Felony animal abuse charges for killing Goldfish, This is getting out of hand

a reply to: infolurker

Having known and also worked with some fairly messed up people over the years, animal cruelty is often the starting point for more human centred ambitions, child abuse being a suitably emotive example.

I think we need to take a bit more care of the world around us too rather than just thinking we are the be all and end all.

I believe that senseless animal cruelty should be punished, and that we would actually be smart to be wary of folk who totally don't care.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krakatoa

Lol get outta here with your strawman crap dude.

Maybe YOU don't place any value on goldfish. You don't speak for humanity.

Strawman. Lol

Who is this guy and why does he post so much on ATS?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krakatoa

Lol get outta here with your strawman crap dude.

Maybe YOU don't place any value on goldfish. You don't speak for humanity.

Strawman. Lol

Who is this guy and why does he post so much on ATS?

I think he just fat fingers his way to the site on accident a lot

originally posted by: Answer
I think this case has a lot more to do with the emotional intentions of her action and less to do with the act itself.

Anyone with the mental capacity to kill a person's pets out of spite deserves a harsh punishment.

I read the entire article and I'm more prone to side with you on this topic. A lot of it has to due with her state of mind. She seems to be a little bit vengeful maybe she should seek anger counseling.

a reply to: infolurker

It was a pretty malicious act... pouring BLEACH into their fishtank? Sorry, I actually do think this punishment fits the crime, although the title of "Felony Animal Abuse" would make it seem like a more serious act.

The woman should pay her dues, take whatever she is given and learn from this mistake. 'Nuff said.

a reply to: Shamrock6
Here, fixed that for ya, to be more accurate.

a reply to: infolurker

Goldfish have as much of a right to life as we do, so whats the problem. Any needless suffering and death caused is wrong, especially when done in such hateful spite. She deseves what she gets, bleach is nasty and those fish will have suffered.

Feeding animals to other animals is natural (even if it is disgusting and barabaric) so its an entirely different situation. However killing animals for sport should be completely consigned to a historical footnote as that is even worse than doing something out of spite. The chances are she feels remorse for her actions. Spite usually is a reaction, sports hunting is something done for pleasure. Do hunters feel remorese for theirs?

The animal cruelty charge for fish is a bit much, what's next, animal cruelty charges for the kids who feed theirs to the pet cat, or eat one themselves on a dare? Or what about eating a worm on a dare? Charge the kids who take a magnifying glass to an ant hill?

She definitely deserves charges for destruction of property, that's indisputable.

I think we need to start indicting veterinarians on murder charges then.
Kervorkian wasn't allowed to even assist a suicide, why should they be getting off scot free?

You accidentally kill a dog or a cat or a fish, it's an accident. You deliberately kill a dog or a cat or a fish with the knowledge you are causing harm maliciously for no other purpose than to cause harm that's not an accident and that is malicious and that is a crime.

Slaughter a cow for food, not a crime. Torture the same cow before slaughter, it's a crime, if you get caught.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: infolurker

This lady deserved what she got.

Oh, I agree. I just think setting a precedent of "felony animal cruelty" for goldfish is a bad precedent that they will use on others later to increase their revenue and felony conviction rates.

I note the bleach spots on her shirt...

caught white spotted.

a reply to: butcherguy

I know your post was sarcastic, but I am not. They are murderers. They chose to go into a war zone to kill for money.

a reply to: Nyiah

Here is the difference:

I have a cow. If i want to eat that cow, and slaughter it by administering a shot to the head that kills almost instantly, no problem. I am just harvesting food.

But if im not interested in eating that cow, and instead decide to create a death that would be considered "cruel and unusual"....that is a different matter altogether.

One thing that GW Bush used to say (without any real meaning) that I liked is "We are a nation that values life". Life is the gift of our planet. In all its forms.

It isn't that I love goldfish. To be honest...i am coldly indifferent to them. But to kill them by pouring bleach in their water....that is cruel and unusual. I also bet you'd get in trouble for gassing your cow with something that was caustic. Even though it is "food".

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: infolurker

This lady deserved what she got.

Oh, I agree. I just think setting a precedent of "felony animal cruelty" for goldfish is a bad precedent that they will use on others later to increase their revenue and felony conviction rates.

What she murdered the fish? It wasn't like she knocked the fish bowl over accidentally and they suffocated. She deliberately poured bleach into the bowl knowing full well what was going to happen. Pets, even fish, are widely considered to be extended members of the family. I know if some crazy ex deliberately killed my pets in her unhinged rampage through my house, I'd want to see her charged for it.

She maliciously destroyed her partner's belongings and killed his pets. What type of pet does NOT matter in the eyes of the law. Really that simple. Animal abuse is animal abuse, you can't cherry pick what animals "qualify" in cases of animal abuse.

Pretty simple.

originally posted by: kiro8lak
a reply to: infolurker

Racism is ALMOST dead; next is speciesism. Why do the lives of goldfish have less contextual value to THEM, than your life does to YOU? Please don't answer, just think about it. . .

For the simple fact that I can think about it where as the goldfish cannot.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I think we need to start indicting veterinarians on murder charges then.
Kervorkian wasn't allowed to even assist a suicide, why should they be getting off scot free?

It's just slightly different in this case.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I get your point but let's change the scenario:

Woman kills boyfriend's dog by pouring bleach in its water bowl!

Still no big deal?

Extreme appeal to emotions. Apple's and oranges.

originally posted by: Firefly_
a reply to: butcherguy

I know your post was sarcastic, but I am not. They are murderers. They chose to go into a war zone to kill for money.

Did you read his post as "veterans" and not "veterinarians"?

Genius... Way to blow your anti-veteran load on poor reading comprehension.

I'm going to be a billionaire when I invent a way to throat punch people through the internet.