Results 1 to 15 of 57
-
7th April 2005, 09:57 PM #1
Animal cruelty …. Time for legal action.
I feel that I need to get something off my chest …. Over the past few months there have been horrific stories of animal cruelty from a small sector of sickos in our society.
I don’t really want to go into detail, first of all I don’t know all of the details, and second of all I don’t think it should be encouraged.
The first story that I heard was the torturing of a kitten by army personnel in Queensland. The people involved were identified.
Then there was another kitten tortured at a train station in Sydney by a number of kid, it was caught on tape and shown at length on the news. Again I think the kids were caught.
There were a number of copycat (no pun intended) attacks in and around Sydney following the above case.
Last night I heard about a kitten being decapitated in Tasmania.
Another story about a man that beat his German Sheppard puppy to death with his bear hands because it ate his cigarettes. He was charged.
And finally if that isn’t enough some old fart who beat his neighbours cat to death with his walking stick. The cat was owned by a young child, and again he was charged.
Now a majority, if not all of the perpetrators of these acts have been identified and some have been bought before the courts.
The man who beat his puppy to death with his hands – 6 weeks in jail, suspended for a year.
The army personnel – community work with the RSPCA – they didn’t want them.
The kids at the train station?
I think the old fart got off.
Now why isn’t there public outrage over the leniency of these sentences? The cases get media coverage as a shock story when it comes out, this in my opinion should be stopped as it does encourage other sickos to follow. They get bought before the courts and very little coverage or comment is made over the leniency of the sentence.
It is about time that the legal system made a stand and laid down a sentence that will strongly discourage this behaviour. The legal system needs to get its finger out of its bum and make a strong stand. All it would need is one of the perpetrators in one of the above cases to be given a lengthy (2+ years) jail sentence to set a precedent for this type of crime. If the lawyers for the accused start to cry that it is all due to the bad childhood and mental issues, then lock them up in a mental hospital for 3+ years.
Torturing a defenceless animal in any way should be treated with the same distain as a child beater. I would like to see how funny or how tough these people feel when they are being give a whipping by a guy called Bubba in a 6x4 cell, perhaps this would make others think twice before they do the same.
Now before you tossers get on and post the redneck comments that the only good cat is a dead cat, don’t bother. If an animal is causing a problem then dealing with it humanly is one thing, but bashing a puppy to death with your hands is sick. My soapbox is about animal cruelty, not ethical animal control.Now proudly sponsored by Binford Tools. Be sure to check out the Binford 6100 - available now at any good tool retailer.
-
7th April 2005, 10:21 PM #2
yep agree 100%, people torturing or harming animals should be locked up for a long time.
If anyone feels the need to harm a defenseless animal it probably means they have some serious mental problems anyway so lock'em up or flogg'em
Only problem will be trying to get our hopeless politicians (any party) to do anything about it
nic
-
7th April 2005, 10:52 PM #3Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot
Decreased meat quality due to transportation and stress is well documented in other animals: swine - PSE (Pale Soft Exsudative); beef - DFD (Dark Firm Dry) and is of a major concern in these industries. Much concern has been devoted to find the critical stressful points in these industries and new laws and codes of practice have been introduced to decrease the incidence of meat loss due to stress.
Stress prior to slaughter results in depletion of muscle glycogen which is one reason for abnormal carcass and meat characteristics (15,16). In a normally rested animal, there is sufficient tissue glycogen to cause adequate post-mortal glycolysis, which lowers the pH just after slaughtering (17). The glycolysis increases the muscle acidity, resulting in a low meat pH. The pH of stressed animal meat falls below of that usually found in the meat of healthy non-stressed animals. In stressed animals, glycogen can completely disappear and the meat begins to decompose (14).**
On the other hand, the rapid despatch of any non-indigenous species by any method is preferable to allowing them to inflict a similar sort of suffering on indigenous species.
Cats, canetoads, foxes, wild dogs, rabbits, wild pigs are all guilty of inflicting the same sort of cruelty on our native species!
I always reckon the punishment should fit the crime.... but then who's going to be the hangman?
Cheers?
P (Cane toad Tosser)
-
7th April 2005, 11:07 PM #4Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Unfortunately animals react based on their instincts and even if cats do kill native birds they can't be blamed it's life. We humans are supposed to be a bit more civilised.
nic
-
7th April 2005, 11:14 PM #5
I'll make an observation; the Army personnel would have also lost their jobs if they were convicted, so it is a little more than 'community service'. Another view may be 'double jeopardy'.
Asking the legal "system" to take a stand will merely invite one side to give harsher penalties and the other side to further ignore the intent of the law and become more active in further screwing it up.
It's an imperfect system, they all are. But if you want action, go and meet your local member, face-to-face, and get angry. We, as Australians, get the laws and politicians we deserve - because we are too complacent (in general).
Edit: I've added this as the tone of the above paragraphs is not right. If it seems I am in some way disagreeing with your sentiments, I'm not. My comments contain some frustration at Aussies in general who are apathetic about the political process and don't get involved, therefore the situation doesn't improve and their complaints become self-fulfilling prophesy.
