I say they feed HIM to the gator.

[Japher]

People feet life mice to snakes too, they do this ALL the time!!!! Where is PETA when it reeally matters? Where are they when I kill a moth, or spray those ants?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Whoever it was that asked what was the difference between killing a cat and crushing a wasp, if you're that stupid that you can't tell the differences between fairly intelligent mammals and agressive invertebrates, please do us all a favor and use a filter to keep yourself from further contaminating the gene pool.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Yet another example of the strong bond between pets and owners, looks at how MtG reacts to the possible idea of one of his pets suffering a similar fate.

Like it or not, people form very strong attachments to their pets, to do so is normal. When you kill their pet, it represents a devestating loss to the owner. The extent of the cruelty by the boy toward the pets owner is inexcusable and must be severely punished; he should go to prison.

Another point is the kid went on to the people's property to get the cat - it's not like it was some mean-assed cat that was constantly spraying the kids' bedroom window screen. It was at it's own house, minding it's own business.

When my daughter was two and a half, some little scumbags decided to grab one of our cats from the front yard or immediate area, and skin it alive for a halloween stunt (it was a black cat). Fridge (named after Fridge Perry) managed to escape, and crawled home to die. He had been cut vertically on the inside of three of four legs, with the skin pealed back, and then had a series of very orderly, precise, criss-crossing cuts on his back, (one nearly an inch deep, it severed the muscle and nicked his spine) with the skin pulled back from those. Apparently, they were looking for more creative ways to mutilate him, and he got away.

He took 367 stitches to more or less close him up (cat skin is pretty elastic, but some had been cut off.) He had a whole bunch of drainage tubes installed under his skin so he could be irrigated with antiseptics to prevent subdural infections. He went from 19 pounds to 8 3/4 pounds in three weeks.

The little yuppie homeowner association was a bit whiny when I suggested at their next meeting that if I found whoever was responsible, they'd get to experience it from the other side, before disappearing into the desert or such other disposal site as I chose.

Even keeping cattle and other food animals for slaughter, and the killing process itself, doesn't need to be done with reckless and gratuitous cruelty. Ever heard of kosher? And anyone going out of their way to find an animal to kill has some problems, particularly making a point of going onto someone's front porch to grab their pet who's just minding his own business.

Oerdin - there's guilt, and there's guilt under the law. Two different things entirely.

[Oerdin]

I mean look at the endagered species act. People get out their signs and start protesting when a fluffy owl is endanger but I beat almost no one shows up for a "Save the Least Arryo Ground Toad" rally.

[Japher]

Whoever it was that asked what was the difference between killing a cat and crushing a wasp, if you're that stupid that you can't tell the differences between fairly intelligent mammals and agressive invertebrates, please do us all a favor and use a filter to keep yourself from further contaminating the gene pool.

Beware: Trolling Mod

[MichaeltheGreat]

You've obviously never encountered the Delta Green Ground Beetle.

If it's Federally listed, or California SSC listed, there will be someone.

[DanS]

Dan, the "attachments to animals is unhealthy" thing, even though it was a troll, is still stupid. My family's dogs have always been part of the family, and by and large treated as such.

Could you keep your straw men out of this, please? I never said attachments to animals were unhealthy. Rather, I made a hard-line distinction between human-to-human relationships and human-to-pet relationships. Treating your cat like a human being is flat wrong! And then we're asked by some in this thread for the law to enforce the validity of this warped view.

No thanks!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher


Beware: Trolling Mod

No troll.

Invertebrates, with extremely rare exceptions (AFAIK, some cephalopods are the only exceptions) have no definite emotional or intellectual development of any kind. They're purely reflexive/instinctive animals. Some lower vertebrates and primitive mammals start showing higher levels of development, going up finally to the bonobo, which isn't AFAIK biologically distinguishable from human brain function.

[Japher]

I'm not to fond of my cat, but I would beat the crap out of anyone who thought it a good idea to torture and feed it to another animal.

I am, however, very protective of my dog. Mainly, because she hangs out with me everyday, and we have a good connection... Yet, she still sleeps under the bed and eats out of a bowl on the ground.

My dog is an escape artist, so I am always worried that she will get out and get hit by a car. Yet, if someone hit her and killed her I don't think I would be as broken up about it since my dog is stupid.

The point: It is not so much the fact that the ladies cat got eaten by an alligator, it is more so that someone delibertly commited the act in a manner that indicated he meant to bring emotional anguish to her. That sucks. His motives were souly to hurt someone else by hurting the cat.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Dan, the "attachments to animals is unhealthy" thing, even though it was a troll, is still stupid. My family's dogs have always been part of the family, and by and large treated as such.

