This is the
website for the organization - Voice for the Murphy, Texas bobcat
are going to unite all animal lovers in Texas to get Murphy, Texas Chief of
Police G.M. Cox fired or force him to resign ...... for authorizing a police
officer to shoot and kill the bobcat, while it was locked in a cage. We will
be at the San Antonio City Hall steps every Saturday at noon, to gather
signatures and also get contributions to help pay the filing fees on the
lawsuit which has been filed against Police Chief G.M. Cox.
The Murphy, Texas police officer who shot a bobcat while it was in a
cage, was acting under the direction of Murphy Chief of Police G.M. Cox. The
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. does not consider what Chief Cox did as a
crime. Texas Penal Code and Parks and Wildlife Code does consider it a
crime. So I have filed a lawsuit against Chief Cox, because he must be held
accountable for this. The bobcat was totally defenseless.
Not one law enforcement agency in Texas will do anything about this
matter ......... according to the Parks and Wildlife State Statute, all wild
animals are the property of the people of the state of Texas. And the law
covers every county and city.
I am contacting every radio and television station in the state to get
public support for this defenseless animal. We don't shoot and kill
murderers and rapists, while they are in their cells.
is my website where I am accepting contributions to help with the filing
BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
224TH CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
STREET, ROOM 120
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3411
Patrick Greene (Pro se)
vs. CAUSE NUMBER 2011CI15632
G.M. Cox, Chief of Police
of Murphy, Texas
5335 Glen Ridge Drive #2504
San Antonio, Tx 78229
G.M. Cox/Chief of Police of City of Murphy, Texas
206 N. Murphy Rd.
Murphy, Texas 75094
3. Plaintiff is resident of San Antonio, Bexar
4. This court has jurisdiction per Subchapter B, Section
1.011(a), also Parks and Wildlife State Statute Subchapter A, Section 61.003
and 61.005(1) (Exhibit #1)
5. This court is the proper venue per
Section 15.002(a)(4) Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Plaintiff must file complaint in this court, due to his financial incapacity
to travel to county of defendant's actions. Plaintiff must take this action
because no law enforcement agency in Texas will take action against
7. Plaintiff has standing in this court, per Section
1.011(a) Texas Parks and Wildlife Statutes. Plaintiff is part of the
'people' in this section. Also Section 61.003(1) of Texas Parks and Wildlife
Statutes. (Exhibit #2)
8. On or about August 17, 2011 defendant
dispatched a Murphy police officer to the residence of Andrew and Christine
Smith. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are residents of Murphy, Texas. (Exhibit #3)
9. Mr. and Mrs. Smith granted the officer permission to enter their
property, to relocate a bobcat, which they had previously humanely trapped
in a cage. The officer took possession of the caged bobcat. The officer was
with an animal control officer, who was an employee of the city of Murphy,
Texas. This officer was acting under the authority of the defendant.
(Exhibit #3 page 3)
10. Mr. and Mrs. Smith went into their house,
with the understanding that the officer would take the caged bobcat and
relocate it to a safer location and free the animal. Defendant failed to
properly train the this officer to comply with Mr. and Mrs. Smith's request.
11. Mr. and Mrs. Smith watched the animal control officer on the left of
the cage, trying to sedate the bobcat.
12. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
witnessed officer kicking the cage, yelling at the bobcat. The officer also
repeatedly was stomping the ground.
13. At that point the bobcat
became aggressive inside the cage.
14. Mr. and Mrs. Smith watched the
officer repeatedly remove his service revolver out of his holster and put it
back in the holster.
15. Then the officer removed his service
revolver, put it near the cage and pull the trigger.
16. Mr. and
Mrs. Smith then witnessed the officer kill the bobcat, with shooting a
bullet to the bobcats head, while the animal was still in the cage.
17. This court can view the news report from WFAA.com, a Dallas television
station. It can be viewed at this address:
18. The bobcat is classified as a 'depredating animal', per Texas Parks
and Wildlife State Statute Section 43.103(2). (Exhibit #4)
'depredating' animals are classified as 'Wildlife' per Texas Parks and
Wildlife State Statute Section 43.103(6). (Exhibit #4)
Parks and Wildlife State Statute Section 61.005(1) classifies all wild
animals as 'Wildlife resources'. (Exhibit #1)
21. When defendant
authorized this police officer to shoot and kill this caged bobcat, he
violated Section 61.022(a) of the Texas Parks and Wildlife State Statute.
