If this guy was my husband, he’d be six feet under by now.
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) – A man who pleaded guilty to putting his wife’s puppy in a 200-degree oven, crippling it, was sentenced Monday to six months in jail.
Third District Judge William Barrett ordered Marc Christopher Vincent, 36, to serve six months in jail without the chance of early release. He must also pay a $500 fine and $986 in veterinary bills for the dog.
Vincent, 36, pleaded guilty September 18 to one count of misdemeanor aggravated animal cruelty for putting the dog in an oven for five minutes on May 25 during a fight with his wife, Rhonda. She has since filed for divorce.
The black Chihuahua mix named Henry suffered permanent damage to its front paws and now limps.
As part of the plea agreement, a second charge of animal cruelty was dropped. Prosecutors had accused Vincent of turning a leaf blower on the dog in a separate incident, damaging the dog’s eye so badly it had to be removed.
When I saw the title of this thread, I was ready to debate the definition of murder, and how as defined there could be no justification because by definition if there was a reason to kill, ah well you get my point. Then I read the post. Just shoot the guy in the head. Rid the world of this moron. And it still wouldn’t be murder.
It makes you wonder though, if you witnessed someone - family included - causing severe bodily harm or death to your pet, would you be prosecuted if you shot them as your only way to defend the animal - and presumably yourself?
***It makes you wonder though, if you witnessed someone - family included - causing severe bodily harm or death to your pet, would you be prosecuted if you shot them as your only way to defend the animal - and presumably yourself? ***
Without knowing the precise wording of all state murder statutes, I’d say you could and likely would be prosecuted for murder (attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc), as I’m not aware that any state permits the use of deadly force to prevent harm to an animal.
I think the link between people who torture and kill animals and murderers is pretty well established. Only a psychopath would do that to an animal, and those are exactly the types that would/could kill the spouse in that heated situation. If someone killed their spouse’s or GF’s pet during a domestic altercation, you could certainly make the case for self defense. It may or may not hold up, but it’s certainly a reasonable and valid defense.
“When I saw the title of this thread, I was ready to debate the definition of murder, and how as defined there could be no justification because by definition if there was a reason to kill, ah well you get my point. Then I read the post. Just shoot the guy in the head. Rid the world of this moron. And it still wouldn’t be murder.”
Problem is, self defense is in most states defined as emminent danger of death or severe bodily harm, so killing someone for torturing a pet because of the link to that activity and becoming a murderer would not be an emminent threat. Without making some menacing advances toward you or another person, the mere killing of a beloved pet in your presense is probably not enough to trigger self defense.
But what do I know, I am just a tax lawyer. Criminal Law was a long time ago for me.
I think the link between people who torture and kill animals and murderers is pretty well established. Only a psychopath would do that to an animal, and those are exactly the types that would/could kill the spouse in that heated situation. If someone killed their spouse’s or GF’s pet during a domestic altercation, you could certainly make the case for self defense. It may or may not hold up, but it’s certainly a reasonable and valid defense.
Seems like a stretch to me, but then, I’m not a criminal defense attorney. I would think extreme emotional distress would be better than self-defense. I can tell you that if I was on the jury, the extreme emotional distress defense would probably carry some weight with me.
Let’s say it wasn’t a cute little puppy that he put in the oven. It’s a baby that he put in the oven, or maybe some fat-ass that he put in a really big oven. Would you still shoot him in the head?
Then I read the post. Just shoot the guy in the head. Rid the world of this moron. And it still wouldn’t be murder.
I think bluemonkeytri got it right. Murder isn’t acceptable. However, in this case it isn’t murder, I would call it performing a Public Service, which clearly benefits society.
Yes, then it is clearly self defense. Self defense does not have to mean your “self” but anyone in proximity, at least in many states, as I recall. If he did that to a person, I would shoot him in the head more than once. (My original comment was meant to have a bit a sarcasm, despite my view that needs to be a whole lot of chlorine in our gene pool.)
“I have very little regard for chihuahuas in general, but even i find that pretty disgusting.”
I would have figured you to be a chihuahua kinda guy-guy. In Vietnam they would not have let that li’l chihuahua go to waste. “Tet cho anh ngok!” (dog meat - yummy)
(My original comment was meant to have a bit a sarcasm, despite my view that needs to be a whole lot of chlorine in our gene pool.)