More Problems with Pit Bulls — And Their Owners

there absolutely are criminal penalties for animal abuse. i'm no expert, but a basic google search brings up new york state agriculture and markets law, seems to be section 353 or 353a for misdemeanor and felony abuse. section 371 empowers officers to give summons or make arrests.

there's no reason why a case couldn't be made for using a dog to inflict abuse on the cat. like you say, it's just like any other weapon. ask yourselves this - if the dog was attacking a kid, would the cops have said they couldn't do anything unless it was a person was attacking a kid? the problem here is lazy cops, not the laws themselves. the case, of course, is harder to make with another animal as a weapon, but it's far from impossible.

i'd call the DA's office if i were you. i think there is a specific trial bureau that deals with animal cruelty cases, but i don't know which one. and the community liaison for your precinct.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 11:59 AM

bxgrl - i understand what the cops said. i'm saying they're wrong - either purposefully so, because they're lazy or don't want to start paperwork for a case that might not win, or because they're being instructed incorrectly, by their superiors or by the DA.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 12:07 PM

actually, mr. b's post is somewhat ambiguous on what the cops said. but either way - whether they meant a person attacking a cat or a dog attacking a person (both of which are crimes), there's no reason this situation couldn't be the basis of a summons/arrest under the codes i cited. as i said, the case is no doubt more difficult than the more human victim or "human directly inflicting abuse" scenarios. but if there's a problem in the neighborhood that's endangering safety of animals and people, seems to me some strict enforcement is called for.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 12:14 PM

bxgrl: i get what you're saying. but the idea that civil damages and criminal penalties are equivalent ways of addressing the issue is also something the cops are wrong about. yes, they have priorities and discretion in terms of when to issue a summons or make an arrest, but the law itself, as it stands, applies. the reason i suggest calling the DA and the precinct is because that's how ordinary citizens can come to affect what the priorities are. there are some threats to the public that are obvious and undeniable, like sex offenders and drunk drivers. some have to be made more obvious to our elected officials and public servants by citizens who are affected. this is how prosecuting mortgage fraud as a crime became a priority.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 12:38 PM

thanks PD for the informed response. i forgot we had a resident professional on the board! i am guessing the ASPCA have an intake unit for citizens to make complaints. are they a better liaison for people than to go directly to the DA's office or the precinct?

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 1:17 PM

CSA - you're talking about a different provision than i was. the dangerous dog/dog bite provision does seem to limit criminal penalties to bites on humans. but if you can prove that it's a "dangerous dog" and it's killed a cat, there are a number of things that a judge can order for the dog, including evaluations, training, confinement, insurance, or even euthanasia. all of this is at the dog owner's expense.

one interesting fact: a police officer who receives a complaint about a dangerous dog "shall immediately inform the complainant of his right to commence a [dangerous dog] proceeding and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself." NYAGM section 121.1.

this is different from the animal cruelty statutes i cited previously, which have nothing to do with human victims in the first place.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 1:37 PM

CSA:

§ 121. Dangerous dogs. 1. Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may make a complaint of an attack or threatened attack upon a person, companion animal, farm animal as defined in subdivision twenty-four of section one hundred eight of this article, or a domestic animal as defined in subdivision seven of section one hundred eight of this article to a dog control officer or police officer of the appropriate municipality. Such officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his right to commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this section and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself.

not sure what statute you copied, since you didn't cite it. but you might have checked mine before making accusations.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 2:15 PM

you're wrong. read the statute again.

the statute says that anyone can report a complaint to "a dog control officer or police officer of the appropriate municipality. Such officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his right to commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this section and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself."

what is it about "a dog control officer or police officer of the appropriate municipality" that is confusing you? the "such officer" in the second sentence relates to the antecedent "dog control officer or police officer" in the first sentence.

clear mention of police officers. clearly not limited to dog control officers. (and just for the record, no, police officers and dog control officers are not the same thing.) any other questions i can help you with today?

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 2:41 PM

my "you're wrong" was intended for CSA, not Chosen. Chosen, thanks for the info. it does seem to me that there is already a gap between what the law provides for and what the NYPD is actually doing, in practice. seems to me they could/should take the complaint and/or call ASPCA officers to the scene regardless of who does the investigation, or advise the complainants who to call. but saying that "nothing can be done" unless a person is attacked is clearly not true.

but of course, the laws always could be made more explicit, and stronger.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 3:00 PM

chosen, don't get defensive. i have nothing against cops. happen to have worked with a few and have a lot of respect for the challenges of the job and the people who take that on. that said, i am also aware that laziness, reluctance to do paperwork or make calls to other agencies or remain on the scene, or whatever (particularly at the end of shift), and disregard for "less important" problems like animal cruelty are all not as rare as you would hope.

i don't really get your insistence that nothing can be done. the statutes i cited state very specifically that something CAN and SHOULD be done. no one said that the officers right there had to investigate anything or to make an arrest. but even you agree that one option is to refer the case to the ASPCA - which (according to the post) they didn't do, and didn't even mention as a possibility.

and maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but just because the department publishes something in its patrol guide is NOT conclusive evidence that those police practices are in compliance the law. even if the city or the DA has approved it. nonprofit organizations and individuals file lawsuits against the PD and the city *all the time,* and many of these cases do result in changed policies and procedures that are found not to be compliant with the law.

but it seems we agree on the ultimate point, which is that there are laws out there, imperfect though they may be, that protect people and pets in situations like these. and if we want those laws enforced (or, that failing, rewritten) in a certain way, it is UP TO US to make it happen.

i'm out.

Posted by: i disagree at April 28, 2009 4:54 PM