When opinion is strong enough and forced on the pollies they do listen (whatever their motivation may be).
-
7th April 2005, 11:18 PM #6
I'm with Stinky. I own six cats and two dogs and they are all part of my family. My cats are always locked away during the night.
I once got a guy who killed his land lords German Shepherd in front of the kids. We got him and took him straight to court. He plead guilty and got the maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. It's one of the few times I've been impressed with a sentence and believed that it fit the crime. The magistrate told the crook that if the max had been five years, he would have given him that.
DanIs there anything easier done than said?- Stacky. The bottom pub, Cobram.
-
7th April 2005, 11:23 PM #7Originally Posted by nic
Sorry, didn't mention cows as another feral, which along with the rest (except the toads) I am happy to eat when killed humanely.
Unfortunately animals react based on their instincts and even if cats do kill native birds they can't be blamed it's life. We humans are supposed to be a bit more civilised.
It's not OK for a human to inflict pain on a fluffy animal, so if a human chooses to keep a pet which will do the same, why is it OK to allow that to happen??
:confused: :confused: :confused:
And a big green smooch for DanP and other responsible pet owners!!
(Sorry Dan, I tried!)
Cheers,
P (Just warming up!)
-
7th April 2005, 11:31 PM #8
I am watching with interest where this thread goes.
Today at lunch a guy made a 'joking' comment to another about 'kicking his cat up the ring' if it came in his yard again. What followed amazed me, the second guy made an immediate comment about animal abusers being likely to be paedophiles - which was followed by an expectant silence as the table drew breath, waiting for the first punch.
Fortunately the first guy just gaped in disbelief and refused to talk to him again.
-
7th April 2005, 11:50 PM #9Originally Posted by bitingmidge
My concern is directed towards the members in our society who seem to take some perverse pleasure in inflicting cruelty on animals. These animals can be anything, cats, dogs, wombats, kangaroos etc, it has just come to my mind after hearing so many stories of late, focusing on dogs and cats.
"I'll make an observation; the Army personnel would have also lost their jobs if they were convicted, so it is a little more than 'community service'. Another view may be 'double jeopardy'."
Lost their job??? they still got off lightly in my opinion. Do we really want these type of people defending our country? Even if they were on a bender and had a few drinks under their belts its is still something inside that makes them think it would be fun. I had a feeling that they had lost their jobs but I couldn't recall all of the details (as I said in my first post). I do remember that they were asked to due community service with the RSPCA to help them learn respect for animals, but the RSPCA said that they didn't want these types of people around the place.Now proudly sponsored by Binford Tools. Be sure to check out the Binford 6100 - available now at any good tool retailer.
-
8th April 2005, 12:03 AM #10
Lost their job??? they still got off lightly in my opinion. Do we really want these type of people defending our country?
Errr, no. That's why they were sacked. The Army won't keep people like that.
Since the topic is raised though, why is it the Army guys' occupations are mentioned?
Where did the puppy beater work?
What school did the kids go to?
Where did the old fart work?
I wish the media wouldn't mention the employer as if it is their fault. As far as I can tell, the Army should be praised as the only other group in the country to actually DO something.
-
8th April 2005, 12:05 AM #11Originally Posted by Groggy
If I was sitting at the table I would quite quickly loose any respect for the fellow. He seems like one of those died in the wool Aussies who seem to have to continually define their masculinity ..... was he going to kick the cat after he had drunk the two slabs of VB and slept with a hooker on the way back from the footy?Now proudly sponsored by Binford Tools. Be sure to check out the Binford 6100 - available now at any good tool retailer.
-
8th April 2005, 12:12 AM #12Originally Posted by Groggy
I would think that the media mentioned the occupations of this particular group because they are seen as a position of public power and respect. Much the same way as if a police person had done the same action. I think that being in this occupation they were seen as abusing the public trust in the position.
Army should be praised as the only other group in the country to actually DO something.
I would agree and they did all that they could do within their power on this issue, they cannot be faulted. I don't think for one moment people would think that the army had anything to do with how the individuals behaved.Now proudly sponsored by Binford Tools. Be sure to check out the Binford 6100 - available now at any good tool retailer.
-
8th April 2005, 12:16 AM #13
I said "joking" not "funny". It was obvious to the rest of us at the time he was not serious by the manner it was said. Still, it was taken literally by the other guy.
-
8th April 2005, 12:20 AM #14Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot
If I did what they did three things would happen to me.
1. I would be charged criminally and sent to court.
2. I would be charged internally within the police force and face dismissal
and very heavy fines.
3. I would be sacked.
The Army guys should have faced and received exactly that. That is the way it goes. They should know better.
DanIs there anything easier done than said?- Stacky. The bottom pub, Cobram.
-
8th April 2005, 12:30 AM #15Originally Posted by DanP
1. The Army cannot bring criminal charges, only the police. The Army cannot take precedence over civil action (though between the police and the Army they may agree who will take action). The police always have precedence. In this case the police apparently did bring criminal charges, hence their appearance before a judge.
2. The Army can fine their members but it is unknown if this occurred (though likely).
3. The Army did sack them.
I think they did what they could, but wanted to do more.
Bookmarks