Man Guilty in Road Rage Dog Death
- Thread starter meezercat
- Start date
How I love to be misquoted and have what I say distorted. I never said that animals should have the same rights as humans. That's ridiculous, and flies in the face of the very *concept* of having a pet to begin with. For if equal, there would be no other term for such a practice other than "slavery".
What I *did* say and imply, however, is that concerning emotions, certain situations given an owner's affection for a pet, and a parent's affection for a child, are very comparable. The degree of care, affection, and love shared is sometimes pretty analogous, and you cannot deny that reality, especially to pet owners themselves.
The term "right" is a very speicific one. To accredit animals with identical "freedoms" and "rights" as humans, is not only completely asinine within modern social structure, but contradicts the very notion of pet ownership. Hence my claim that animals are "helpless beings" as are infants. Though very much human, infants are not, rational beings in my opinion. That is where my comparison came into play.
------------------
In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man;
if you want anything done, ask a woman. -Margaret Thatcher
"Holy dung!" -- Monsiuerjohn
"Wooostah!" -- Anonymous Morrismen
En fuego, bebé.
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by KNSinatra on June 21, 2001 at 03:14 PM]</font>
What does that have to do with anything, hermie?
If you're sick enough to go around repeatedly abusing animals, then you deserve whatever you get. I don't think that's *quite* the same thing as a dog biting you and you throwing said dog into oncoming traffic.
i try to look at this situation not as the owner of the dog, from which position i would see the dog as something i love dearly like a child, and not as the man who threw the dog, who was obviously under a lot of stress and who had very very poor anger management skills. rather i try to step back and look at it from a third person point of view
if i were to see the altercation in action, i would be absolutely horrified to see the man grab the dog and throw it into traffic. it would probably be one of the worst things i had ever seen. but as horrible as that would seem to me, i don't think it could compare to seeing the man throw a baby out into traffic. without a doubt i would be severely traumatized and would need some sort of professional help if i saw that.
i have no issue with people who see their pets as their children. i have no pets at the present moment, and have never had anything more significant than a parakeet, which was several eyars ago. but i can well imagine the heartbreak associated with losing a pet as companionable as a cat or dog, and the horror at seeing such a pet murdered.
but, while doing my best to avoid any sort of value placement, i must say that i believe in a mother-child bond that is, quite possibly, stronger than any other emotional attachment. i think that if the same woman had had a baby thrown into traffic, she would probably never have recovered from the horror and the shock.
the man deserves to be punished. he did a horrible horrible thing, and has caused this woman much grief. it is not for us to judge whether or not that grief is well founded, which i happen to believe it is (although i also think the grief would be greater had it been a child), but only to base the man's punishment on the amount of suffering he inflicted on this woman.
all that said, i simply must say that as awful as the incident is, all the articles about it must inherently read like soemthing from the onion. it just seems like something they would write about, never expecting that it could ever happen.
sadly, though, it did.
------------------
"I've never been sigged." - PsychoticIckyThing
"Maybe *this* is what 'cooties', the disease that every grade schooler is terrified of, yet knows not the symptoms of which, is!" - KNSinatra at 3:34 AM
if i were to see the altercation in action, i would be absolutely horrified to see the man grab the dog and throw it into traffic. it would probably be one of the worst things i had ever seen. but as horrible as that would seem to me, i don't think it could compare to seeing the man throw a baby out into traffic. without a doubt i would be severely traumatized and would need some sort of professional help if i saw that.
i have no issue with people who see their pets as their children. i have no pets at the present moment, and have never had anything more significant than a parakeet, which was several eyars ago. but i can well imagine the heartbreak associated with losing a pet as companionable as a cat or dog, and the horror at seeing such a pet murdered.
but, while doing my best to avoid any sort of value placement, i must say that i believe in a mother-child bond that is, quite possibly, stronger than any other emotional attachment. i think that if the same woman had had a baby thrown into traffic, she would probably never have recovered from the horror and the shock.
the man deserves to be punished. he did a horrible horrible thing, and has caused this woman much grief. it is not for us to judge whether or not that grief is well founded, which i happen to believe it is (although i also think the grief would be greater had it been a child), but only to base the man's punishment on the amount of suffering he inflicted on this woman.
all that said, i simply must say that as awful as the incident is, all the articles about it must inherently read like soemthing from the onion. it just seems like something they would write about, never expecting that it could ever happen.
sadly, though, it did.
