According to the Honolulu Advertiser today (June 20, 2009) the woman accused of killing a "squawking peacock" plead not guilty to the charge of second-degree misdemeanor cruelty to animals and demanded a jury trial. The woman admitted that she killed the peacock in remarks to a TV crew and to police.
Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, who, according to news reports is considering making a run for mayor, stated "Clearly, taking a baseball bat to a peacock is not something that is tolerated by the law."
It appears that the defense argument is going to be that the animal-cruelty law is "vague" and does not extend protection to "vermin, pests, and insects". With the peacock in their view being a "pest" as it squawked too much. Apparently the definition of an animal is vague and ambiguous with the defense attorney stating "the statute basically defines animals as anything that's living other than a human being."
The trial should be interesting as the issue of what is an animal, and when is an animal merely a "pest" that it is okay to beat to death with a baseball bat, is considered by the court and jury.
One exception to the animal cruelty laws is the treatment of farm animals, it is fine to do pretty much anything to them, because they are just going to be slaughtered and eaten anyway right? They can be branded, ears clipped and tagged, castrated, confined in tiny cages, debeaked (in the case of chickens), etc. etc. and all before they are dragged off to slaughter.
Thanks for reading.
Love animals, don't eat them.
Mark Fergusson