PDA

View Full Version : 2-pound dog used for deadly place kick


Frohickey
Apr 7, 2004, 07:50 PM
2-pound dog used for deadly place kick (http://tennessean.com/local/archives/04/04/49497774.shtml?Element_ID=49497774)

A Priest Lake man killed his neighbor's 2-pound miniature Yorkshire terrier by kicking it into the air like a football, police said, and authorities have charged him with animal cruelty.

Jelani Lewis and Jessica McKenzie say they are outraged at the death of their 17-year-old pet, Gizmo. Lewis said he watched helplessly early yesterday as three men assaulted the dog the way football players kick field goals.

The dog was dead instantly when he hit the pavement. The man police say kicked him, Chad Daniel Crawford, 23, of the 1000 block of Long Hunter Lane is now charged with cruelty to animals and felony vandalism and was free yesterday after posting $25,000 bail, authorities said.

Reached by telephone at his home, Crawford said the accusations against him were false. He declined to comment further and said he was trying to contact his attorney.

''I didn't believe that they actually kicked my dog,'' Lewis, 29, said yesterday, standing in a parking lot at the Nashboro Village apartment complex, where dried blood puddles were still on the blacktop. ''When I saw him kick it, I was thinking, maybe for a second, 'No, that really isn't Gizmo he's kicking.' ''

One of the men ''with tattoos on both arms was holding the dog like a football,'' Lewis said. ''The other one backed up and kicked him like a place kicker.''

Gizmo went flying into the air in a high arc. The man and two friends with him laughed, and then ran away, Lewis said. For a moment, Lewis stood still, his eyes following Gizmo's body until it smacked onto the pavement and then rolled a couple of feet beneath a parked car.

''There is an obvious question about the mental makeup of someone who would do a thing like this to a tiny animal,'' said Metro Animal Control Director Judy Ladebauche. ''This is heart-breaking. I've seen horrific things but not like this. I cannot imagine where someone's mind would be who would do something like this.''

Ladebauche said she would ask the Davidson County district attorney general and police officials to upgrade the charges against Crawford from animal cruelty to the state's newly created aggravated animal cruelty charge. A conviction under the new law can result in a court-ordered mental evaluation for the offender, and a second offense is a felony.

Crawford also is charged with felony vandalism, instead of misdemeanor vandalism, because Gizmo was worth about $1,500, according to court records. No one else has been charged in the case, according to a review of recent warrants.

A man who was with Crawford, identified as Michael Lee Davis, also told police that Crawford kicked the dog, according to arrest reports.

Police reports say Crawford, who lives about three blocks from Lewis, is 5 feet, 9 inches tall and weighs 175 pounds. Gizmo weighed about 2 pounds, Lewis said.

William Ackerman, a neighbor of Lewis at Nashboro Village, said he saw Gizmo nearly every day as Lewis would stop by. ''I've got it out for anybody who would hurt a little-bitty dog like that. '' Ackerman said. ''That little dog wouldn't hurt a flea.''

Yorkshire terriers are toy dogs with tan and ''blue'' coats. The American Kennel Club Web site warns that they can be easily injured by small children.

Lewis had seen the men laughing in the parking lot as he took out the trash. But he thought they were petting Gizmo, who Lewis said never barked, bit or attacked, and was a veteran whimperer always looking for scraps of food or an occasional pat on the head. Lewis said he and Crawford did not know each other.

After Gizmo's death, Lewis said, he chased the three men until he caught Crawford, and made him pick up Gizmo's body and take it upstairs to McKenzie. He later held Crawford until police showed up. As her boyfriend spoke yesterday, McKenzie, 27, wept.

The couple said they were in shock and disbelief yesterday. Gizmo had originally belonged to Lewis' grandmother, and they took the dog when the woman died.

-----
http://tennessean.com/local/archives/04/04/49499919.jpg
Jessica McKenzie, left, with her boyfriend, Jelani Lewis, indicates the blood from their dog, Gizmo, which Lewis said was killed by three men who held it down and kicked it like a football. The spot is where Gizmo landed, more than 30 feet from where the 2-pound terrier was kicked.
-----
http://tennessean.com/local/ssiboxes/04/WEB_0407-A-DOGKICK1.jpg Here is the lowlife no good scumbag that ought to have his nuts bitten off and eaten by a rabid chihuahua. :mad: :eek:
-----
http://tennessean.com/local/ssiboxes/04/WEB_0407-A-DOGKICK2.jpg Here is Gizmo. :(

macka
Apr 7, 2004, 07:55 PM
That's really sad. :(
If somebody did that to one of my pets, they wouldn't live to brag about it.

gwuMACaddict
Apr 7, 2004, 08:13 PM
utterly digusting

:( :mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(

Dippo
Apr 7, 2004, 08:14 PM
That's really sad. :(
If somebody did that to one of my pets, they wouldn't live to brag about it.


I had a Yorkie that only got ran over, and if I was there at the time, I would probably be in jail.
I don't know what I would have done if some killed my dog on purpose.

There's something seriously wrong with this guy...if he would do this to your pet, just think what he would do to your kids.
I say just lock him up, and throw away the key! :mad:

crazzyeddie
Apr 7, 2004, 08:19 PM
That guy needs the most severe punishment allowed by law... maybe even more.

Frohickey
Apr 7, 2004, 08:46 PM
I think having a rabid chihuhua bite and eat your gonads off is pretty good. This way, he won't be polluting the gene pool. :mad: :mad: :mad:

agreenster
Apr 7, 2004, 09:52 PM
Oh my god that is so crazy--my neighbors had a dog that looked exactly like this one and guess what his name was? You got it: Gizmo.

He died an unnatural demise as well--he got attacked and killed by another one of the neighborhood dogs. Little Gizmo was kinda like everyone's pet....he visited everyone all the time and was very affectionate.

The bastard in this case should be drug into the street and shot.

wdlove
Apr 7, 2004, 09:53 PM
2-pound dog used for deadly place kick (http://tennessean.com/local/archives/04/04/49497774.shtml?Element_ID=49497774)

http://tennessean.com/local/ssiboxes/04/WEB_0407-A-DOGKICK2.jpg Here is Gizmo. :(

Gizmo very cute. Something like that should never happen to an animal. I can't even imagine how he treats humans. :(

KC9AIC
Apr 7, 2004, 10:46 PM
Some people have no respect for the feelings of others. It's too bad that they exist, but it's unavoidable.

Frohickey
Apr 7, 2004, 10:47 PM
Little dogs like these should not be out of doors unsupervised. They can very quickly turn into coyote food, or mountain lion food.

Yorkshire Terrier History (http://www.barkbytes.com/history/yorkie.htm)

Hmm... they are good at rat-killing, so they are in competition with cats. I like them already. Dogs follow orders, cats don't. :p

Krizoitz
Apr 7, 2004, 11:29 PM
Honestly what kind of sick and twisted person does something like that. Really makes you wonder sometimes.

MacAztec
Apr 7, 2004, 11:34 PM
That guy needs the most severe punishment allowed by law... maybe even more.

Funny that you say that. Some lady kills her children, and then all of the sudden says she is mental, and she doesn't get any punishment. She is declared as mental, and are f*cked up court system allows it. Now she is going to live in a mental institution, instead of being put to death.

This guy killed a dog. I understand he should be punished, but not to the most extreme. People murder people and stuff every single day and get away with it. I understand this is a helpless animal, but the most severe punishment?