22. When Mr. and Mrs. Smith captured this bobcat, they
effectively took possession of this animal. Their responsibility toward this
animal was to treat it humanely.
23. When Mr. and Mrs. Smith allowed
defendants' officer to enter on to their property, he was mandated by law to
obey the wishes of the owners.
24. When defendant was interviewed by
Karen Chaney, a reporter for the Murphy Messenger newspaper, he stated; 'A
good tip about calming a trapped bobcat: put a blanket over the cage, if
possible--if a cat thinks it is in the dark and can't be seen, it will calm
down. Nice to know.' Defendant went on to say; 'Until I can finalize the
procedures that we will follow in future situations, we will not utilize a
firearm to euthanize a caged animal unless there are serious, obvious,
justifications for it and then only after at least one member of the command
staff has been consulted.' (Exhibit #6)
25. With that quote defendant
admitted ignorance of existing state Texas State Statutes, which have been
in effect since 2005. Plus the City of Murphy city ordinance effective
2-16-2009. The City of Murphy Charter states that City ordinances must
comply with State Statutes. (Exhibit #8)
26. When defendant's officer
proceeded to torment this animal, he violated the City of Murphy ordinance
Article 1, Section 14-7(d) by 'ill-treating and tormenting' the bobcat.
27. Defendant also admitted ignorance of Murphy city
ordinance. Article 1, Section 14-2(e) violates existing State Statute. 'No
person may possess any wildlife resource, unless the owner consents.' Texas
Parks and Wildlife Statute Section 61.022(a)
28. Defendants' police
officer, acting in compliance with defendants' departmental policy,
willfully mislead Mr. and Mrs. Smith into believing he intended on complying
with their wishes to relocate the bobcat.
29. Defendants' police
officer, in purposely misleading Mr. and Mrs. Smith, entered their private
property, and took possession of caged bobcat, illegally. He killed the
bobcat without their permission.
30. This illegal possession took the
bobcat out of the possession of the defendant, and placed it back into the
property of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They decided to take no action in this
matter. They thereby relinquished their responsibilities to the bobcat.
31. It was at this point the bobcat became the property of the
Plaintiff, as a representative of the 'people' per aforementioned state
32. Defendant, being the Chief of Police of Murphy, Texas,
has the written responsibility of 'Enforcement of state laws as well as city
ordinances. (Exhibit #9)
33. Defendant is culpable, being the Chief
of Police of the City of Murphy, per the City's website. Defendant is
ultimately responsible for enforcing all city ordinances and state laws. 'It
is the duty of any police officer to be obedient to him' Per Murphy City
Charter, Article II, Section 42-23 (Exhibit #10)
34. Defendant has
extensive background in law enforcement. His background goes back almost 30
years. This includes 'the full spectrum of policing, managerial, and
leadership experience.' (Exhibit #11)
35. What makes this matter all
the more grievous, is that defendant came to Murphy, from being the Chief of
Police of Corsicana, Texas for many years. Corsicana has had a policy of
relocating wild animals to the county area away
from people, going back
to at least 2008. This information came from the current Chief of Police,
Randy Bratton. (Exhibit # 13)
36. Defendant authorized his officer to
commit an act of possession, where he knowingly received the bobcat, and was
aware of his control of the bobcat for a sufficient time to permit him to
terminate his control. Thereby violating Texas Penal Code Chapter 6, Section
6.01(a)(b) (Exhibit #12 page 1)
37. Defendant meets the requirement
of culpability where he 'intentionally, knowingly, recklessly authorized his
officer to engaged in this conduct. (Exhibit #12 page 1)
Defendant is responsible because he knew, when his officer committed this
act, that the result would not have occurred but for his conduct. (Exhibit
#12 page 3)
39. Defendant also violated The Texas Penal Code when he;
'acting as a public servant, misused government property, personnel and
wildlife resources, by ordering a sworn police officer to use a government
vehicle, and kill a bobcat temporarily in his possession. This violated
Section 39.01(1)(A)(B)(2)(A)(B) and Section 39.02(a)(1)(2)(Exhibit #13)
I pray the court rules defendant legally responsible for his officer's
actions, and penalizes defendant appropriately, according to the powers
delegated to it by the Texas Constitution.
Patrick Greene (Pro se)
53335 Glen Ridge
San Antonio, Tx 78229