Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excuse me? I mentioned kids dying as a result of, among other things, wars, including drone attacks. "Just dying"? Really? "Killing a house pet for fun is so appalling because animals are innocent." Kids in Third World countries aren't? What the . . .
Yes, it sure does. The point is this. People purportedly value human life more than animals' life, as they should. Kids blown up, mangled, splattered and mutilated due to mortar attacks, drones, mines, IDEs, etc. (and in some cases, the perpetrators do gloat on social media, as you know) is hell of a lot worse than this poor cat's horrible situation. Unless you are an irrational cat lady with 17 cats in your house, I don't see how you can disagree. Some people would save their pets first from a burning building before their (or even someone else's) children. I love my cat, but wouldn't save her before I save human beings in that situation.
These types of comments validate my original post. SMH.
Mick
Just because someone has compassion for an animal does not mean they can't have the same compassion for children or people. What makes you think no one cares about dead or dying children? There are tons of agencies and laws to protect children and adults. How do you know children died in wars? Because obviously somebody cared enough to report it. But because there are people outraged over a dead cat, suddenly "no one cares"?
This thread just happens to be about a cat that died an agonizing and unnecessary death at the hands of someone who's career is supposed to be devoted to HELPING animals. If this were a case about a pediatrician who tortured and abused children, I guarantee there would be ten times the outrage as there is here. I don't get the kind of thinking that only allows you to care about one cause and one cause only.
I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that in order for this act to satisfy the elements of the offense, the prosecution will have to prove that she knew the cat had an owner, and then failed to seek the owner's permission before killing the cat.
No. I've been to law school (though am not a practicing attorney). Nowhere in the statute does it say anything about knowledge or intent of the cat's origin, only intent to kill or harm the animal that happens to be owned by someone.
People purportedly value human life more than animals' life, as they should. Kids blown up, mangled, splattered and mutilated due to mortar attacks, drones, mines, IDEs, etc.
Straw man argument. There are no drones in the article for us to care about. Also, as far as Americans dying of those things, they sign up for it. When did the cat sign up to go into battle?
The cat's hind leg is mangled which has led to the suspicion that it was caught in a trap before being shot. (Mother's FB comment said her daughter was "practicing"). The position of the cat when being held up has led many to feel the animal was still alive when the picture was shot. Once the DA goes forward with the indictment, all these gruesome horrors will be confirmed.
Citing other instances of animal cruelty do nothing to take away the sheer depravity of this vet's actions. It only confirms my belief that there are some very sick and evil individuals that are walking among us, and some have the gall to accuse those who value animal's lives as being the crazy ones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I've been to law school (though am not a practicing attorney). Nowhere in the statute does it say anything about knowledge or intent of the cat's origin, only intent to kill or harm the animal that happens to be owned by someone.
