Had Cat in Coop, warning shot gone wrong, HELP!

[Eggs4Sale]

Wow. Move to the country. This is why people live in little shacks making letter bombs, because jerks get to unleash their garbage on us and we have to send them treat baskets and apologies. Jeez, these people don't care about a treat basket, they'll throw it in the trash. Ditto on cookies, eggs, anything... they regard you as filth and sub-human. Find out your laws, have copies of your laws kept in a safe place in your home, get a written statement from the witness, signed and dated, and safeguard your pets. These people will look at their cat every single day and build up even more hatred toward you. They will tell every one who sees the darn cat about what you, the evil neighbor, has done to their harmless little cat, and the story will evolve to something wholly different than what happened. Your mother will be painted as the crazy old lady next door who shoots the neighbor's cat for fun. I can only imagine what will be said of you. This is reality, this is people at their worst. You don't have nice, rational people for neighbors. You have opportunistic, selfish, arrogant meanies next door. It will not improve until they die or you move. Protect yourself. Plan for what you and your mom will do till this dies down, then plan for the next time, as it will happen again. Maybe they'll get another cat to comfort the grieving witch. Or worse, a dog. Prepare. Prepare. Protect.

 

[Over Easy in Adna]

Quote:
No gift basket, actions can be used in court as well.......

 

[Chicksdigit]

Quote:
I agree dig a hole and get ready next time the cat is harrassing your chickens Put him in the hole and forget him.

 

[DLS]

S,S ,S
shoot, shovel & shut up = the 3 S's

 

[Orly29]

I'm so sorry to hear about your ordeal. I had a similiar situation w a neighbors cat who for two years hunted my baby chicks down and devoured them. No matter how many times I spoke w them we could not come to an agreement. I eventually trapped the cat, who was an inside cat that was let out to roam in the evenings, and took him to animal control. I feel for you and your mother, and hope the situation doesn't get any worse. People just don't understand how special our chickens our to us...just as important as any cat or dog.

 

[Judy]

I'd shut up and hire an attorney for both the cat and the land.

 

[cgmccary]

People should keep their cats and dogs up and they wouldn't have to worry about them threatening other's property. I even know someone who shoots cats that stalk his bird feeders (but he does SSS). He loves the wild birds. One of my neighbor's has a Siamese cat that stalks my chickens and it is only a matter of time before it takes the next step. Others in my neighborhood complain about this cat's killing of wild birds.

First, as other posters said, DO NOT TALK ANYMORE and if you do , emphasize that your birds were being stalked and the cat was on your property.

Second, as one poster suggested, do not send any written note of apology or regret (or anything written that could be construed as an admission of guilt or liability, esp considering below-- treble damges part).

Third, you can go to your City Clerk and ask to see the Municipal Code sections having to do with animals. You'll be surprised what is all there.

Fourth, since it was a State Trooper then, you need to look at R.I. State law. I looked up some law in your State (through Lexis) and found as follows:

R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-1-5 (2009)

§ 4-1-5. Malicious injury to or killing of animals

(a) Every person who cuts out the tongue or otherwise dismembers any animal, maliciously, or maliciously kills or wounds any animal, or maliciously administers poison to or exposes any poisonous substance with intent that the poison shall be taken or swallowed by any animal, or who maliciously exposes poisoned meat with intent that the poison meat is taken or swallowed by any wild animal, shall be imprisoned not exceeding two (2) years or be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), and shall, in the case of any animal of another, be liable to the owner of this animal for triple damages, to be recovered by civil action. In addition, any person convicted under this section is required to serve ten (10) hours of community restitution. The community restitution penalty shall not be suspended or deferred and is mandatory.

(b) This section shall not apply to licensed hunters during hunting season or a licensed business killing animals for human consumption.

HISTORY: G.L. 1896, ch. 279, § 22; G.L. 1909, ch. 345, § 22; P.L. 1913, ch. 919, § 1; G.L. 1923, ch. 397, § 22; G.L. 1938, ch. 608, § 22; G.L. 1956, § 4-1-5; P.L. 1979, ch. 238, § 1; P.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 1; P.L. 1988, ch. 656, § 1.

