You must log in or # to comment.
Longtime cat owner here: those paw prints were staged by a human.
“Your honor, she forced my paws upon that dough to score some internet points. I swear!”
You’ve been hit by— You’ve been struck by a smooth criminal
Meow!
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defence pleads not guilty, based on the irrefutable evidence that those paw prints were made by a human.
1 the two prints on the left appear to be different shapes meaning the lower one would have been made by a back paw. Cats can’t fully retract their back claws because they are used for traction when running, not offensive purposes. There are no claw marks.
2 there is no disturbance to the obviously soft dough. A cat being lifted would grip the dough causing tearing both front and back and a cat jumping off the dough would result in tearing to the rear print.
The defence rests
If the dough don’t fit, you must acquit!
Could be a few probing taps before declaring the ground unstable and icky and not worth the heat.
Say two front paws, a backtrack, some contemplation then another single paw attempt. This also matches the shallower third print.
If there were more pixels to the images maybe more could be said.
Whats the charge? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?
Objection!
There is no mens rea!
Case dismissed!
Mens rea? Is that a word?
It’s two!
It’s Latin. It’s used in legalese and roughly translates to “guilty mind”
The concept behind it as a legal term is based around whether the accused had intent or not, but also whether or not they could form intent.
No way is that little angel forming any intent of evil.
Baking biscuits: okay
Baking pie: not okay?
Humans are weird.
People wouldn’t serve that pie to others, right? Cat paws walk around in boxes of shit every day, I know I wouldn’t want to eat that.
jury mewllification time
Just making sure you’re up to date on your intestinal parasites.
