Law students decapitate helmeted guinea fowl in Las Vegas

[DavidBrown]

Two ***** law students decapitated a helmeted guinea fowl at the Flamingo hotel's bird zoo in Las Vegas. What happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas, and now these idiots are infamous worldwide:
2 arrested in severing of exotic bird's head at Vegas habitat - latimes.com

 

[nanoboy]

Two ***** law students decapitated a helmeted guinea fowl at the Flamingo hotel's bird zoo in Las Vegas. What happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas, and now these idiots are infamous worldwide:
2 arrested in severing of exotic bird's head at Vegas habitat - latimes.com

Given their course of study, and the reputation of the university, I hope that these guys are expelled for bringing the profession and the university into disrepute.

 

[Chlidonias]

I hope they get visited in the night by a giant guineafowl who decapitates them

 

[DavidBrown]

I hope they get visited in the night by a giant guineafowl who decapitates them

Have you ever considered writing a horror novel Chlidonias? You may have a plot here...

 

[azcheetah2]

I hope they get visited in the night by a giant guineafowl who decapitates them

Wouldn't that be wonderful? It's bad enough that something like this happened, but for LAW STUDENTS to be the ones responsible? Oh yeah, I'll hire them right away.

Maybe they'll defend themselves in court...

 

[DavidBrown]

The ***** who decapitated the guinea fowl has been sentenced to 6 months in prison: Berkeley law student sentenced for killing exotic bird in Las Vegas - latimes.com

 

[TheOnlineZoo]

This is deplorable and the guy deserves to be punished, but six months in prison and 3-5 years probation for killing an over-sized chicken seems a bit harsh, considering some of the penalties I've seen for much more serious offenses. I think 30 days in jail or a $1000 fine would be more appropriate. Of course, the penalty might make more sense if the article identified what the "two other felony counts" were.

Yes, I know that helmeted guineafowl are not chickens, but they are close enough. In the U.S., they are commonly found on farms (my sister's next door neighbor has them), and I've even seen them walking down the middle of the street here in Texas. They are "exotic" in the sense that they are not native to the U.S., but they are domesticated farm animals.

I know I will get slammed for this opinion, so keep in mind that I am not saying what they did was not bad. It was bad. But it wasn't an endangered species or something much more important, like a human.

 

[Zooplantman]

This is deplorable and the guy deserves to be punished, but six months in prison and 3-5 years probation for killing an over-sized chicken seems a bit harsh, considering some of the penalties I've seen for much more serious offenses. I think 30 days in jail or a $1000 fine would be more appropriate. Of course, the penalty might make more sense if the article identified what the "two other felony counts" were.

Yes, I know that helmeted guineafowl are not chickens, but they are close enough. In the U.S., they are commonly found on farms (my sister's next door neighbor has them), and I've even seen them walking down the middle of the street here in Texas. They are "exotic" in the sense that they are not native to the U.S., but they are domesticated farm animals.

I know I will get slammed for this opinion, so keep in mind that I am not saying what they did was not bad. It was bad. But it wasn't an endangered species or something much more important, like a human.

I think felonious and brutal treatment of an animal should be punished for the crime not for the rarity of the animal. Your approach suggests that stupid kids that break into a zoo and torture a pig in the farmyard are less punishable than if they went two stalls over and did the same to a Visayan warty pig. What sort of justice is that?

 

[TheOnlineZoo]

I think felonious and brutal treatment of an animal should be punished for the crime not for the rarity of the animal. Your approach suggests that stupid kids that break into a zoo and torture a pig in the farmyard are less punishable than if they went two stalls over and did the same to a Visayan warty pig. What sort of justice is that?

There are three different issues here.

First, the act itself. Tearing the head off of any animal is wrong and should be punished (except in legitimate slaughter contexts); the question is the severity of the punishment.

Second, there are separate laws protecting endangered animals, so yes, it would be worse if it were a Visayan warty pig than a domestic pig because the endangered state introduces a separate violation.

Third, the penalty for torturing an animal should (IMO) be harsher than for killing it. But while the charge was "conspiracy and willful malicious torture/killing of wildlife", this sounds more like young people being stupid and crossing the line rather than the sick premeditation of truly deranged sadistic crazies for which the torture laws were written. And yes, I am making assumptions because the story lacked real details. And no, I am not saying what they did was right; just that the punishment seemed a bit harsh.

 

[Zooplantman]

There are three different issues here.

First, the act itself. Tearing the head off of any animal is wrong and should be punished (except in legitimate slaughter contexts); the question is the severity of the punishment.

Second, there are separate laws protecting endangered animals, so yes, it would be worse if it were a Visayan warty pig than a domestic pig because the endangered state introduces a separate violation.

Third, the penalty for torturing an animal should (IMO) be harsher than for killing it. But while the charge was "conspiracy and willful malicious torture/killing of wildlife", this sounds more like young people being stupid and crossing the line rather than the sick premeditation of truly deranged sadistic crazies for which the torture laws were written. And yes, I am making assumptions because the story lacked real details. And no, I am not saying what they did was right; just that the punishment seemed a bit harsh.

I don't disagree with your analysis. Although reading it I can't see why you then want leniency for these people. And had the animals been endangered then there would (rightfully) be additional Federal penalties.

Was the punishment harsh?
These sorts of incidents are on the rise. A thirty day sentence is an unpleasant time for a kid, but they might get out in a week (?). What sort of person does such a thing? Do they need a mild lesson or something to really get their attention?
I think perpetrators of such crimes -- stupid college students or wizened adults -- need to be made to pay heavily. And a good dose of psychological treatment would be in order as well

Here's more on the story:
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/a-final-guilty-plea-in-the-berkeley-bird-beheading/#more-251067
Apparently for the felony he confessed to, the main defendant ought to have received a much harsher sentence. At least his drunken rampage will probably cost him his ability to practice law

 

[TheOnlineZoo]

I like that the penalty was reduced for a first time offender, because that allows us to treat a stupid kid different than a mentally deranged repeat offender.

But I do agree with you - psychological treatment would have been a good addition to the sentence.

As for the sentence, we obviously have different opinions about what is appropriate. However, I believe that the four months in boot camp this article mentions is much more reasonable than the six months in prison the first article mentioned. If I had read this article first, I would not have said anything.