The Glade 4.0

I grew up on a farm, and we killed many animals. Some to eat, some because the were old/sick/injured, some due to overcrowding, and some due to threats to livestock. While the latter does not represent property, these were killed for protection of property.

The method of slaughter was determined primarily by the size of the animal in question. The larger you were, the more likely you were to be shot. But we would not have thought twice about shooting an animal in the head to put it down. Nor would it have occurred to us to ask anyone's permission.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/us/nc-veteran-kills-service-dog-trnd/index.html

This couple was arrested for shooting their dog. I don't know the details of the situation, but tying a dog to a tree and shooting it in the head does not seem like an inhumane act, setting aside the question of whether dog must die.

Thoughts on this? I don't think destroying your own property in a humane manner should be cause for arrest.

Clearly, she needed more support.

I'm not sure you can set aside the question of whether the dog needed to die. They didn't shoot him to protect anyone or their livestock, or to save the animal suffering due to illness. In one of those scenarios, I can see shooting the dog being the least-bad option, as long as it's a clean kill, but in this case...

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

Here is the local regulation:



http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/animal_c ... tions.aspx

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

LOL

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the fundamental question, but I think in this case the reason for shooting the dog indicates mental problems best addressed with something other than a felony conviction.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's an absolutely ridiculous statute. Not only is there no exception for protection of property (i.e. shooting a raccoon trying to steal your chickens), but there's no method to harvest a chicken, or put down an injured animal, or even go hunting. Hell, technically fishing would be against the law.

I'm hoping that's not right.

Totally. Clearly one emotional support dog wasn't enough. I recommend 2 next time.

There's considerably more at the link, so that isn't the entire statute. I didn't bother to read all the provisions thought.



No, no. A larger animal is what's called for. I think a support bear or perhaps a support cougar would be appropriate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Too small. We should strap her to a support Orca.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm all for that.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

I feel like we're being unfair to the Orca.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Orcas are merciless killers of the deep. They are not concerned with your human notions of "fairness" or "mercy" or even "humanity".

Plus, the heinous ***** will make a good snack after she drowns and the dissolving restraints set her free.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

They look pretty cuddly to me. Not sure what kind of weird Orcas YOU hang around with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They're far from cuddly.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Not if you're a seal

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Certainly these have nothing to fear.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

We used to kill feral cats when the dogs would tree them and sit under the trees for days, then one day there was a feral cat that had a collar...

We stopped after that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

What she did was not humane. There was no reason for the maltreatment and death of this animal. Aside from that, you are correct.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Is it both sentient and sapient? No.
Is it your property? Yes.

Do with it what you want.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think intent matters here. If she was trying to put down the dog because she thought it would be the best for it (even if she was wrong), then I would be okay from it. But from the description of the video, it sounds like it was done for fun as a source of entertainment. That's definitely not okay in my book.

I'm fine giving a large benefit of the doubt to someone who shoots their pet because they think they had a good reason to, but in this case there's video evidence that clearly shows otherwise. Or at least that's how they describe it. I haven't watched the video or read anything about their defense, so who knows.

I haven't watched the video because I really just don't want to, but reading the description in the article a second time it almost sounds like the boyfriend was pushing her to do it, perhaps exploiting her mental issues for his own reasons?

Not that this necessarily excuses her; she hasn't been found incompetent or anything, but I do think it lends weight to the secondary issue of the outsize felony charge.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, I'm not sure. Shooting the dog in the head is not inhumane. As for "no reason" - you may very well be right, but again - does that matter? If you believe your property should be destroyed, and you do it humanely, should the reason why you thought that really come into play?

I put a dog to sleep a while back, and used a vet for this. If I had taken her out back and shot her, should that be illegal?

If there was nothing wrong with the dog and you laughed while you shot her five times, and then let your friend shoot her another 5 times just for fun? Yes, that should probably be illegal.

First of all, condolences on your dog. I had to put mine down last fall, and I'm still **** wrecked over it. Anyway, to the discussion at hand....

I think there's an argument to be had about whether or not shooting a dog in the head is "humane" when the vet option is available. If it's a clean and immediate kill, maybe, but there's no guarantee of that. Setting that aside, though, there's a lot that goes into the question of whether the reasons for killing an animal matter. I believe they do, and I think your instinct that killing an animal should be done humanely is related. If the dog is purely just "property", why is there any obligation to treat it humanely? We don't worry about destroying a chair or other inanimate object that is our property, so why an animal? Obviously, it's because the animal is a living thing that's capable of suffering, and most people believe, as I do, that we have a moral duty not to kill or cause suffering needlessly. As the word "needlessly" indicates, that duty can be overridden if the reasons are compelling enough, and there's a sliding scale for that based on how sophisticated we think the animal is (and hence how much it loses by dying and how capable of suffering it is). Dogs and other domesticated animals are really high up on that spectrum, so killing them for shits and giggles is a violation of that moral duty.

Also, before anyone else wigs out that RD said moral duty, it's your moral duty as codified to the best approximation of societal consensus the legislature could come up with. It doesn't break your rights to your property to make a law saying you must mitigate the suffering of that property, when that property is capable of suffering in the first place. I think the issue is the alarming circumstances of the shooting rather than the fact of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So much subjective in this.
If it's a "clean kill" then maybe it's ok.
Don't kill "needlessly".
Reasons must be "compelling enough"
"how sophisticated we think the animal is"

Bottom line is that the "vet option" costs money, can extend suffering (assuming the vet's not a witness to whatever caused the suffering and standing there with all his gear). My dog, for example, suffered during the period of time that I took her to the vet, and waited for the vet to help out. Was the suffering excessive? I decided that it wasn't. Point is, though - MY decision.

I'm not overly interested in the case I linked above - hopefully there's some reason beyond shits and giggles, but maybe not. They are clearly douche bags, whether the dog needed to be put down or not. But I do find the notion of being arrested for putting down an animal with a bullet to be somewhat concerning.