@Fishy
Why are you desperate to argue about this? Especially when you are clearly wrong? Do you get a kick out of a half-dozen people telling you that you're wrong?
You're completely ignoring the context of the scriptures concerning the topic being discussed. As far your proof goes, the fact that no scripture says that eating an unbled animal that has been found dead is to be punished with death is proof that's it wasn't a capital crime. That's how laws work. If execution isn't listed as the punishment, then they don't execute people for it.
Getting back to cofty's point, the fact that the case of an Israelite eating an unbled animal they killed themselves (capital crime) is handled differently than a case were an Israelite eats an unbled animal that was found dead (unclean state) proves that the point of pouring out the blood instead of eating it was to atone for the life the Israelite took.
So whether it was "against the law," as you seem determined to believe, or not is actually irrelevant to cofty's main point, which is that the blood being poured out is only a life or death matter when the creature was killed at the hands of an Israelite.