I think he should be put in prison for 1 year on $15,000 dollars bail.

I think the lady that murdered her kids should be taken outside and shot between the eyes.

Whats the point of a death row? To use tax-payers dollars for about 10 years until they are put to death? How about we take them into a room, and shoot them.

kylos
Apr 7, 2004, 11:46 PM
Amen

Koodauw
Apr 8, 2004, 01:12 AM
Man this is really really sad. I feel for those owners. To lose a pet, like that, esp after 17 years, tragic.

Although it does remind me of this

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/mydog.htm

Krizoitz
Apr 8, 2004, 01:48 AM
Funny that you say that. Some lady kills her children, and then all of the sudden says she is mental, and she doesn't get any punishment. She is declared as mental, and are f*cked up court system allows it. Now she is going to live in a mental institution, instead of being put to death.

This guy killed a dog. I understand he should be punished, but not to the most extreme. People murder people and stuff every single day and get away with it. I understand this is a helpless animal, but the most severe punishment?

I think he should be put in prison for 1 year on $15,000 dollars bail.

I think the lady that murdered her kids should be taken outside and shot between the eyes.

Whats the point of a death row? To use tax-payers dollars for about 10 years until they are put to death? How about we take them into a room, and shoot them.

I don't think the insanity defense should be allowed unless they are certifiably out of it like severly scyzophrenic. Honestly it really shouldn't matter WHY you killed them. Even sociopaths are considered not quite right in the head, yet we still send them to jail. Why? Because they killed someone.

Aeolius
Apr 8, 2004, 08:07 AM
Murderers, rapists, and thieves should be executed in a public forum immediately after sentencing. No expensive jail time; just a rope and a public corner.

I am all for "like punishment for like crime". This guy should be tied up and kicked to death by a row of volunteer place kickers.

wordmunger
Apr 8, 2004, 08:23 AM
People really do love their pets. They treat them as if they were human. Some of them actually begin to believe that they are human.

What's surprising to me is how many pet owners are also meat eaters. What's the difference between slaughtering a cow and killing a pet?

Personally, I eat meat. Humans are naturally meat eaters, and so I don't see anything wrong with it.

Here's what I find a little hard to comprehend: Being a meat eater, owning a pet, and advocating the death penalty for animal cruelty. I can't see how anyone could hold all three views at the same time. Yet apparently a lot of people do.

Aeolius
Apr 8, 2004, 08:33 AM
What's the difference between slaughtering a cow and killing a pet?... Here's what I find a little hard to comprehend: Being a meat eater, owning a pet, and advocating the death penalty for animal cruelty.

Cows are slain in a humane fashion. Kicking a dog to death is inhumane.

And don't forget, an added oddity to your conundrum. The carcasses of animals euthanized in shelters are often sold to pet food companies, to be used as "rendered meat". I know Alpo used to do this, though I am unsure of others.

Me, I'm a second-hand vegetarian; I only eat animals that eat vegetables. :D

Koodauw
Apr 8, 2004, 09:06 AM
I don't think the insanity defense should be allowed unless they are certifiably out of it like severly scyzophrenic.


That Lady was out of it though. I guess something like 6 doctors all said that she was crazy. One said that schools should use this case as the definition of the insanity defense. Never before has there been such an agreement on whether someone is legally not responsible.

wordmunger
Apr 8, 2004, 09:49 AM
Cows are slain in a humane fashion. Kicking a dog to death is inhumane.
Whether the slaughter of cattle is humane or not is a debatable proposition--who's to say they don't suffer more than the dog, who apparently died instantaneously from a swift kick?

And--if kicking a dog to death is inhumane, kicking a human to death is obscene.
And don't forget, an added oddity to your conundrum. The carcasses of animals euthanized in shelters are often sold to pet food companies, to be used as "rendered meat". I know Alpo used to do this, though I am unsure of others.
Well, personally I don't have a problem with this, as long as there aren't any sanitation/public health issues. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the pet owners who'd like the dog-kicker tortured to death would find this practice reprehensible--and would lecture others about it at length over a nice steak dinner! But really, what's the difference between the steak and the "rendered meat"?

Dippo
Apr 8, 2004, 09:59 AM
Here's what I find a little hard to comprehend: Being a meat eater, owning a pet, and advocating the death penalty for animal cruelty. I can't see how anyone could hold all three views at the same time. Yet apparently a lot of people do.

I am a meat eater and also a pet owner. I don't think I would recommend the death penalty for Gizmo's death, but a few years in prison wouldn't be unreasonable.

Of course I would never eat dog or cat or anything else that I would have for a pet. Cows and chickens are another matter, and if I had a cow or chicken as a pet, I probably wouldn't eat them anymore.

wordmunger
Apr 8, 2004, 10:32 AM
I am a meat eater and also a pet owner. I don't think I would recommend the death penalty for Gizmo's death, but a few years in prison wouldn't be unreasonable.
I have a real hard time figuring out the proper degree of penalties for animal cruelty. In this case, we have a confounding factor--the dog was someone's property, and presumably there are fixed penalties for such things.

But what about the "cruelty" portion of the equation--setting aside the fact that this was someone's animal, how would we penalize someone for that? Actually there was an incident last year where some college students beat a Canada Goose to death with golf clubs. It's legal to kill a goose for food (at least during hunting season), but most people agreed that the students should be punished.

You can make the case that people who are cruel to animals are more likely to commit other crimes. But on the other hand, we can't penalize people because they *might* commit a crime--this isn't a Tom Cruise movie, it's reality. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

Dippo
Apr 8, 2004, 10:54 AM
But what about the "cruelty" portion of the equation--setting aside the fact that this was someone's animal, how would we penalize someone for that? Actually there was an incident last year where some college students beat a Canada Goose to death with golf clubs. It's legal to kill a goose for food (at least during hunting season), but most people agreed that the students should be punished.

I have to agree, it is really hard to figure out a punishment for animal cruelty, but I do think that there should be an extra set of penalties for the purposeful killing of a pet.

I certianly won't pretend to know the answer to this question.
Maybe someone else would have more to add...

Backtothemac
Apr 8, 2004, 11:38 AM
THey should have someone hold the ******* down and let the owners of the dog kick him until they are so tired that they don't have the energy to stand. If he died. So be it.

What a piece of human waste.

topicolo
Apr 8, 2004, 12:04 PM
Death by catapault!

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 12:52 PM
Whats the point of a death row? To use tax-payers dollars for about 10 years until they are put to death? How about we take them into a room, and shoot them.

Bullets cost money too.

Better is to use rope. If we make the rope out of cannabis sativa, we can charge liberals $10 a foot. :eek:

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 12:57 PM
Here's what I find a little hard to comprehend: Being a meat eater, owning a pet, and advocating the death penalty for animal cruelty. I can't see how anyone could hold all three views at the same time. Yet apparently a lot of people do.

I don't think any of the viewpoints are mutually exclusive.

Meat eater means that I love eating dead animals. If its barbeque sauce slathered all over it, the better.
Owning a pet means that I love live animals too. Live animals and barbeque sauce don't get together well, especially if you have wall-to-wall carpetting.
Advocating death penalty for animal cruelty, maybe tying them up and slathering barbeque sauce over them while they put near a fireant hill would be a good thing to do.

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 12:59 PM
Of course I would never eat dog or cat or anything else that I would have for a pet. Cows and chickens are another matter, and if I had a cow or chicken as a pet, I probably wouldn't eat them anymore.

