Mimesis Law
27 January 2022

The Ted Frank Rule (And Your Little Dog, Too)

February 23, 2017 (Fault Lines) — A year ago, Denise Krohn suffered a tragedy:

Denise Krohn left her home to go shopping around 6:30 Wednesday. She arrived back shortly before 9 p.m. and saw her beloved dog, Kirby, bleeding on the floor. Krohn assumed there had been an accident, but then saw her drawers and kitchen cabinets hanging open.

The kitchen had been ransacked.

Krohn tried to use her phone but it was dead. She began to panic. Kirby, a Goldendoodle, was bleeding from a gunshot wound to the chest. Her other dog, Quigley, was dead in the living room.

Krohn said Kirby was still alive when she walked in, which she believed meant the burglars had heard the dying dog’s whimpers and stepped past it to take the loot. She wonders what had happened if she had been home, whether she would be dead then.

Krohn reacted as one might expect:

“I’m sad, I’m devastated,” Krohn said, “How do you come back from it? I will. And I’m mad, I’m not going to take it.”

She channeled her sadness into an unusual channel: trying to get the New York legislature to pass a measure that would add an animal cruelty charge to defendants who harm a “companion animal”[1] during the commission of felony. This new measure, now called “Kirby and Quigley’s Law,” would be an expansion of Buster’s Law, which was passed in response to the death of a cat whom a seriously messed up juvenile had set on fire.[2]

For those New Yorkers who don’t remember, the “Ted Frank rule” says that “a law named after the victim of a crime is probably a bad idea.” That goes double for animal victims. That didn’t stop New York State Senator Jim Tedisco from making some political hay where he could:

Anyone who would be so dastardly as to assassinate two beautiful, loving dogs in cold blood is a threat to others and should face justice under Buster’s Law and go to jail for a long time for all of their felony crimes.

Indeed they should. And they already could be charged under the original version of the law. Kirby and Quigley’s Law made it past the Senate by a vote of 59-2, but it’s been held up in the Assembly as it has been for the previous five sessions. At least a few Assemblymen seem to have their heads screwed on a little straighter:

“This bill is unnecessary,” said Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat. “It’s already a crime to assault or kill an animal; it’s already a felony if you do it with malicious intent.”

Lentol said if the point of the law is to deter cruel acts, it makes no sense to expand it to include unintentional harm.

Exactly right. While whoever killed Kirby and Quigley don’t deserve any sympathy, they’re already going to get theirs if they ever get caught and convicted. So, the law basically serves to criminalize something that is already a crime. If that were all, that would be annoying but not earthshattering. The bigger problem is the unforeseen consequences of adding yet another felony that can be charged on top of more serious (or less serious charges).

The text of the bill reads as follows:

A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when

In the course of commission of a felony, or of immediate flight therefrom, he or she causes physical injury … or death to a companion animal.

In a practical sense, this won’t make the pets, or the pet owners of New York State, any safer. What it will do is provide yet another bludgeon for prosecutors to force a guilty plea. Injure a dog while driving drunk (and you have a previous conviction?) Felony. Knock over a goldfish bowl while ransacking a house? Felony. Trip and fall on a cat while running away from the police? Well, you get the idea.

Tedisco doesn’t even have the excuse that he didn’t think this through. He points out in his sponsor’s memo (after relating the deaths of the two dogs) that:

Although the current definition of aggravated cruelty to animals will most likely apply to the actions of these depraved individuals, we cannot ignore the potential harm to other innocent animals misused or even killed in the commission of felonies.

We can, actually. And we should.

[1] “Companion animal” is defined as “any dog or cat, and shall also mean any other domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for such other domesticated animal.”

[2] The guy was later convicted of sexually assaulting a 12 year-old disabled girl and sent to Attica.

9 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply



Comments for Fault Lines posts are closed here. You can leave comments for this post at the new site, faultlines.us

  • SCG
    23 February 2017 at 12:26 pm - Reply

    What does it say, that I assumed that it was the police who had shot the dogs?

    If it’s already a crime to harm companion animals, why on earth do we need another law saying so?

    • JohnM
      23 February 2017 at 2:06 pm - Reply

      Because legislators get reelected by touting the laws they sponsored/passed/shot down (opposing party), and not maintaining the status quo.

      Thus every session of every legislative body in the US spends most it’s time in a “solution in search of a problem” mode. The rest of the time is honoring themselves.

  • clonedaddy
    23 February 2017 at 9:05 pm - Reply

    It’s a good thing I have 10 clones of the same dog (not kidding). Shoot a few,meh, I’ll just bring in the reserves with the same collars and nobody in the family will be the wiser.
    The family can’t count to ten anyway.

    • shg
      23 February 2017 at 9:15 pm - Reply

      You are one sick puppy.

      • Richard Kopf
        24 February 2017 at 9:32 am - Reply


        Since Clonedaddy has a plethora of pups, the Jedi dog master has no standing to speak. On the other hand, I do have standing since I have no pets (unless I consider my brilliant wife Joan a pet in which case, should my reference to her become known at home, I would be dead).

        Now, if it were me I would rewrite the law and this is how it would read:

        “In the course of [the] commission of a felony, or of immediate flight therefrom, he or she [who] causes physical injury … or death to a feline shall be given a pat on the back, a medal for public service and then immediately discharged from custody for good behavior.”

        All the best.


        • shg
          24 February 2017 at 9:38 am - Reply

          With all due respect, Judge, there are starving children out there. Your law would be inexcusably wasteful without a requirement that the body be disposed of properly.

          • Richard G. Kopf
            24 February 2017 at 12:47 pm -



            All the best.


        • clonedaddy
          24 February 2017 at 9:46 am - Reply

          It makes sense you would write this law, since you do look like the judge in the Geico commercial.

  • Debate: Playing the Hand You’re Dealt in Prison Reform
    2 March 2017 at 10:50 am - Reply

    […] when a sympathetic person – or even animal – falls victim to a violent crime, legislators fall over themselves to pass kneejerk laws […]