By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Cesar Gustavo Diaz, 25, was sentenced to 45 days in jail and one year of probation for misdemeanor animal cruelty after a video surfaced showing him giving a protected juvenile Cooper’s hawk alcohol at Amelia Mayberry Park. The investigation, prompted by public complaints and conducted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, identified Diaz and located the hawk. In addition to his jail time and probation, Diaz must also complete an animal cruelty counseling program, faces a five-year ban on owning animals, and a ten-year ban on possessing firearms, along with fines.
Read the original article here
A Los Angeles man has been sentenced for animal cruelty after being caught on video giving alcohol to a hawk. The incident, which occurred in Los Angeles, led to the man’s arrest on unrelated charges and ultimately his conviction for a misdemeanor involving the protected bird. Investigators, with assistance from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, were able to build a case against him, including judge-approved searches.
The provided images show the raptor appearing to sip from a ready-to-drink cocktail. This act, while perhaps not intended with malicious intent according to some, clearly demonstrated a profound lack of judgment and respect for a wild, federally protected animal. The fact that the bird is a protected species likely played a significant role in the severity of the charges and the subsequent sentence. All native birds in the U.S. are federally protected, and violations can be taken very seriously, often leading to the book being thrown at perpetrators.
The man’s sentence includes mandatory animal cruelty counseling, community service, and fines, in addition to the jail time. The article doesn’t explicitly state whether the hawk survived the encounter, a detail many found noteworthy. It’s understandable why questions arise about the necessity of jail time for what some perceive as a moment of extreme stupidity rather than calculated cruelty. The argument is made that if this were an interaction between humans, it might be seen as a misguided attempt at friendship or shared experience, highlighting that the perpetrator’s mentality might have been “cool bird!” rather than “I want to hurt this animal.”
However, the reality of animal welfare and legal repercussions for mistreating protected species cannot be overlooked. The conversation around this incident touches upon the broader theme of how society views and treats other living beings. While some express disbelief that jail time is warranted for such an act, others contend that the sheer negligence and the fact that harming another being didn’t even cross the individual’s mind is indicative of a deeper issue regarding judgment and empathy, making the act “stupidly malicious” in its own right.
The legal system’s response, in this case, points towards a desire for rehabilitation through counseling and community service, alongside punitive measures like fines and jail time. The sentence, a term equal to time served plus one day, suggests a deliberate decision by the judge, perhaps to emphasize the seriousness of the offense involving a protected species, even if the individual had only just been released from jail on unrelated charges. This situation highlights the ongoing debate about justice, emphasizing rehabilitation over retribution, and questioning whether the resources used for such cases could be better allocated elsewhere.
The idea of a bird lawyer, like Harvey Birdman, humorously surfaces in discussions, reflecting a sense of the absurd in the situation. However, beneath the surface of humor lies a stark comparison to other societal issues and legal discrepancies. The disproportionate severity of the sentence, for some, is amplified when contrasted with other crimes and individuals who seemingly face less stringent consequences. The notion that a protected species was involved is a key factor, as these cases often draw a firm line against perceived disrespect for wildlife.
Ultimately, the case serves as a stark reminder that actions, no matter how seemingly impulsive or thoughtless, can have serious legal ramifications, especially when they involve the welfare of protected animals. The focus on federal protection for native birds underscores the importance of conservation efforts and the legal framework designed to uphold them. The man’s sentence, encompassing a range of corrective measures, aims to ensure that he learns from this experience and does not repeat such reckless behavior.