I take it you have not visited any far east asian countries. :D :eek:

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 01:01 PM
I have a real hard time figuring out the proper degree of penalties for animal cruelty. In this case, we have a confounding factor--the dog was someone's property, and presumably there are fixed penalties for such things.

But what about the "cruelty" portion of the equation--setting aside the fact that this was someone's animal, how would we penalize someone for that? Actually there was an incident last year where some college students beat a Canada Goose to death with golf clubs. It's legal to kill a goose for food (at least during hunting season), but most people agreed that the students should be punished.

You can make the case that people who are cruel to animals are more likely to commit other crimes. But on the other hand, we can't penalize people because they *might* commit a crime--this isn't a Tom Cruise movie, it's reality. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

But they did commit a crime. Destroying someone else's property is considered vandalism. There is felony vandalism as well.

At the very least, there should be compensation for the owners.

Awimoway
Apr 8, 2004, 02:08 PM
That is totally reprehensible, but I have to ask, was it a pooch punt?

wordmunger
Apr 8, 2004, 02:35 PM
I don't think any of the viewpoints are mutually exclusive.

Meat eater means that I love eating dead animals. If its barbeque sauce slathered all over it, the better.
Owning a pet means that I love live animals too. Live animals and barbeque sauce don't get together well, especially if you have wall-to-wall carpetting.
Advocating death penalty for animal cruelty, maybe tying them up and slathering barbeque sauce over them while they put near a fireant hill would be a good thing to do.
So... death penalty for all meat eaters? Hmmm... should help with the world population problem--except perhaps in Buddhist India.

wordmunger
Apr 8, 2004, 02:36 PM
But they did commit a crime. Destroying someone else's property is considered vandalism. There is felony vandalism as well.

At the very least, there should be compensation for the owners.
Read the post. I'm talking about what the penalty should be OUTSIDE of the property crime.

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 02:58 PM
Read the post. I'm talking about what the penalty should be OUTSIDE of the property crime.

The appropriate punishment would be exile to a planet with 50 foot tall giants that are addicted to NFL broadcasts coming from planet Earth. :D

Errp.... World Cup Soccer, I meant to say. :eek:

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 03:00 PM
So... death penalty for all meat eaters? Hmmm... should help with the world population problem--except perhaps in Buddhist India.

Wow. No wonder they keep saying our education system is out of whack. I guess reading comprehension is not required anymore.

junior
Apr 8, 2004, 03:09 PM
So... death penalty for all meat eaters? Hmmm... should help with the world population problem--except perhaps in Buddhist India.

eh? Since when did Buddhists become total vegetarians?

Pandakin
Apr 8, 2004, 03:46 PM
i personally think this is so sad - why do people do this?, i just don't understand how people could get fun out of doing this to an animal - u know regardless of whether the doggie was cute or not - this is just wrong - i think they should introduce life sentences for people who do this to animals - CAN U IMAGINE THE PAIN THAT THE ANIMAL FELT? - maybe then scum will learn not to do this - anyway where did he get 25,000 for bail - in fact he shouldn't be given bail.

wordmunger
Apr 8, 2004, 04:06 PM
eh? Since when did Buddhists become total vegetarians?
Oops. Hindus. Certain sects, anyway. Nevermind.

Makosuke
Apr 8, 2004, 06:20 PM
Killing stuff doesn't make sense, but it's the way the world works. Furthermore, killing things that society finds it unacceptable to kill because it's "fun" is a sign there's something wrong with you.

Here are two differences: If I join the military and you send me out to kill people, it is generally speaking socially acceptable. Yes, those people probably want to kill me, and it's quite possible I don't want to kill them, but it's a sanctioned act. And, if you enjoy doing it, there's probably something wrong with you.

If I go down the street and beat a bum to death for fun, that is highly socially unacceptable. It served no purpose, was malicious, and is a bad, bad, thing--a clear sign of someone in need of help.

So, if my job is to raise and slaughter chickens for food, that is socially acceptable. I probably don't enjoy doing it, but there is a purpose--they provide food, necessary or not. It may not be a terribly mentally healthy thing to do, but it's natural and part of society.

If I go down the street and beat my neighbor's pet chicken (hey, I know people with pet chickens) to death because it's fun, there's something wrong with me. The life of the chicken itself may not have more weight as a moral absolute, but the purpose of the killing is significantly different, as is the motivation that caused me to do it.

So, basically, anybody who place kicks an ancient 2-pound dog that was by all accounts very friendly toward people has something seriously wrong with them, and I'd be more worried about that guy than a car thief.

I tell you, if that had been my dog it'd have taken more willpower than I probably have to just hold him until police arrived. I can imagine a good hard placekick to a certain region that'd be appropriate to the situation, and hopefully prevent any sadistic offspring, too.

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 07:14 PM
Killing stuff doesn't make sense, but it's the way the world works. Furthermore, killing things that society finds it unacceptable to kill because it's "fun" is a sign there's something wrong with you.

Sometimes its "fun" to kill. Like when you kill turtles that are infesting a pond. These would pretty much kill all of the fish in the pond, and after the fish are dead, you have rotting and dying turtles.

Or, when you kill ground squirrels in grazing areas for cattle. The "fun" way is to use rifles. The "bad" way is to use poison that poisons the ground squirrels which poisons the hawk that eats it, which poisons the coyote that eats it... etc. Too many ground squirrels, and their ground tunnels leads to flooding in these grazing areas, and broken legs for the 1200lb cows that walk around eating grass and pooping cow pies.

Or, when you kill coyotes as part of a predation control program. Coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, if the population is left unchecked, can mean the difference between a profitable sheep/cattle ranching operation and one that has to lay people off or go out of business.

So, I think the criteria should not be if its fun or not, but if there is a 'good thing' that happens if the killing is done. Killing Nazis/Hitler supporters might be fun (or not), but I think there is a 'good thing' that happens when it was done.

_pb_boi
Apr 8, 2004, 07:29 PM
Guys,

I have to say - be really careful with your pets :(

These days, people stop at nothing. In this country, there have been a spate of cruelty-to-animal incidents, and they make me sick to my stomach.

Recently, a cat was taken from a house, had its 4 paws cut off and was hung. It's not clear whether the cat was dead before its paws were removed.

Also very recently, 2 rabbits were removed from hutches. They belonged to a mentally ill child. The rabbits were decapitated and put in a car, which was set on fire. Why'd they do it? It's believed it's because the family moved in to the area from out of town.

Two dogs were beaten to death against electricity boxes, a while back.

I'm just telling you all to be so, so careful with your pets. No matter if they're in your house; here, many incidents have involved the pets being removed from the house during a break-in - in some cases, nothing else was even stolen. Just the pet, which was later killed.

Please, please, watch out.

Additionally - comprehensive research has strongly hinted at signs that those who are cruel to animals have a greater inclination to commit acts of human cruelty later in life. Now, I won't argue this point - take from it what you will. Personally, I can see weight in it. The profiles of killers often - not always - include previous incidents of animal cruelty.

As for penalties; it's black and white, in my opinion. The people involved took a life - the life of a tame, family pet. I know in my household, our golden retriever is as much a part of the family as anyone else. In my opinion - to get less than life for the purposeful taking of a life, in such a cruel manner, showing no apparent remorse immediately after the event, warrents life in prison. Would you be happy living next door to those people, if you had a pet?

andy

Frohickey
Apr 8, 2004, 08:11 PM
Additionally - comprehensive research has strongly hinted at signs that those who are cruel to animals have a greater inclination to commit acts of human cruelty later in life. Now, I won't argue this point - take from it what you will. Personally, I can see weight in it. The profiles of killers often - not always - include previous incidents of animal cruelty.