Could you keep your straw men out of this, please? I never said attachments to animals was unhealthy. Rather, I made a hard-line distinction between human-to-human relationships and human-to-pet relationships. Treating your cat like a human being is not a reflection of good mental health!

As Mark Twain once put it, "If you take a dog and make him prosperous, he will not later turn around and bite you. That is the principle difference between men and dogs."

[Japher]

No troll.

?

if you're that stupid

and

do us all a favor and use a filter to keep yourself from further contaminating the gene pool

could of done without those. the reasons you gave were much better than just calling someone stupid and a danger to human life as we know it. Though, if you were refering to me, is not too far removed from the truth.

[Oerdin]

I love all the pets I had growing up but if the choice came between the dog or a human well old sparky is a goner.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Treating your cat like a human being is flat wrong! And then we're asked by some in this thread for the law to enforce the validity of this warped view.

No thanks!

If he had gone to the womans house and taken a human being to feed to the gator, then the State of Florida wouldn't bullshit around with 5 years. You're talking mandatory 25 to life if they go easy on him, DP if not, and he was of minimum age to pass SCOTUS' standard.

Personally, I don't think "the law" should get involved at all, except may just to take a little walk down the road, and let the other law take care of things.

Here's a scenario for you - let's say the cat owner had a daughter who died, and there was a minimum amount of stuff - photo album, some videos, etc. (i.e. minimum commercial value, all emotional value), and for some reason it was on the porch, in a couple of boxes. Same kid, knowing what the boxes contained, takes them and destroys them for the hell of it (wonder if a gator is dumb enough to eat a books or video tape, and what it would sound like when it chomped).

How about an urn with the ashes of the dead kid?

So we have no living object at all, nothing of commercial value, but something with a definite and known emotional impact on the family, and those objects are taken and destroyed with knowledge that their destruction will have an emotional impact. How do you treat that?

Now add in the animal cruelty as an additional factor, not the main one.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I love all the pets I had growing up but if the choice came between the dog or a human well old sparky is a goner.

And if the human is a low-life scumbag?

[Winston]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

You're talking mandatory 25 to life if they go easy on him, DP if not, and he was of minimum age to pass SCOTUS' standard.

The minimum age to be eligible for the death penalty in Florida is 17, not 14.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And if the human is a low-life scumbag?

what are the cercomstances? I mean are we talking about being on the Donner party having to eat fido or what?

[Japher]

So we have no living object at all, nothing of commercial value, but something with a definite and known emotional impact on the family, and those objects are taken and destroyed with knowledge that their destruction will have an emotional impact. How do you treat that?

Exactly. Yet, isn't that what punitive damages are for? So the lady should get paid something. Also, the perp really needs some psycological treatment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Winston


The minimum age to be eligible for the death penalty in Florida is 17, not 14.

I was talking about the general case of killing a human vs. killing an animal, replying to the argument that the law was being called upon to make no distinction between the life of an animal and that of a human being. The difference in range of penalties shows there's a very clear distinction.

[DanS]

So we have no living object at all, nothing of commercial value, but something with a definite and known emotional impact on the family, and those objects are taken and destroyed with knowledge that their destruction will have an emotional impact. How do you treat that?

The law has never sought to guarantee that people weren't rat bastards to each other. Or to even punish rat bastardness in general.

[Japher]

The law has never sought to guarantee that people weren't rat bastards to each other.

Good Simaritan Laws?

There ought to be more of those, especially ones that say don't destroy other ppls property... oh, wait we have that, and I certainly think that someones pet should be valued higher than some other goods... however, that is not the case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


what are the cercomstances? I mean are we talking about being on the Donner party having to eat fido or what?

That reminds me of a Gary Larson cartoon with three guys and a setter-looking dog in a life raft in the ocean, and one guy is looking all frantic and pissed off, holding the short straw, while the dog has one of the long ones.

The caption was something like "What are you compaining about, Ned? We all drew straws, and you lost."

My point was that (to me, at least) it's not an automatic value judgment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
So we have no living object at all, nothing of commercial value, but something with a definite and known emotional impact on the family, and those objects are taken and destroyed with knowledge that their destruction will have an emotional impact. How do you treat that?

The law has never sought to guarantee that people weren't rat bastards to each other. Or to even punish rat bastardness in general.

So, it's ok then, except just maybe a little incidental trespass? That's why I prefer the southern approach. What the law won't make right, a good tree and a rope will.

[chequita guevara]

At the age of 14, unless the boy was mentally defective, he would not be "curious" as to the effects of torturing an animal and feeding it to a preditor.