------------------
"I've never been sigged." - PsychoticIckyThing
"Maybe *this* is what 'cooties', the disease that every grade schooler is terrified of, yet knows not the symptoms of which, is!" - KNSinatra at 3:34 AM
I agree with most of what mj said - especially the reference to The Onion. While I in no way condone road rage and animal cruelty, talk three years for the death of an animal is ridiculous (especially where there is conjecture over whether the animal bit the guy) and sets a ridiculous precedent. If the dog bit him, he shouldn't go to jail. If the dog didn't bite him - three months would be sufficient.
i see your point very clearly that from the third person point of view it doesn't look like a very serious crime, and in the grand scheme of things it isn't. but that woman underwent a great deal of grief over this dog, to which she was obviously attached very firmly emotionally. the man has exhibited criminal tendancies and a complete lack of anger management skills. while three years seems like a hell of a long time, i can see that some psychiatric examination and treatment, or at least some counseling, would be in order - i don't know if they're doing that or not, but they should be. so in terms of the extreme pain he obviously indirectly inflicted on the woman and whoever else (if anyone) was traumatized, he does deserve a punishment, and no light one at that. but the punishment for a baby killing would probably be life, possibly without parole. so while his punishment may *seem* severe for killing a "mere" dog, in comparison to what it could be, it's not much at all.
------------------
"I've never been sigged." - PsychoticIckyThing
"Maybe *this* is what 'cooties', the disease that every grade schooler is terrified of, yet knows not the symptoms of which, is!" - KNSinatra at 3:34 AM
------------------
"I've never been sigged." - PsychoticIckyThing
"Maybe *this* is what 'cooties', the disease that every grade schooler is terrified of, yet knows not the symptoms of which, is!" - KNSinatra at 3:34 AM
Especially if the dog bit him, I don't think he's shown a lack of anger management. It's funny, I thought the courts were there to enforce the law, not to worry about how attached the woman was to her dog. He *may* be guilty of animal cruelty, but there is no justification for any sentence of longer than three months.
it is *not* okay to throw someone's dog into speeding freeway traffic, regardless of whether or not it bit you. if he manages anger by lashing out violently, then he has some problems.
------------------
"I've never been sigged." - PsychoticIckyThing
"Maybe *this* is what 'cooties', the disease that every grade schooler is terrified of, yet knows not the symptoms of which, is!" - KNSinatra at 3:34 AM
------------------
"I've never been sigged." - PsychoticIckyThing
"Maybe *this* is what 'cooties', the disease that every grade schooler is terrified of, yet knows not the symptoms of which, is!" - KNSinatra at 3:34 AM
I don't know about the laws in the US, but if a dog here bit someone, then was thrown onto a freeway directly afterwards, I would find it most unlikely that there would be any animal cruelty charges laid, and if the bitten person did not kill the animal, it would probably be put down anyway.
I don't know what the rules are where you come from, PIT, but around here if a dog was provoked, the dog's rights are protected fiercely. If the dog bit in defense of himself, the person (the provoker) is then the one that gets into trouble. He could be charged with animal cruelty if he provoked that badly. If the dog was over protective of territory, the dog's owner is in trouble. However, if the dog just visiously bites people for no real reason, first the owner is notified. But if it continues to happen; after three times, the dog then may be put down
. But There is a large penalty if it is a question of animal cruelty and three years sounds about right. If anyone hurts an animal as cruelly as that man did, they need serious psychological help. As small as that dog was, it couldn't have been that bad a bite. Small dogs do hurt when they bite but he is bigger and stronger and by no means does he need to punish the dog to that extent!
------------------
Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength;
while loving someone deeply gives you courage.
--Lao Tzu
"Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there with open arms and open eyes." --Incubus 'Drive'
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by Lysithea on June 25, 2001 at 07:44 AM]</font>
------------------
Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength;
while loving someone deeply gives you courage.
--Lao Tzu
"Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there with open arms and open eyes." --Incubus 'Drive'
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by Lysithea on June 25, 2001 at 07:44 AM]</font>
I really find it horrifying that some people take this situation so lightly. I didn't post this article so that it could be made fun of; I posted it because I found the situation sick and disgusting.
The man didn't throw the dog into traffic because it bit him. He threw the dog into traffic because its owner got into a minor fender-bender with him, and he couldn't control his anger.
This guy also has a history of criminal behavior. I can't understand why anyone would be defending him.
------------------
"I suspect that many an ailurophobe hates cats only because he feels they are better people than he is; more honest, more secure, more loved, more whatever he is not."
--Winifred Carriere
The man didn't throw the dog into traffic because it bit him. He threw the dog into traffic because its owner got into a minor fender-bender with him, and he couldn't control his anger.
This guy also has a history of criminal behavior. I can't understand why anyone would be defending him.
------------------
"I suspect that many an ailurophobe hates cats only because he feels they are better people than he is; more honest, more secure, more loved, more whatever he is not."
--Winifred Carriere
Let's bring this down to the most fundamental, basic, emotionless, and utilitarian terms possible -- lets see a dog as nothing more than mere property.
PIT, are you to say that 3 months suffices as a reasonable maximum sentance for usurpation of any type of property?