Not always. Its good to create a profile with, but not good to convict a person with.

I burned ants with a magnifying glass when I was young. I ended up okay. Hmm... maybe thats why I'm so good at squashing computer bugs. :D :D :D

_pb_boi
Apr 8, 2004, 08:25 PM
Nah, it's definately not good for building a case with - my point is just that evidence suggests there is a link. Of course that evidence isn't sufficient - or even close to sufficient, on its own - for building a case.

andy

rainman::|:|
Apr 8, 2004, 08:37 PM
This is one of my hardest subjects to form a solid opinion on, i am totally divided and hypocritical on this. I think harming animals for the sake of fun (population and ecology control still shouldn't really be fun), particularly pets, is awful. But, the main reason i think that is because i think the animals are cute, and i don't want them to suffer. Animals that i don't think are cute, like cows and pigs, i have no problem eating. It's entirely based on a perception that I can't seem to change... the "cuteness" factor.

we can cover all the obvious, like, food animals are treated humanely. But they're not. My dad worked on a cattle farm for the first 14 years of my life, and i saw it firsthand-- They endure temperatures *way* outside of their natural habitat, their food is not diverse like it would be naturally (in a lot of places, cows simply eat sick cow parts). Then in the final few weeks of their lives, they're separated from the herd, moved through disgusting feedlots (ever seen **** get 2 feet deep? i have) and electrically tortured, all the while incapable of moving freely, before being killed in very stressful circumstances by a metal spike driven through the skull. This sort of existence, even for an animal, is unfathomable to many of us. Yet i still would rate a rare steak in my top 5 greatest things list, and i don't think i'd have any luck going vegan (actually the only animal product i intentionally eat is meat, no dairy, so i'm closer than some). But i do support PETA's initiatives to prevent food animal suffering, including their boycott of KFC for the conditions the chickens were grown in. Paradoxically, i support PETA's idea that no animals should be kept as pets, yet i keep pets of my own... tho i justify that by saying, pygmie albino african hedgehogs wouldn't survive in nature at all.

Does all of the above mean i can't condemn animal cruelty? I don't think so-- if hypocrisy was shunned in our country, it would be a much different place. If anyone hurt one of my hedgies (i only have one now, but my dearly-departed other three are still in my mind) i'd probably seriously harm them before coming to my senses. They're my babies, they've trusted me since they were pups, and i'll gladly protect them. chickens and cows? i still think they should be kept and slaughtered as humanely as possible, but i believe it's in the natural order of things for humans to eat them.

paul

eyelikeart
Apr 9, 2004, 01:06 AM
That's a terrible story. I cannot imagine what would move someone to do something like that. :mad:

Abstract
Apr 9, 2004, 05:36 AM
But they did commit a crime. Destroying someone else's property is considered vandalism. There is felony vandalism as well.

At the very least, there should be compensation for the owners.

Silly me, but I don't think that the crime should be vandalism at all. Heck, I don't even think pets should be considered "property" at all, but maybe as living things that aren't given the same value of humans. So if someone were to, oh, kick a dog like an (American) football punter, he should go to jail for 4 years if the appropriate penalty for doing that to a human is 8 years (arbitrary value).

Someone who does this isn't just damaging property. They're not just throwing eggs at a house window. He's actually kicking the crap out of a living thing. Imagine getting kicked like that in the face or something. :(

As the owner of 2 dogs, I'd like to kick this guy in the nuts until they come off and get stuck to the bottom of my shoe. Then I'd step on them.

claytonbench
Apr 9, 2004, 08:52 AM
I say just lock him up, and throw away the key! :mad:


Why waste the space with him. I say load up a 12 gauge and blow a couple holes through him.

wHo_tHe
Apr 9, 2004, 09:38 AM
I've got a pit bull whom I'm sure would love to adjudicate this puss-brain.

AppleMatt
Apr 9, 2004, 10:03 AM
I guess it seems more shocking because this dog was completely defenseless.

If they'd kicked an Alsatian to death, it would have been bad, but you would have thought the Alsatian could stand-up for itself.

When someone murders someone else, you expect there was a struggle. It's on more even terms.
But a 2/175 difference isn't exactly playing fair isit?

He looks like one of those guys who tries to look hard but can't ever pull it off, so has to do things like this. Idiot.

AppleMatt

edit: Idea for punishment. At the next big NFL game get all the players to run up and kick him as hard as they possibly can, half of America will be watching and know what he did, and he'll know what it feels like to receive a powerful kick of people twice your size :D

_pb_boi
Apr 9, 2004, 11:04 AM
If they'd kicked an Alsatian to death, it would have been bad, but you would have thought the Alsatian could stand-up for itself.

I was watching a programme about K9 unit Alsations a while back, and those dogs are so brave. And a lot of it IS bravery - they're certainly not daft, a lot of their training is aided by instinct. It actually made me feel all tingly - seeing those dogs risk their lives against armed suspects, wrestling them to the ground - without ripping the suspects arm off, which they could so easily do with one hard bite. Amazing.

This was a tiny, tiny dog - completely defenceless, a loved family pet.
I totally understand the arguement that we're all hypocritical - many of us eat chickens, but condemn this. However, we don't purposely kill chickens in the most inhumane way possible - if it's inhumane, it's because there often is no other viably profitable way, as clinical as that may sound. I certainly don't know of farmers place-kicking their chickens before running off.

Sometimes, I think it does me good to completely forget about reasoning - and just go with feelings. This just sucks.

It reminds me of the groups of steeks / mokes / neds / garys that walk about in groups on the street looking only for a fight to make their night. They will only approach you if they vastly outnumber you, or know you won't fight back. This dog was outnumbered, and couldn't fight back.

andy

Golem
Apr 9, 2004, 11:18 AM
This is one of my hardest subjects to form a solid opinion on, i am totally divided and hypocritical on this. I think harming animals for the sake of fun (population and ecology control still shouldn't really be fun), particularly pets, is awful. But, the main reason i think that is because i think the animals are cute, and i don't want them to suffer. Animals that i don't think are cute, like cows and pigs, i have no problem eating. It's entirely based on a perception that I can't seem to change... the "cuteness" factor.
l

I am with you on this. While I am against unnessary cruelty to animals,particularly harmless pets some of the opinions here are over the top. If you eat meat beleive me you would be disgusted if you saw what goes on in the living conditions of some of these animals particularly Battery chickens. Out of sight out of mind I guess.

I have hoofed (kicked) a dog through the air that was trying to defend the roadside in front of its owners house and gave me scratches around my ankle to remember it and seen the results of dogs that play at hunting sheep. Think sheep guts hanging out and sheep so frightened and exhausted they ran till they died as to why I would have killed those dogs if I had the chance. The ranger got them in the end but encroaching suburbia and farms never really mix. As for the cute rabbits that if left to breed will eat paddocks barren and possums that eat all the new growth when you are trying to reforest to stop erosion. Sorry they have to go particularly as neither is native to my country.

But for all that anyone who kills a harmless pet in good health is sick and should be punished. Hmm just the posting of this reminds me of how contradictory I am on this ie 1 summer visiting friends feeding matty the half tame wild piglet the next summer really enjoying a barbeque with venison and pork sausages and beleive me they were superb!

