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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2-pound dog used for deadly place kick
- Thread starter Frohickey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Abstract said: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
Frohickey said:If we make the rope out of cannabis sativa, we can charge liberals $10 a foot.
So is your accusation that all liberals smoke pot, and that only liberals smoke it?
Les Kern said:
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
mortilace said:
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?
Well it seems another dog killer was recently sentenced to a year in jail..
Puppy killer gets a year in jail
Puppy killer gets a year in jail
Frohickey said:
It is very cruel that someone would allow their cat to get in that condition. That is a matter of health cruelty.
OK, here's one:
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)?
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.crazytom said:
crazytom said:
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
oldschool said:
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.
paulwhannel said:
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.
Dog killer
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. F**k 'em.
RD
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. F**k 'em.
RD
rocketdog said:
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.
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
RD