Saturday, June 13, 2009

Justice Thwarted By Bogus Technicality

Justice has again been thwarted by a legal technicality.

A friend alerted me to the fact that one of the thugs from Waupaca County who chased down and tortured five deer before killing them has managed to get all of the felony charges against him dropped.

Unsatisfied with the Journal's coverage (that appears to be a growing trend), I started to look around for more details, and found them at the Appleton Post Crescent:

Robby Kuenzi, 23, faced five felony charges of animal cruelty, but Judge John Hoffmann dismissed them Thursday after Kuenzi's attorney, Thomas Johnson, argued his client was actually hunting with his snowmobile in January. Johnson's argument was bolstered by the fact the state Department of Natural Resources cited Kuenzi for hunting out of season.

Cruelty to animal charges can't be levied against people who are hunting.

"The state says they were hunting," Johnson told The Post-Crescent on Friday. "And if they were, they can't be charged with cruelty charges."

Hoffmann left standing several misdemeanor charges and ordinance violations against Kuenzi.

While I'm not a lawyer, I have two main reasons to call for an objection.

One, I do not consider running down with snowmobiles to be hunting. That is like saying the idiot kids that occasionally get arrested for clubbing raccoons or other animals at night for the thrill kill are hunting. Those that hunt at least can claim to have a purpose to their activity, i.e. getting food, eliminating a threat such as overpopulation, etc. These activities do not have a purpose except for the infliction of terror and pain on the animal.

Secondly, to say that hunting and cruelty to animals are completely separate notions is bogus. When I was a teenager, I had personally witnessed "a sportsman" who shot a deer, but did not kill it. Instead of expending a second round or using any other method to put the poor beast out of its misery, this dipshit sat on a stump, smoking a cigarette, watching the animal die a slow, painful, terror-filled death.

My grandfather, who was with me, confronted the man and asked what the hell he thought he was doing, letting the animal suffer. The "sportsman" said he did not want to waste the money on a second shell, nor did he want to ruin the hide with too many holes.

Grandpa immediately went home (which is now the northern castle), went back to the hunter, and put the deer down himself. Grandpa told the guy that the next time, he would come back with two shells, one for the animal, one to see how it worked as a rapidly injected suppository.

This story is only one example of how hunting and cruelty can occur at the same time.

My arguments may not satisfy a court of law, and they might not stand up against State Statutes, but then again, the law and justice don't always match up.

15 comments:

  1. I heard about the charges being dropped and I thought you'd be posting something on it. I will never understand how people can be cruel to animals and I hope I never understand it. I have no doubt karma will come back to bite him...and it probably will be sooner than later.

    Your grandfather must have been a strong and compassionate man. Good for him to have taken that stand...I'm sure it made a lasting impression on you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I had heard of it earlier as well, but I'm sure you can understand why I was a little bit preoccupied this week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Fassbender said he has made a request to the Attorney General's Office to handle an appeal."

    Told ya.

    "The state says they were hunting," Johnson told The Post-Crescent on Friday. "And if they were, they can't be charged with cruelty charges."

    I don't know what the authority for this claim is, but it certainly seems more than plausible that one may cease hunting momentarily in order to be cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. iT, my dear man, are you not my friend? I did say that a friend told me. I can't give you all of my linking. It just wouldn't be fair.

    Maybe some adventurous soul(s) could say that they were hunting punks and beat the snot out of these snots. Then there can't be any serious charges.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, no, I was just saying that this was guaranteed to be appealed (and that Van Hollen should get off the Twitter and make it happen). I know you love me; I don't need no steenking leenks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh heavens, now I AM confused. Why is Van Hollen on Walker?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm going to go out on a limb here and, without even having seen a motion or heard an argument, predict that the cruelty charge(s) will be reinstated. This has been a Cognitive Dissidence exclusive (the latest of many).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course I understand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. the latest of many

    And no one named McIlheran on my staff!

    ReplyDelete
  10. And another thing ... he picked up a misdemeanor for hunting out of season (which was what the defense used to prove he was hunting, in avoidance of the felony) so whatever hunting he was doing was unlawful in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wierd decesion. Hunting with a snowmobile? Out of season? Either the DNR screwed up or the judge, but no matter what, it was still a bad ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your grandfather (by your telling) sounds like a hate-filled, violent sort of guy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, Daddio, while Gramps was a Catholic, he wasn't an asocial conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So which evil did Catholicism cause? Hate-filled, or violent?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't know. You have both, so that might be the answer.

    ReplyDelete