Hemingray
Apr 9, 2004, 12:50 PM
The first thing I thought of when I saw this article was the "Dog Save" clip on stupidvideos.com. Now THAT was funny! But in reality, it's really not. This guy has major problems.

oldschool
Apr 9, 2004, 01:40 PM
I don't think the insanity defense should be allowed unless they are certifiably out of it like severly scyzophrenic. Honestly it really shouldn't matter WHY you killed them. Even sociopaths are considered not quite right in the head, yet we still send them to jail. Why? Because they killed someone.

exactly. anybody capable of killing somebody in cold blood is mentally unstable.

rainman::|:|
Apr 9, 2004, 04:59 PM
Silly me, but I don't think that the crime should be vandalism at all. Heck, I don't even think pets should be considered "property" at all, but maybe as living things that aren't given the same value of humans. So if someone were to, oh, kick a dog like an (American) football punter, he should go to jail for 4 years if the appropriate penalty for doing that to a human is 8 years (arbitrary value).

Someone who does this isn't just damaging property. They're not just throwing eggs at a house window. He's actually kicking the crap out of a living thing. Imagine getting kicked like that in the face or something. :(

Well I agree, on face value. However, if animals were given legal recognition as more than property, vets could be sued for pain/suffering, wrongful death, and malpractice, which would mean vets had to carry serious malpractice insurance... which would drive the cost of veterinary care through the roof. According to some vets i've talked to, once veterinary malpractice is a legal concept, vet rates will shoot up 4x overnight. Most people i know can barely afford the most basic vet care, this would mean animals got no checkups, medications, etc. It would wind up harming pets more than helping.

I have pet insurance for my hedgies, since they require a lot of care, but if the cost went up... i still couldn't afford it. Scrounging up hundreds of dollars for cancer surgery is much better than trying to come up with thousands, which would have meant my hedgies would have passed away long before they finally did.

paul

mactastic
Apr 9, 2004, 05:16 PM
If we make the rope out of cannabis sativa, we can charge liberals $10 a foot. :eek:

So is your accusation that all liberals smoke pot, and that only liberals smoke it?

Frohickey
Apr 9, 2004, 06:25 PM
So is your accusation that all liberals smoke pot, and that only liberals smoke it?

No. Liberals buy. Conservatives sell. :eek: :D :D

Frohickey
Apr 9, 2004, 07:51 PM
http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/07/main_fatcat.jpg 2 pound dog... meet 40lb cat.

Very fat cat seized (http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081222508291.html)

:D :D :D

Les Kern
Apr 9, 2004, 10:02 PM
Why waste the space with him. I say load up a 12 gauge and blow a couple holes through him.

Oh that's swell. Kill a human being who killed dog, and, I might add, isn't guilty until proven so. What kind of twisted nut-case are you?

rainman::|:|
Apr 10, 2004, 02:35 AM
Oh that's swell. Kill a human being who killed dog, and, I might add, isn't guilty until proven so. What kind of twisted nut-case are you?

animal abusers can be *incredibly* sadistic, and rarely get anything more than a slap on the wrist from the legal system, tho by far most go unreported. For someone that empathizes with animals, animal cruelty is a most frustrating topic, which means people get pretty emotional about it. I don't think he was really advocating the use of 12-gauge shotguns for abusers, probably being sarcastic... think about it.

And the only reason he *will* be found guilty is that the owner took extraordinary measures to make sure he was arrested, again this type of thing is pretty common but usually pet owners only get the closure of having their pet disappear, or in some cases finding them butchered in their front lawn. For people that get off on hurting animals, justice is rarely done.

paul

Frohickey
Apr 10, 2004, 10:14 PM
animal abusers can be *incredibly* sadistic, and rarely get anything more than a slap on the wrist from the legal system, tho by far most go unreported. For someone that empathizes with animals, animal cruelty is a most frustrating topic, which means people get pretty emotional about it. I don't think he was really advocating the use of 12-gauge shotguns for abusers, probably being sarcastic... think about it.

And the only reason he *will* be found guilty is that the owner took extraordinary measures to make sure he was arrested, again this type of thing is pretty common but usually pet owners only get the closure of having their pet disappear, or in some cases finding them butchered in their front lawn. For people that get off on hurting animals, justice is rarely done.

paul

Dunno. 12 gauge shotgun is pretty harsh. Feeding the gonads to a rabid chihuahua is the appropriate punishment. :D :p

mortilace
Apr 14, 2004, 09:25 AM
http://www.geocities.com/gizmolives2004/GizmoRIP.html?1081917479640

Hemingray
Apr 14, 2004, 12:09 PM
http://www.geocities.com/gizmolives2004/GizmoRIP.html?1081917479640

Join us with mayor Bill Purcell in remembering Gizmo by lighting a candle in his memory on Sunday, April 18th at 8:00 pm, at the Tennessee Bicentennial Mall in Nashville.* If everyone participates in every time zone it will create a wave of light that will encircle the earth creating a 24 hour memorial for our little angel.


Okay, I agree that this was pretty cruel, and this guy deserves to be punished. But isn't this going a bit over-the-top? :rolleyes:

mactastic
Apr 14, 2004, 12:40 PM
No. Liberals buy. Conservatives sell. :eek: :D :D

Cough... Rush.. cough... :eek:

Dippo
Apr 14, 2004, 02:14 PM
Well it seems another dog killer was recently sentenced to a year in jail..

Puppy killer gets a year in jail (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/April/13/local/stories/01local.htm)

Jackson?s father-in-law, David Kenzler, angrily struck the back of the seat in front of him when the sentence was read. Later, outside the courtroom, he called it ridiculous. "People seem more concerned about a dog than human beings," he said.

Jackson was arrested twice in the county, for assault in 1990 and for spousal battery in 1997, probation officials said.

wdlove
Apr 14, 2004, 03:57 PM
http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/07/main_fatcat.jpg 2 pound dog... meet 40lb cat.

Very fat cat seized (http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081222508291.html)

:D :D :D

It is very cruel that someone would allow their cat to get in that condition. That is a matter of health cruelty. :(

Sedulous
Apr 14, 2004, 04:15 PM
People with a record of torturing animals should throw up a red flag to law enforcement officials.

Of course, as a number of people pointed out, there are bigger problems to worry about.

wdlove
Apr 14, 2004, 07:36 PM
Well it seems another dog killer was recently sentenced to a year in jail..

Puppy killer gets a year in jail (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/April/13/local/stories/01local.htm)

Thank you for posting that Dippo. Hopefully this will be a deterrent to others in the future. If the owners of that dog are like me a pet is part of the family! :(

Hemingray
Apr 14, 2004, 11:49 PM
Well it seems another dog killer was recently sentenced to a year in jail..

Puppy killer gets a year in jail (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/April/13/local/stories/01local.htm)

Jackson was convicted of trying to intimate the owners of the puppy, Lourdes Rivas and Cecilia Morales of Santa Cruz, by yelling racial slurs and threatening them as they used a pay phone in front of his home.

Doesn't sound too intimate to me... :rolleyes:

crazytom
Apr 14, 2004, 11:54 PM
I knew these folks that had an old cat (around 15 years old) and the cat had some very serious problems with it. It was diabetic and had some sort of gum disease. The cats teeth were all pulled out, so it had to be fed via a syringe down it's throat (it quit eating on its own). It also had to have fluids injected and be stuck 3 times a day for insulin....would this be considered a good thing (keeping the cat alive) or a bad thing (keeping it alive despite it's 'decision' to quit eating and drinking)?