Take a look at these statistics concerning average maximum sentence time served for propriatal infringements
Let's equate a pet, however, with something less similar to a car, or a stereo as are indicated by these stats. Lets, rather, equate it to something far less replaceable, being that it is in fact, a unique entity. If someone stole (with absolutely NO way to retrieve it, mind you) one or more of my dearest possessions such as an irreplacable heirloom, or a priceless painting, I would expect and moreover, demand, a longer sentance than a mere 3 months. So where, pray tell is this arbitrary number coming from? Personally, I've been continually taken aback by how brazen your casual that's-just-the-way-it-should-be attitude and assertions in regarding your proposed adequate sentance are.
If, a pet is to be considered as nothing more than property (which is insulting in my opinon). 3 months is still a far cry from just compensation. Combine a property offense, with a violent offense, and *then* perhaps we're getting a little closer to justice for this situation.
------------------
In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man;
if you want anything done, ask a woman. -Margaret Thatcher
"Holy dung!" -- Monsiuerjohn
"Wooostah!" -- Anonymous Morrismen
En fuego, bebé.
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by KNSinatra on June 25, 2001 at 05:13 PM]</font>
PIT, are you to say that 3 months suffices as a reasonable maximum sentance for usurpation of any type of property?
Take a look at these statistics concerning average maximum sentence time served for propriatal infringements
Let's equate a pet, however, with something less similar to a car, or a stereo as are indicated by these stats. Lets, rather, equate it to something far less replaceable, being that it is in fact, a unique entity. If someone stole (with absolutely NO way to retrieve it, mind you) one or more of my dearest possessions such as an irreplacable heirloom, or a priceless painting, I would expect and moreover, demand, a longer sentance than a mere 3 months. So where, pray tell is this arbitrary number coming from? Personally, I've been continually taken aback by how brazen your casual that's-just-the-way-it-should-be attitude and assertions in regarding your proposed adequate sentance are.
If, a pet is to be considered as nothing more than property (which is insulting in my opinon). 3 months is still a far cry from just compensation. Combine a property offense, with a violent offense, and *then* perhaps we're getting a little closer to justice for this situation.
------------------
In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man;
if you want anything done, ask a woman. -Margaret Thatcher
"Holy dung!" -- Monsiuerjohn
"Wooostah!" -- Anonymous Morrismen
En fuego, bebé.
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by KNSinatra on June 25, 2001 at 05:13 PM]</font>
For a first offense, yes.
I'll state this again. If he's walked up to the car, and simply thrown the dog out onto the freeway, then he should be charged with animal cruelty, and I don't have much sympathy for him. In that case, I'd support even as much as a six or nine month sentence. But three years is ridiculous. And in the case that the dog bit him, then there should have been no charges laid whatsoever.
Only in America.
Who's saying he was provoked? I haven't heard that.
Again, only in America. As far as I understand, under Australian law, if you're a dog, you bite someone, you die.
Three years is ridiculous, if the dog bit him. If that's true, while not the most ideal choice of action, I don't think it's deserving of a jail sentence. If the dog didn't bite him, and he was just doing it to get back at the owner - then three months, maybe six depending on his criminal history (as hermie mentioned, which I hadn't heard about).
Who's making fun of the situation? Not me.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? Were you there?
i've only glanced at a few posts in this topic so if this has somehow been brought up already, sorry.......but........i just wanna ask pit.....if i bit you, should i be thrown into oncoming traffic?
obviously i'm a bit more intelligent than a dog, and i wouldn't bite someone, but life is life, that's my point
------------------
http://www.moonsee.com
obviously i'm a bit more intelligent than a dog, and i wouldn't bite someone, but life is life, that's my point
------------------
http://www.moonsee.com
Why is it presumptuous to regurgitate the court's findings?
Originally posted by PsychoticIckyThing:
Only in America.
News flash - not everything that happens in America is wrong.
PIT, did you by any chance read the full article that I linked to? It mentioned both the court's findings, and the guy's past (and current) criminal history.
------------------
"I suspect that many an ailurophobe hates cats only because he feels they are better people than he is; more honest, more secure, more loved, more whatever he is not."
--Winifred Carriere
<FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">[This message has been edited by hermanm on June 25, 2001 at 08:58 PM]</font>
G
Guest
Guest
Isn't this getting out of hand? It's disgusting to me that a life was taken, period.
When some dogs bite and/or attack others, at times they are shot to death (i.e. a pittbull who attacks a child out of the blue). But the context of this situation is completely different. Come on now, the main issue was a traffic accident and a dog (whether or not he bit the man) was thrown into traffic as a result of that accident. That's just an act of someone with poor impulse control.
------------------
"You said your body is young but your mind is very old" - Chemical Bros.