There is a word for people who do such things: sociopaths (previous known as psychopaths). People who can do such things to pet animals are lacking in the ability to empathyze. All serial killers are sociopaths. All sociopaths are pretty much violent and dangerous, though not al become serial killers.

This kids needs to be put in a psych ward and left there for the good of the community.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I'd say this kid is comparable to a juvenile rapist.

Like others have said. Get a ****ing sense of proportion!

Unless you mean he raped the cat . Cats and humans are different things, don't cha know?

How is this out of proportion?

I'm saying that what the kid did to the family (who are, presumably, humans) is fully comparable to rape IMO.

If a rapist threatens to kill the victim's pet cat or dog if she doesn't submit: how many would comply? I suspect most would. Which would make pet-killing worse than rape.

I think the analogy holds up pretty well. Just as I wouldn't seek to punish a rape victim from killing her attacker in self-defense, I wouldn't punish a pet-owner using deadly force to defend the pet's life either (I certainly would). If the pet was already dead: this would be comparable to a rape victim killing her rapist after the rape (i.e. not in self-defense) and covered by diminished responsibility / temporary insanity etc.

I'm with MTG on this one. If I caught a person doing this to my cat, that person would disappear (one advantage of living in a rural area). This also has the advantage of removing a possible future threat to the lives of (human) friends and relatives. Illegal, but pragmatic.

[Skanky Burns]

[Chemical Ollie]

Curiosity killed the cat

I have three cats and they all kill other animals for fun. This cat was killed for fun, what's the difference?

Gators don't eat weed.

[Lincoln]

Let's see now. Reading this thread it becomes apparant that this is not a boy at all! He is a "rapist", "murderer", "psycopathic deranged killer" and he should be tortured to death for his actions. Only on Apolyton would we get such intelligent evaluations and conclusions. Cats are really not human even though the cartoons can make them talk.

All this reminds me of a church I attended once. Several people were going to a gathering afterword. Some of the poorer members did not have a car so they asked for a ride. Most were given a ride but some were left behind becuse of the dogs that occupied the front seats of several cars. It was kind of comical to see Fido in his seatbelt looking out the window as the human beings stood on the sidewalk -- rejected because of a dog. That is the American culture nowdays. "Dogs are people too, you know."

[Jack the Bodiless]

Let's see now. Reading this thread it becomes apparant that this is not a boy at all! He is a "rapist", "murderer", "psycopathic deranged killer" and he should be tortured to death for his actions.

Rapists, murderers and psychopathic killers are humans too (and, in many cases, teenagers). So they shouldn't be punished?

Using this logic: why is rape bad? No life-form gets killed at all! Nothing tangible is stolen, or permanently broken (bruises heal)...

And, to continue the analogy: there's a difference between advocating a legal death sentence for rape, and admitting that we would kill a potential rapist if confronted with one.

[FrustratedPoet]

I just killed a spider. It was crawling across my desk and I squished it with a book. It was no threat to me, I killed it simply because I hate spiders. I feel no remorse for killing it.

Am I a murderer? Should I be sent to prison? Am I in danger of being a serial killer?

Am I better or worse than the kid in the news story? Why?

btw, this isn't necessarily a troll. I'm curious about the answer.

[Gibsie]

Poet, it's lready been explained that lower invertebrates share few of the cognitive characteristics that make a cat able to know pain; in addition, there was a valuable bond between the owner and pet that was destroyed.

If you had trespassed onto someone's property to take their spider, then pulled its legs off one by one before putting it in the oven, then I think we would have cause to be worried about you and what you could be capable of.

[Arrian]

See MtG's point about invetebrates. You killed an insect. It's a bit different, at least to me.

It's a question of where you draw the line.

The differences I see here between stepping on an ant and what this little bastard did are these:

1) A cat is more intelligent & more capable of emotion/pain/etc than an ant.
2) The cat was someone's pet
3) The kid didn't just kill it. He tortured it and then killed it in an "interesting" way. Dunno about you, but that type of behavior sets of alarm bells in my head (not exactly to the extent that Che put it, but close).
4) Several people have raised the Chicken (or Rooster) issue: what if the kid had fed a chicken to the 'gator? Well, if he had beaten it and fed it to the 'gator in exactly the same manner as he did the cat, and the chicken/rooster was someone's pet THAT HE STOLE FROM THEIR FREAKING FRONT YARD, I would be having the same reaction. I might also be thinking "a rooster as a pet? Hmm, to each his/her own, I guess..." but that's beside the point.

This kid is a nasty little ****er, end of story.

-Arrian