Bhennies
Apr 15, 2004, 12:27 AM
I knew these folks that had an old cat (around 15 years old) and the cat had some very serious problems with it. It was diabetic and had some sort of gum disease. The cats teeth were all pulled out, so it had to be fed via a syringe down it's throat (it quit eating on its own). It also had to have fluids injected and be stuck 3 times a day for insulin....would this be considered a good thing (keeping the cat alive) or a bad thing (keeping it alive despite it's 'decision' to quit eating and drinking)?Reducing the cat's suffering is the only thing that matters. If this means letting it die, then so be it. As long as they don't kick it across the parking lot.

rainman::|:|
Apr 15, 2004, 12:29 AM
I knew these folks that had an old cat (around 15 years old) and the cat had some very serious problems with it. It was diabetic and had some sort of gum disease. The cats teeth were all pulled out, so it had to be fed via a syringe down it's throat (it quit eating on its own). It also had to have fluids injected and be stuck 3 times a day for insulin....would this be considered a good thing (keeping the cat alive) or a bad thing (keeping it alive despite it's 'decision' to quit eating and drinking)?

Well, as someone that supports active euthanasia in humans, i think it would be more appropriate to put the cat to sleep-- In my mind, active euthanasia is more than warranted in a situation where the subject would have died if not for medical intervention, which saved the life at the cost of quality of that life. What i'm saying is, i think it's inappropriate to put a cat down because you're moving to a different apartment complex, but it would be more appropriate to put a cat down if it requires lifesaving treatments that hamper it's quality of life. How much it hampers it, is between the animal and the owner...

Putting a pet down is an anguishing decision to make, when i had a hedgehog pass away last month, i wish i would have had her put down-- she was in what i believe to be a great deal of pain. Unfortunately i was incorrect in hoping that she might pull through.

it's a far cry from using a narcotic to administer death than to kicking a creature to death... which brings me to the science teacher that killed the rabbit with a shovel in front of her class... which i won't get into.

paul

MarkCollette
Apr 15, 2004, 01:30 AM
exactly. anybody capable of killing somebody in cold blood is mentally unstable.

I'm sorry, but I think that comment is just too generic and over-reaching. There are plenty of circumstances in life that require someone to kill another. I think that it would be theoretically nice to try to remove those circumstances, but realistically I doubt that will ever completely happen. Anyways, when a person, in those circumstances kills, I think it's normal, and a sign of them being able to fulfill their responsibilities.

A trivial example would be anyone with the responsibility of protecting another. This would include: police, soldiers, parents, etc.

MarkCollette
Apr 15, 2004, 01:38 AM
animal abusers can be *incredibly* sadistic, and rarely get anything more than a slap on the wrist from the legal system, tho by far most go unreported. For someone that empathizes with animals, animal cruelty is a most frustrating topic, which means people get pretty emotional about it. I don't think he was really advocating the use of 12-gauge shotguns for abusers, probably being sarcastic... think about it.

And the only reason he *will* be found guilty is that the owner took extraordinary measures to make sure he was arrested, again this type of thing is pretty common but usually pet owners only get the closure of having their pet disappear, or in some cases finding them butchered in their front lawn. For people that get off on hurting animals, justice is rarely done.

paul

Yes, and the reality is that the only reason why we have these laws against cruelty to animals, was because it was found that many times, violent offenders started by hurting animals, and then moved up to hurting people. It's a precursor phase, which when made illegal, allows for early detection of, and possibly deterence from, abusing humans.

There is a similar relationship between child pornography and child molestation, which is why child porn is illegal. Just an example of a similar concept.

rocketdog
Apr 15, 2004, 02:19 AM
I have a 13 year old cat who was diagnosed with diabetes. I don't consider him property. If some punk did this to him I would torture and kill him. I am not a left wing wacko and I am not ultra conservative. I just believe that when people like this prove they can no longer play well with others, whether or not it's "just a dog" as some of you have put it, it's time to end them. No ten years on death row, just take them out back and put a bullet in their skull. If you want to be human, send them on the killing floor like like a cow. ****** 'em.

RD

MarkCollette
Apr 15, 2004, 02:35 AM
I have a 13 year old cat who was diagnosed with diabetes. I don't consider him property. If some punk did this to him I would torture and kill him. I am not a left wing wacko and I am not ultra conservative. I just believe that when people like this prove they can no longer play well with others, whether or not it's "just a dog" as some of you have put it, it's time to end them. No ten years on death row, just take them out back and put a bullet in their skull. If you want to be human, send them on the killing floor like like a cow. ****** 'em.
RD

Your lack of rationality in the degree of punishment that animal abuse deserves, is fully explained by the obvious love you feel for your pet.

I think that any of us would respond similarly if a loved one were hurt or killed. Luckily, there are police, who are an objective third party, who are responsible for upholding the law, or else we would quickly degenerate to what you have described. In short, we would become the animals.

rocketdog
Apr 16, 2004, 12:37 AM
I know it is one opinion that my response is irrational. the truth is that this guy kicked someones pet, companion, property...whatever you want to call it...it was a living thing that is capable of love and affection. He kicked it as though it were nothing more than an empty soda can laying on the ground. Actually, he kicked it while his buddy held the animal like he was teeing it up for a football game. I don't think it's irrational at all to say that the two of them should be put to down. Would you want them living in your neighborhood after only a year in prison? I suspect not. And I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for their three hots and a cot. If they got ass raped everyday and twice on Sundays it still would not be enough. For what they did, as uprovoked as it was, they should forfeit their lives. Like it or not that is rational.

RD

rocketdog
Apr 16, 2004, 12:41 AM
Sorry, one more thing. This wasn't simply animal abuse and it wasn't hunting or farming or any other funtion of our existence. This was cold blooded, malicious murder for fun. Abuse is assault. They took the animals life. It's murder.

RD

MarkCollette
Apr 16, 2004, 12:49 PM
I know it is one opinion that my response is irrational. the truth is that this guy kicked someones pet, companion, property...whatever you want to call it...it was a living thing that is capable of love and affection. He kicked it as though it were nothing more than an empty soda can laying on the ground. Actually, he kicked it while his buddy held the animal like he was teeing it up for a football game. I don't think it's irrational at all to say that the two of them should be put to down. Would you want them living in your neighborhood after only a year in prison? I suspect not. And I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for their three hots and a cot. If they got ass raped everyday and twice on Sundays it still would not be enough. For what they did, as uprovoked as it was, they should forfeit their lives. Like it or not that is rational.
RD

The thing is, I believe that every species, does and should, hold the welfare of its own over the welfare of other species. I'm not saying that it should be heavily one way or anything like that. But I think it's clear that, all things being equal, we should never kill one of our own for their having killed a member of another species. When I say, all things being equal, I acknowledge that if another species is going extinct, a member of it might be more valuable then a human, since there are billions of us.

But, in the case of a dog and a human, where bother are plentiful, then I think we'd be showing a form of excess and decadence to prioritise the dog over the human. Just as many rich westerners choose to have pets instead of children, but one step further.

Dippo
Apr 16, 2004, 06:23 PM
But, in the case of a dog and a human, where bother are plentiful, then I think we'd be showing a form of excess and decadence to prioritise the dog over the human. Just as many rich westerners choose to have pets instead of children, but one step further.


