20 years??

[Sparky Guy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/26/dog-meat-china

A rather timely piece...

There is a video that accompanies this article. It shows them preparing the cats and dogs. They do not kill the animals when they start to prepare them. With dogs while the animal is alive they hit it on the head to stun it. Then hang it up by it's hind legs and peel its hide off of it while alive. The blood flowing in the animal makes it easier to remove the hide is what the video says. The animal is thrown onto a pile of carcasses where it's in so much shock and pain it gives up and dies. With cats they literally boil them alive either one at a time or in bags.

It's quite disturbing to watch. I have no problem with them eating what they have traditionally done. What I find is the cruelty inflicted upon the animals in the preparation. Slaughtering them in as painless a way as possible before prepping them is one thing. Prepping them while still alive is another.

I guess if you wanted to extend the no criminal penalty argument one could ask "What about lobsters and crayfish.? Where do we set the limits at???

[GIMNEPIWO]

A rather timely piece...

There is a video that accompanies this article. It shows them preparing the cats and dogs. They do not kill the animals when they start to prepare them. With dogs while the animal is alive they hit it on the head to stun it. Then hang it up by it's hind legs and peel its hide off of it while alive. The blood flowing in the animal makes it easier to remove the hide is what the video says. The animal is thrown onto a pile of carcasses where it's in so much shock and pain it gives up and dies. With cats they literally boil them alive either one at a time or in bags.

It's quite disturbing to watch. I have no problem with them eating what they have traditionally done. What I find is the cruelty inflicted upon the animals in the preparation. Slaughtering them in as painless a way as possible before prepping them is one thing. Prepping them while still alive is another.

I guess if you wanted to extend the no criminal penalty argument one could ask "What about lobsters and crayfish.? Where do we set the limits at???

Years ago, and possibly still ... in some part of Asia the used to poke a monkey's head up through the table and eat its brains while it was still alive ... I'm pretty sure the last lobster I ate was dead when I dipped it in garlic butter, albeit boiled alive minutes earlier ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 704426156#

[Skarp]

There was definitely a criminal statute on the books covering the conduct in question. Without such a statute, there could not have been a prosecution. So yes, the law allowed for the punishment.

What I'm arguing about is whether such a law is sensible or just. I don't think it is.

I'll have to beg to differ with you on that point. If there were no sanctions on how we treat animals it would be a free-for-all for some sick individuals who enjoy inflicting harm onto animals. While 99.9% of the people in our society would not exhibit this personality dysfunction there needs to be protection for the animals from the .1%. It's what makes us a higher functioning animal.

While it happened in Iraq a few years ago there was a major shi% storm at the time when the video circulated the internet of a marine who threw what looked like a very young puppy to its death for no reason other than being cruel. That is the type of behavior that I feel is criminal, whether it dogs, cats, horses, or any type of animal that should warrant punishment beyond monetary liability.

Every so often they find someone in out area running a puppy mill with animals being kept in inhumane conditions. There have been other types of animals as well. These are the things that I feel need some type of criminal penalty.

Sadistic torture with no other purpose but to satisfy a sadist's twisted predilections is a different scenario entirely...one in which we would have little difficulty extending a criminal penalty against it to protect ALL animals. But that's a lot different than using chloroform to kill a dog that you want out of your hair, or from chucking an animal into traffic in a fit of anger provoked in some manner by the animal's owner. Those actions might not make us feel warm and fuzzy about the person, but do they justify years of prison? I don't think so. And if they do, please explain why/how the penalty shouldn't apply to "cruelty" to all animals? Flush your goldfish...20 years!

[PDad]

Sadistic torture with no other purpose but to satisfy a sadist's twisted predilections is a different scenario entirely...one in which we would have little difficulty extending a criminal penalty against it to protect ALL animals. But that's a lot different than using chloroform to kill a dog that you want out of your hair, or from chucking an animal into traffic in a fit of anger provoked in some manner by the animal's owner. Those actions might not make us feel warm and fuzzy about the person, but do they justify years of prison? I don't think so. And if they do, please explain why/how the penalty shouldn't apply to "cruelty" to all animals? Flush your goldfish...20 years!

Did you read the Event Report on the second page of the article - "Jones tried to give the dog CPR by (sic) was unable to revive the dog" after the dog stopped breathing? It appears Jones tried using chloroform as an anesthetic, which doctors did a long time ago, and the death was accidental rather than intentional.

[Skarp]

Did you read the Event Report on the second page of the article - "Jones tried to give the dog CPR by (sic) was unable to revive the dog" after the dog stopped breathing? It appears Jones tried using chloroform as an anesthetic, which doctors did a long time ago, and the death was accidental rather than intentional.

Yes, I did see that, but I'm accepting the worst possible facts as true for the sake of argument. You have to assume that the jury rejected the defendant's "amateur veterinarian" explanation of events. And I'm saying that, even if they did, the conduct doesn't justify that type of penalty.

[access2]

can't mess with this mouse...

http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=4959628