by hate,sick amusement or just because they can bully something they consider beneath them many have become cruel just because "they can". At times like this I wish they each creep on this earth would be reincarnated into the very creature they abuse and perhaps karma will sort it out!

[eggplant]

4. Why does it matter that it is a duck?

(For the record, we own five ducks as pets.)

The duck is only relevant here because it is a pet, and that there is a law which allows them to be included in the order of protection.

But the real problem here is, WTF is the deal with someone shooting a gun into a neighbor's property, for any reason? If it wasn't a duck, would it somehow be ok? If it wasn't a pet at all? If they were just shooting at nothing?

We can all bemoan the duck, but really -- it's the neighbor from hell you should be lamenting.

[DogPoundPup]

6. Lamenting the person who shot the duck?

I agree with everything you said up until..."it's the neighbor from hell you should be lamenting". Did you mean lambast?

[polticalpout]

5. Here is a picture of circles the duck

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-liduck045637601apr04,0,188653.story


The scum bucket who shot circles is a 21 year old named Ylik Mathews, who already has a felony conviction for first-degree robbery. Let him rot in prison for 2 years.

[DogPoundPup]

7. Good for you! thanks for the extra story!

Sounds like the Lippincott's are going to get rid of that nasty neighbor and good for them!

[HuffleClaw]

8. but HUNTING ducks is ok?

so its only 'cruelty' if you kill 'em without a license?

[polticalpout]

9. Sure

Just like there won't be assult charges in a licensed boxing match.

[happyslug]

10. The problem is a pellet gun is NOT powerful enough for a clean kill,

And the duck survived that attack, which lead to suffering by the Duck. Thus it is a clean case of Cruelty to Animals.

Several years ago someone through a stone and killed a Duck out west (I believe it was Arizona, but this is from memory). The local court could NOT convict him for Crudity, for in that case the duck died instantly from the stone. In that state the Duck was NOT a game animal so state hunting without a license charges could not be brought. Since it was a wild duck, thrift or other stealing type charge could NOT be brought, for by law, a wild animal is owned by the State till it is "Taken" then becomes the property of the "Taker" i.e. the hunter. What ended up happening was the Federal Government stepped in and charged the stone thrower for taking waterfowl without a Federal Duck Stamp (Required for taking water fowl in the US). Thus the stone thrower served Federal Time not state time.

My point is the problem here was the Duck survived, thus cruelty can be proved. This is also a case of Trespassing, if the Duck was in the "Close" of the home i.e. in the yard (Even if the only thing that cross into the yard was the bullet from the gun). It may even be conversion, an attempt by the shooter to "take" the duck for his own use, when the duck was owned by another (This is NOT a wild duck and the shooter knew that fact).

One note on Trespassing laws, the above reflects the common law rule that it is criminal to go into the home (or other locked building) of another OR into the "close" of the house, but NOT criminal to walk across open fields owned by another. In the 1890s various states passed Criminal Trespass acts that permitted owners of property to make it criminal to enter their property by mealy putting up "NO Trespassing" signs. This was passed as an anti-union law, so businesses could arrest people on their property for trying to get people to join a union. The laws were, and are, broad in language, but the courts see them as violation of the Common Law to be narrowly construed (i.e. if someone does NOT expressly violate what the law says is trespassing, it is NOT trespassing). Now, if the trespass would be a Criminal trespass under the Common law the courts it is easier to get a conviction, my point is when the trespass would NOT have been Criminal Trespass under the common law, much less likelihood of a conviction.

This difference may be important, for the issue is where was the duck when it was shot? If in the yard of his owner, that is clearly trespassing. If not you have to rely on the attempt to take the duck as the crime in question. The issue is the underlaying state law and how it is worded and interpreted. Thus it may NOT have been trespassing but just Cruelty (and the Federal Violation of taking a duck without a duck Stamp, still exists).

[HuffleClaw]

11. VERY well explained !

lots of details i didn't know a thing about. very interesting.

[samsingh]

12. what kind of sickos shoot a duck ?

[Papi]

13. How does that work?

So is this guy supposed to move out of his house now that he can't be near that dog? damn.

Amazing.