I have to disagree, there are some humans that are certianly not even as valuable as a rock much less a dog. Of course a death penalty for killing a pet would be a bit extreme but a few years in prison wouldn't be.

rocketdog
Apr 16, 2004, 10:09 PM
The thing is, I believe that every species, does and should, hold the welfare of its own over the welfare of other species. I'm not saying that it should be heavily one way or anything like that. But I think it's clear that, all things being equal, we should never kill one of our own for their having killed a member of another species. When I say, all things being equal, I acknowledge that if another species is going extinct, a member of it might be more valuable then a human, since there are billions of us.

But, in the case of a dog and a human, where bother are plentiful, then I think we'd be showing a form of excess and decadence to prioritise the dog over the human. Just as many rich westerners choose to have pets instead of children, but one step further.

Maybe other species can play that, but we are the dominant species on this planet so there are some of us who feel a moral obligation to protect those that can't protect themselves. I am not saying that if my family and my pets were trapped in a burning building I would rescue my pets first. I would get my family out and then go back for my pets. However, if my pets and that worthless ****** who kicked the dog were trapped in a burning building, I would rescue my pets and then get some gas for the blaze and roast marshmellows. Hell I would even rescue someone elses pets before him. Or even a pair of really comfortable shoes! He should be put to death. It's not a matter of whether or not a human is worth more than a dog, it's because he isn't worth any animal. This is a case by case basis. You shouldn't get a free pass just for being human.

RD

Dippo
Apr 17, 2004, 12:13 AM
You shouldn't get a free pass just for being human.

That's a great quote!

I think that sums up this whole thread.
Some people just aren't capable/willing to live in a civilized society.

MarkCollette
Apr 17, 2004, 08:45 PM
I have to disagree, there are some humans that are certianly not even as valuable as a rock much less a dog. Of course a death penalty for killing a pet would be a bit extreme but a few years in prison wouldn't be.

I'm was alluding to that any arbitrary human should be more valuable than any arbitrary dog. But, I agree, if a specific human has proven their worthlessness, then that is a different matter (by definition, else why call them worthless?). Hell many of us might value an inanimate object over a person who has proven themselves worthless.

Like the guy says about the fire, what if you're the warden at a prison, and you wake to it burning down, will you choose to save the death row inmates, who have been condemned by the courts for their crimes, or do you try to save your stamp collection? Hehehe, I know what I'd do. Maybe that's why no one would ever make me a warden... :)

MarkCollette
Apr 17, 2004, 08:49 PM
Maybe other species can play that, but we are the dominant species on this planet so there are some of us who feel a moral obligation to protect those that can't protect themselves. I am not saying that if my family and my pets were trapped in a burning building I would rescue my pets first. I would get my family out and then go back for my pets. However, if my pets and that worthless ****** who kicked the dog were trapped in a burning building, I would rescue my pets and then get some gas for the blaze and roast marshmellows. Hell I would even rescue someone elses pets before him. Or even a pair of really comfortable shoes! He should be put to death. It's not a matter of whether or not a human is worth more than a dog, it's because he isn't worth any animal. This is a case by case basis. You shouldn't get a free pass just for being human.
RD

I understand your point, but it's a little tainted because they're your own posessions. Most people save all their own posessions before they lift a finger for other people, whether or not they're criminals or granny next door. That's why we call people "hero" who do bother to set aside their own needs for another.

krimson
Dec 15, 2004, 03:45 PM
The Video Link (http://www.uselessjunk.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1006&mode=flat&order=0&thold=-1
) (not too graphic, but will be disturbing to most)

and the update

San Angelo, Texas
Tuesday, December 14, 2004

A state district judge convicted Jonathan Benjamin Johnson on Monday of felony cruelty to animals and sentenced him to probation, ending a trial where attorneys sparred over whether Johnson was guilty of torturing the dog he beat with a skateboard.

Johnson, 18, remained expressionless as Judge Ben Woodward declared that Johnson did torture the stray dog in a downtown San Angelo parking garage March 1.,

Rather than order jail time, as prosecutors had requested, Woodward sentenced Johnson to two years of probation, with a one-year suspended sentence and a $500 fine. As part of his probation, Johnson must perform 60 hours of community service and avoid contact with his co-defendant, Kevin Ward Wright, 18.

''You made a mistake,'' Woodward said. ''And now it's time to pay the consequences for that.''

Because state law allows an enhanced charge for torturing an animal but provides no definition of torture, Woodward, prosecutor John Best and defense attorney Kirk Hawkins debated whether the beating - one blow delivered by Johnson - warranted the felony charge.

Cruelty to animals is a Class A misdemeanor, but a finding of torture enhances the charge to a state-jail felony, punishable by as many as two years in prison.

The case attracted national attention when Johnson and Wright sent the video they made of the beating to friends through e-mail and instant messaging, according to court documents. Animal-rights Web sites posted the video and formed letter-writing campaigns to Best and state district judges.

In an interview after the trial, Johnson said he regretted his actions.

''It was like a spur-of-the-moment thing,'' he said. ''There's not a day that goes by when I don't think of it four or five times and wish I could erase it and start over.''

Johnson was beaten up by a group of boys at a local skate park after the video became public, he said, a reiteration of statements he made during a videotaped confession played in court.

The trial turned emotional as Best played a video of the beating. Two people - the mothers who initially called police when they saw the video sent to their children in March - left the courtroom in tears.

The video shows the dog lying in a corner next to a vending machine in the Twohig Street parking garage when Johnson lunges forward, smashing a skateboard with two hands into the side of the dog's head.

The dog, after first jumping and barking, begins to stagger against the machine as one boy yells, ''You whacked it good!'' followed by laughter.

As the dog tries to turn away into the corner, another blow with the skateboard is delivered to its neck. The dog then curls into the corner.

Wright is scheduled to appear at a pre-trial hearing at 9 a.m. today. He also is charged with cruelty to animals with a torture enhancement, as well as felony criminal mischief in an unrelated case.

The felony conviction was important, Best said, because it set a precedent that will make cruelty-torture charges easier to prosecute.

''In all the case law, I didn't find any cases that had facts similar to this,'' he said. ''In that sense, it's good for other prosecutors prosecuting these types of cases.''

Best argued that a dictionary definition of torture as ''mental or physical anguish'' fit Johnson's actions, as did a body of state-court decisions that never ruled out such actions as torture.

Hawkins in turn argued that other cases where judges found torture was committed involved far worse crimes, such as poisoning, cooking and drowning animals.

Johnson, as a first offender, did not deserve jail time, regardless of public opinion, he said.

''He's suffered the wrath of the community,'' Hawkins said. ''This is a good kid who's never been in trouble before.''

According to testimony, San Angelo Animal Services picked up the dog, a red chow-German shepherd mix with a red collar, several blocks away less than a week later. The dog later was euthanized after no one adopted it.

Only a handful of people watched the trial. Bill Lockett, a city animal services board member, said the violence of the beating deserved the harsher charge.

''I'm glad there was a conviction,'' he said, ''and I'm glad it was a felony offense.''

wdlove
Dec 15, 2004, 07:32 PM
The video link isn't working, it kept transferring me to AOL.html.

That was a terrible ruling by the judge. Hardly even a slap on the wrist. That wasn't sending a message of deterrence. I wonder what the judge will do when he commits a more horrendous crime. But of course he lives in a Ivory Tower. :o

Mechcozmo
Dec 15, 2004, 09:46 PM
But of course he lives in a Ivory Tower.