NOTES: REENACTMENTS. The 1998 Reenactment (P.L. 1998, ch. 441, § 1) designated the subsections and substituted "this section" for "this act" in subsection (a), a substitution originally made by the compiler.

COMPILER'S NOTES. In 1998, the compiler substituted "community restitution" for "community service" twice in subsection (a) pursuant to § 4-1-35.

COLLATERAL REFERENCES. Damages for killing or injuring dog. 61 A.L.R.5th 635.
What constitutes offense of cruelty to animals -- modern cases. 6 A.L.R.5th 733.

I'll look at some cases in your state and get back with you and will look further. You have a defense to the criminal or civil side of the above:
Criminally: the cat was stalking your birds on your property and in defense of your chickens, you accidently wounded the cat. Civil side of it:
(1) Trespass to your chattels (your chickens) as a counterclaim and again, you were defending your chickens.

I am sure there is a roaming at large city ordinance (when you look at your city's code). I noticed your State's law requires someone who runs over a domesticated animal has a duty to stop and render assistance, cool.​

 

[cgmccary]

The State's at large law & other laws, doesn't seem to include cats (your municipal laws probably do though):

§ 4-14-1. Animals at large -- Civil liability -- Penalty

No horse, bull, boar, ram, or goat shall be permitted to run at large and if the owner or keeper of these, for any reason suffers any animals to do so he or she shall upon conviction be fined not in excess of one hundred dollars ($ 100) and be liable in addition for all damages done by the animal while so at large, although the animal escapes without the fault of the owner or keeper. The construction of any lawful fence shall not relieve the owner or keeper from liability for any damage committed by an animal of the enumerated class upon the enclosed premises of an adjoining owner.

. . .
this reference to a cat in the references, but I was unable to pull this site:Cat: liability for injuring or killing dog to protect. 73 A.L.R.4th 1039. (again it would be interesting to see this A.L.R cite, a law library would have it)

but for damage done by a dog in Rhode Island:

§ 4-13-16. Action for damages to animals -- Double damages on second recovery -- Destruction of offending dog

If any dog kills, wounds, worries, or assists in killing, wounding or worrying, any sheep, lamb, cattle, horse, hog, swine, fowl, or other domestic animal belonging to or in the possession of any person, or assaults, bites, or otherwise injures any person while traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper of that dog, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the person aggrieved, for all damage sustained, to be recovered in a civil action, with costs of suit. If afterwards any such damage is done by that dog, the owner or keeper of the dog shall pay to the party aggrieved double the damage, to be recovered in the manner set forth and an order shall be made by the court before whom that second recovery is made, for killing the dog. The order shall be executed by the officer charged with the execution of the order, and it shall not be necessary, in order to sustain this action, to prove that the owner or keeper of the dog knew that the dog was accustomed to causing this damage.

and

§ 4-13-17. Civil liability of person harboring dog for damages

Any person keeping or harboring in his or her house or on his or her lands any dog, or knowingly suffering this to be done by any other person, shall be liable for all damages done by the dog in the same manner as if he or she were the owner.

and

§ 4-13-19. Order to confine or kill vicious dog -- Subsequent damages

(a) If any person, or any member of his or her family shall be assaulted by any dog, out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper, or if any person shall have reason to believe that any dog will, out of that enclosure, do any injury to his or her person, family or property, and shall make complaint under oath, to any judge of the district court, that judge shall issue a summons to the owner or keeper of the dog, to appear before the division of the district court having jurisdiction of the case; and if, on examination, the court shall believe that the assault is proved, or that the complaint has reasonable grounds for the belief, it shall adjudge, and shall adjudge that the defendant pay costs of the proceedings and award execution of the proceedings, otherwise the costs shall be paid by the complainant; and the court shall issue written notice to the owner or keeper, and the owner or keeper shall forthwith confine or kill the dog; and if he or she neglects to kill the dog or keep the dog confined, he or she shall forfeit the sum of not less than twenty-five dollars ($ 25.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($ 100), to be recovered for the use of the city or town, and any person may kill the dog; and if, after that notice, the dog wounds or injures any person, or shall, elsewhere than on its owner's or keeper's premises, worries, wounds or kills any neat-cattle, sheep, lamb, geese or fowl, or does any other mischief, the owner or keeper is liable to pay the person injured triple damages with costs; and in all cases of complaints under this section recognizance shall be given for costs, and the fees and costs shall be the same as in other cases of complaints before the district court.

