How would you feel if the veterinarian treating your pet was recently accused of hunting and killing a cat? Wouldn’t you want the person taking care of your furry companion to show them complete care and respect? Well, you might not want Kristen Lindsey to be your pet’s veterinarian, then. Many are furious since the Austin County, Texas grand jury decided not to indict Kristen on animal abuse charges. While she was an employee at Washington Animal Clinic in Brenham, Texas. Kristen–whose full name was not disclosed–posted the following picture on Facebook, which shows her holding up a stray cat that she supposedly killed by shooting a bow and arrow straight through its skull.

The Texas veterinarian who bragged about killing a stray cat with an arrow won’t face charges. http://t.co/YomiNCX8NG pic.twitter.com/Pj6HPYAjDm

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 25, 2015

The 31-year-old vet, whose full name was never released since she was not formally charged for this vicious act, originally made headlines back in April when the picture was first posted. Now she is infamously known throughout the world as an animal abuser. She quickly deleted the disturbing photo from her profile, although not before many saw it and screen-shotted the post–those screenshots ended up going viral. It was then brought to the attention of her place of employment. Kristen’s position was immediately terminated, although it does not seem that she will lose her license. The clinic also stated how sickened and shocked they were by their former employee’s actions, and begged customers not to let this one incident define their center.

It seems as if everyone was shocked by Kristen’s actions, given that her former workplace, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, and other institutions she was affiliated with all expressed how upset they were with her. The deans of Colorado State University, where Kristen earned her veterinary degree, also announced how disgusted and disappointed they were with their former student’s actions. There were also multiple petitions created proposing that the vet’s license should be revoked, each with thousands of signatures.

This incident definitely appeared to be an act of animal cruelty and was being investigated as one, although it could not be proven that a crime even occurred. Animal rights advocates were outraged when this picture surfaced, and many urged authorities to arrest Kristen. Since investigators couldn’t tell when or where the supposed crime took place, they did not have enough evidence for probable cause. If sufficient evidence had been found, then a search warrant would have likely been issued, which then might have led to an arrest.

After an exhaustive court battle, the grand jury decided to rule the case as “no bill,” which means that there was insufficient evidence to charge Kristen with an actual crime. Much to many people’s chagrin, Kristen will get off with merely a slap on the wrist and a damaged reputation. After the ruling, many people gathered in front of the courthouse to protest this decision, although it can’t be turned around.

Reports state that Kristen later claimed that she only killed the suspected wild cat to protect her own pet from it, which would have made this incident legal,  although the post makes it seem as if she was hunting for fun and sport. Kristen appears to be quite proud of her kill, as she brags about her precise marksmanship and jokes about how she deserves a “vet of the year award” for her actions.

In what appears to be a blog created by Kristen when she was a student in veterinary school, she disturbingly describes herself as someone who likes to kill animals as a hobby. What’s also shocking is despite how grotesque and sad many people find this killing, the American Veterinary Society actually sees a bolt to the head as a humane way to kill a cat.

A resident of the town has come forward, claiming that the murdered cat is actually Tiger, a domestic cat who went missing from a local farm around the same time the image was posted and who distinctly resembles the slain cat. Despite there being many claims of the cat’s true identity, there is no confirmation of this since the feline’s corpse was never found.

However, this incident and Kristen’s pride in her actions don’t seem just in the slightest. Animal cruelty is a heinous crime, and people who commit this act should not go unpunished, particularly those who are trusted to take care of our pets.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Veterinarian Accused of Animal Cruelty After “Hunting” Cat appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, two 12-year-old girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, were arrested for stabbing their friend 19 times in hopes of appeasing a mythological character known as “Slenderman.”

The girls had allegedly been plotting the attack for months. They invited the victim to a sleepover the night before, and took her into the woods the next day, where the crime occurred. The girls allegedly stabbed the victim 19 times, missing an artery in her heart by just a millimeter. The victim then crawled to a road where she was found by a cyclist. Her condition was said to be stabilizing as of June 4.

In this case, under Wisconsin law, the girls are being tried as adults- meaning they will not be tried in juvenile court, which is the “default” for most minors who are arrested. Instead, they will face prison terms with the potential to extend far beyond their 18th birthdays.

In Wisconsin, juveniles over the age of 10 who are suspected of homicide have to be charged as adults. This law was enacted in 1996, as a way to curb violence among young people. The girls, if convicted, will face up to 60 years in prison- meaning at most, they will not be released until they are 72.

At least one of the girl’s attorneys is petitioning to have the case moved to juvenile court, but it could take months for a judge to decide whether or not that will happen. So while the fate of these girls is being called into question, here are factors that may influence how the trial plays out:

1. Mental Health

The girls claimed they stabbed their friend in order to appease a fictional character known as “Slenderman.” Originating in 2009, this character was created and depicted online in stories and pictures. The character is often depicted as being very tall, thin, and not having a defined face. The girls allegedly carried out this stabbing to get the approval of this character, and thought he had a mansion in the woods where the crime took place.

If their legal teams can prove these girls are deranged in some way, it could help their case. And if these preteens honestly believed in this character, and then acted so violently in its name, it could point to signs of mental illness. At this point, we do not have any information about whether the girls had histories of other violent actions. But if the court deems them unfit to stand trial by reason of mental insanity, they may be heading to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison.

2. Premeditation

If the girls had been planning the attack for several months, it could be a strike against them in the eyes of the jury- planning implies intent, and would show that the girls had multiple opportunities to re-think their plan. It shows this was not a freak act committed by two young girls who were not thinking clearly. Careful planning and consideration would definitely add weight to the homicide charges these girls are facing. During police interrogations, the girls said they went back and forth before one of them actually stabbed the victim. And one of the girls went so far as to say she had no remorse for committing the crime. All of these things would make a jury weary at giving these girls a second chance.

3. Age

This could be both harmful, and helpful. If the girls claim they committed this crime in order to appease this mythological figure- a jury could easily say they are old enough to know real from fake. After all, most states allow 12-year-olds to legally babysit younger children, so they are deemed to be at least somewhat responsible. It is an excuse that may work for a 6-year-old, but these girls have had plenty of time to learn right from wrong- and there is no gray area for stabbing a “friend” 19 times.

On the other hand, 12-year-olds cannot even drive, and these girls were in middle school. If they have a compassionate jury, it is possible they would rather see the girls given a second chance at reform rather than being locked up for life after one terrible act. After all, a lot of people are fed up with how punitive, rather than rehabilitative, the prison system is.

It seems like the best case scenario for the girls is if the case is moved to juvenile court. But with the media attention and violence associated with the case, that is unlikely to happen. Determining the girls’ motive and intent will be critical when a jury deliberates this case. The victim is alive to tell the story, the girls have apparently told their side to the police, and the weapon was collected. Unless they are found to be unfit to stand trial, the girls are probably going away for a long time.

[Star Tribune] [Boston Globe] [NBC]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ mdl70 via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cold-blooded Killers, or Stupid Preteens? A Jury Will (Probably) Decide appeared first on Law Street.