For the unenlightened?

I wouldn't recommend the death penalty, but probation is kinda weak...

brap
Dec 15, 2004, 09:52 PM
For the unenlightened?

I wouldn't recommend the death penalty, but probation is kinda weak...
Yeah, the dog had to be put down; he obviously wasn't beaten nearly hard enough by the skater gang.

I mean, being a prison bitch might be just as good, but for justice to be poetic, he should have had his head smashed in with a skateboard. Preferably whilst minding his own business.

Sickening.

krimson
Dec 16, 2004, 08:43 AM
The video link isn't working, it kept transferring me to AOL.html.

That was a terrible ruling by the judge. Hardly even a slap on the wrist. That wasn't sending a message of deterrence. I wonder what the judge will do when he commits a more horrendous crime. But of course he lives in a Ivory Tower. :o


here's the actual link from that page.

http://70.84.33.122/videos/dog_abuse_skater.wmv

virividox
Dec 16, 2004, 10:49 AM
that is such A TERRIBLE thing to do :(

mactastic
Dec 16, 2004, 11:06 AM
But of course he lives in a Ivory Tower.

Please explain. While I am appalled by what this kid did, I think a felony conviction is pretty severe. What would you have done? Prison?

And I'm curious, do you think ALL judges live in ivory towers? And what does it mean to live in an Ivory Tower? (since I'm guessing you don't actually believe he lives in a structure that towers over his neighbors and is made of ivory.)

wdlove
Dec 16, 2004, 11:06 AM
here's the actual link from that page.

http://70.84.33.122/videos/dog_abuse_skater.wmv

Thank you, but I'm still having the same problem occur. Definitely a message needs to be sent that this type of cruelty won't be tolerated. This show a cycle that needs to be broken. :( :o

parrothead
Dec 16, 2004, 05:35 PM
Honestly what kind of sick and twisted person does something like that. Really makes you wonder sometimes.

That kind of sick, twisted person does this. I have heard theories that people that would do this to a dog will have no qualms about killing a person. This reminds me of the story of the little puppy that got its eyes gouged out in a Texas town a few years ago. It is amazing the incredible disrespect for life that some people have.

kylos
Dec 16, 2004, 06:15 PM
That kind of sick, twisted person does this. I have heard theories that people that would do this to a dog will have no qualms about killing a person. This reminds me of the story of the little puppy that got its eyes gouged out in a Texas town a few years ago. It is amazing the incredible disrespect for life that some people have.

What really amazes me is the disrespect for life that would cause someone to do this (http://www.abortiontv.com/themanyways.htm)

mactastic
Dec 16, 2004, 06:30 PM
What really amazes me is the disrespect for life that would cause someone to do this (http://www.abortiontv.com/themanyways.htm)

And how do you feel about the disrespect for life that would cause someone to do this (http://www.txexecutions.org/stats.asp) this (http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/) or this? (http://www.grandin.com/humane/restrain.slaughter.html)

(Since you went there.)

kylos
Dec 16, 2004, 07:04 PM
And how do you feel about the disrespect for life that would cause someone to do this (http://www.txexecutions.org/stats.asp) this (http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/) or this? (http://www.grandin.com/humane/restrain.slaughter.html)

(Since you went there.)


Execution engenders respect for life by acting as a deterrent for those who have no respect for other's lives. (That's aside from the debate on whether they are being administered with appropriate precautions to avoid errors in determining guilt, etc. Because of this, I feel execution should only be used in cases where there are witnesses or a confession was made)

Vivisection is a cruel, unneccessary practice. (Science, acting without morals, can come up with some terrible practices)

And stunning a cow seems a rather humane way to prepare it for slaughter. And if you have a problem with meat in the first place, your rationality is in question. Carnivorous behavior is one of the ways of living creatures. Sharks, bears, lions, tigers, dogs, etc, etc, etc, eat meat. As intelligent creatures, we of course should be concerned that we do not waste animals or treat them inhumanely, but eating meat is how people and other creatures sustain life.

mactastic
Dec 16, 2004, 07:18 PM
Not to derail this thread entirely, but I would argue that abortion entails a respect for life just as much as you claim capital punishment does.

kylos
Dec 16, 2004, 08:09 PM
Many abortions are performed to get rid of a "problem". That's not respect for life, but selfishly taking another life. If you are suggesting that the quality of life a certain unborn child could expect is not worth their birth, well, I can't see how that is for you, or anyone else, for that matter, to decide. For most, it's about their quality of life with the responsibility of raising a child right. If that's not possible, there's always adoption. And in the case of rape, adoption is another alternative again. (Rape seems to be the only crime in which one of the innocents often gets the death penalty, while the perp often gets just a few years, if that). If abortion were only for when the mother's life was truly in danger, there would be very few abortions indeed. As it is, it's rarely performed to save a life.

As for being off-topic, this thread is already off the original topic about a certain 2 pound dog. I don't feel this is really off the overarching topic, which is sickening cruelty. Read again how babies are killed in the abortion process, and you'll see just how revolting a business it is. You wouldn't wish that stuff on your worst enemy, unless you're a fan of torture and mutilation.

wdlove
Dec 16, 2004, 08:44 PM
Sadly the terrorists that we are currently fighting against, are truly capable of this kind of torture. Remember the children at the school in Russia this Fall. A person that is capable of torturing a dog is also capable of torturing children and adults. It shows a psychological disregard for life. The loss of any moral control within ones self. :(

FelixDerKater
Dec 17, 2004, 09:03 AM
That guy deserves a bite from that police dog posted about earlier in the the week, which bit the man in the genitals.

rueyeet
Dec 17, 2004, 02:43 PM
Here's what I find a little hard to comprehend: Being a meat eater, owning a pet, and advocating the death penalty for animal cruelty. I can't see how anyone could hold all three views at the same time. Yet apparently a lot of people do.I don't see the dissonance between owning a pet and being a meat-eater.

Humans are omnivores. Granted, we probably evolved eating more vegetables and fruits than meat, but meat's our primary source of protein. It can be replaced by nuts and legumes and such, sure, but it takes a lot of nuts and beans to replace a steak. People eating meat is well within the bounds of nature.

That said, there's humane and inhumane ways to accomplish that, and modern society is not at all humane to the animals who sustain us. Force-feeding and tiny pens might be deemed efficient by the food industry, but it's horrible for the animals, and a breeding ground for disease.

Pets are no less property than livestock, but just as with livestock, they're also living creatures. There's a certain amount of respect that should be shown towards all life. Killing for food is one thing. But cruelty, whether to a cow you're anticipating will make great steaks, or to a dog that greets you when you get home from work, should not be tolerated.

Nature does dictate that life feeds on life, but it does not necessitate that life should abuse life. Law, as created by human intelligence, exists beyond nature to prevent the abuse and exploitation of the weak by the strong; in essence it says there are situations in which simple "law of the jungle" should be supplanted by higher ideals.

Sometimes those ideals aren't that clear-cut. Is it right to kill a killer? Should a woman be forced to carry and deliver the product of brutal rape? Some questions just don't have good answers.

I do think this dog-kicking assmunch should be punished for willfull and unecessary cruelty to another living creature. I don't think the punishment should be as severe as if he had murdered a human, and thus I wouldn't advocate the death penalty. But such callous treatment of a living thing shouldn't just get him a fine and a slap on the wrist.