(b) The district court judge may, in his or her discretion, if the court determines the dog, while out of the enclosure of its owner or keeper, has assaulted a person or killed a domesticated animal and is dangerous, order the detention or destruction of the dog.

Good to know if you ever have trouble with dogs. I could only find a horse damage case in R.I from 2004 but it seems Courts are reluctant to pass these dog statutes off to cats (and sometimes you have to look at other States' cases):

Jeanette Clotilde Clark v. Keith M. Brings and Another

No. 41289

Supreme Court of Minnesota

284 Minn. 73; 169 N.W.2d 407; 1969 Minn. LEXIS 1021


June 27, 1969

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Action in the Hennepin County District Court for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of an attack by a cat owned by defendants, Keith M. Brings and Barbara Brings. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court, Douglas K. Amdahl, Judge, granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Thereafter, plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered and from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In an action by appellant babysitter against respondent homeowners to recover for personal injuries which resulted from an attack by the homeowners' pet cat, the Hennepin County District Court directed a verdict in favor of the homeowners and denied the babysitter's motion for a new trial. The babysitter filed an appeal.

OVERVIEW: The babysitter sustained personal injuries as a result of an attack by the homeowners' cat. The attack occurred while the babysitter was caring for the homeowners' children. The babysitter initiated an action against the homeowners and sought to recover for her personal injuries. At the close of the babysitter's evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the homeowners. In addition, the trial court denied the babysitter's motion for a new trial. On review, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the babysitter's argument that Minn. Stat. § 347.22, the statute which imposed strict liability on owners of dogs in certain circumstances, should be judicially extended to hold owners of cats strictly liability for the acts of their cats. Moreover, the court rejected the babysitter's argument that the evidence in the case was sufficient to hold the homeowners liable under the common law as it stood at the time of the case. Lastly, the court rejected the babysitter's argument that the homeowners should be held liable for failing to provide the babysitter with a safe place to work.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

and this cat case out of Arkansas:

PETER VAN HOUTEN, APPELLANT, v. RICK PRITCHARD, APPELLEE.

No. 93-473

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

315 Ark. 688; 870 S.W.2d 377; 1994 Ark. LEXIS 70


February 7, 1994, Delivered

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 92-260-1, HON. JOHN W. COLE, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE

DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND DISMISSED.

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant cat owner sought review of a decision of the Saline County Circuit Court (Arkansas), which entered judgment on a jury verdict for appellee bite victim in a personal injury action.

OVERVIEW: The cat owner's cat bit the bite victim, causing at least $ 39,000 in medical expenses. The bite victim brought an action against the cat owner for both strict liability and negligence. The trial court directed a verdict for the cat owner on the strict liability claim after it found that the bite victim had not established that the cat had dangerous propensities that were known to the cat owner. The trial court subsequently entered judgment for the bite victim on the negligence count. The cat owner appealed and the court reversed. The court noted that the bite victim did not appeal the directed verdict on the strict liability claim. Thus, the court said, it became the law of the case that the cat had not had vicious propensities that were known to the cat owner. Absent such a propensity toward violence, or unless a local ordinance provided otherwise, the court said, the cat owner was permitted to allow his domestic cat to run at large. A cat, the court noted, was not a large domestic animal that would invariably have caused damage if allowed to roam at will. Thus, the cat owner had no duty to confine or control the cat.

OUTCOME: The court reversed a judgment for the bite victim against the cat owner in a personal injury action.​

 

[PineBurrowPeeps]

Only from doing rescue for MANY years do I know that there is no "leash" law per say for cats here in RI, BUT they MUST be wearing a collar with rabies tag and/or registration and it is illegal to have any cat over the age of 6 months that is not spayed or neutered unless you have a breeding license.

 

[Uppity Peon]

Yard full o' rocks :

Don't you have leash laws in RI? Looks like a case of not following the law by the cat owners to me!!!

I don't think leash laws normally apply to cats. But I also think that cat owners who allow their cats to run free accept the risks that their cats may get hurt or killed, and should certainly accept the responibility for any damage they might cause to neighbor's property and livestock.​