A defendant stole a police car with a K-9 inside. He crashed the car and killed the K-9. The K-9's partner has requested we look into a Kidnapping charge, along with the many others. Any thoughts on defining a K-9 as a "person"?

i think you are much much better off w/ the theft. certainly the value of the dog, taking into consideration all of its extensive training, must raise the offense to the felony level.

PC 38.151 (b)(6) &/or (7) makes it a 3rd degree. As for making the K-9 like a person, only thing that comes to mind, off the cuff, is whether the K-9 are deemed Public Servants/Peace Officers?

Check out sections 38.15 and 38.151, Penal Code. Both have provisions dealing with interference with a police service animal.

Janette A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cassandra Cheek:
Any thoughts on defining a K-9 as a "person"?

---

Yeah; don't do it. You'll save yourself plenty of trouble in the long run.

I'll second that, Shannon. The thought makes my head spin.

I would venture to claim that I am one as involved with raising and training animals as any person in TDCAA (check out the typical endings to my talks!)

My experience when dealing with animal cases is that, to the human part of the victim equation, the dog was a human family member or partner. To a jury, however, a rose is a rose, a dog is a dog, and neither is human.

Even with their amazing abilities, dogs never become human.....and aren't covered by the same laws.

This reminds me of a line from Lonesome Dove (not an exact quote): "There may have been a man that needed killin', but there warn't no horse that needed stealin'. We're gonna have to hang you, Jake."

Hope I got close enough.

Gus McCrae: You know how it works Jake, you ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. I'm sorry you crossed the line.

Jake Spoon: I didn't see no line Gus. I was just trying to get through the territory without getting scalped, that's all.