The SA cited shooting to protect property from damage and that a hog is a nuisance animal as facts in the investigation that warrant no action by the State. Per a written reply to the victim: "there is insufficient evidence to overcome Mr. Lester's claim that he believed he was shooting at a hog and that he had no intention of harming [the] cat."
The screams after each shot were obviously from a cat, as two witnesses have stated. Yet, the State Attorney's office believes that Lester continued to think he was shooting a pig. A pig that did not squeal but screamed like a cat, [shot]again and [shot]again and [shot]again.
The SA wrote: "the Animal Services Officer would testify that based upon his review of the facts, this is not an animal cruelty case". Another agency that believes that Lester continued to think he was shooting a pig after each shot he made resulted in a cat scream.
There is also the question of what is humane killing. Per http://myfwc.com/License/Permits_NuisWild.htm
property owners may take nuisance wildlife, as long as the animals are destroyed humanely.One has to wonder what definition of humane includes shooting four times; maiming but not killing.
The State Attorney's office remains consistent in not bringing charges in cases such as this.
