It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animal Cruelty To Be Classified As A Serious Crime

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: new_here

Good point - Yeah, and I think that is one of the main reasons why they have difficulty statistically tying those together. It does state however:



...if all three or any combination of two, are present together, to be predictive of or associated with later violent tendencies, particularly with relation to serial offenses...Source


But I'd completely agree - I think that's a loose fit, generally speaking, without the presence of other more extreme factors.

Romilo - When you say "dam(n) their rights and freedom" are you acknowledging that they do in fact have those attributes and you choose to ignore them?




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

For once I feel proud of someones decisions, maybe I am wrong maybe we are not going down the drain yet.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I've wanted harsher sentences for animal cruelty for the best part of 40 years now.
It's kind of a strange subject for me to analyse though. If I caught someone in the act of being cruel to an animal, there's a good chance I would inflict more pain on the abuser than the abuser was actually doing themselves.

So where does that leave me??
I usually switch off and think about something else around now. :-|



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: smithjustinb
But what if i want to release an animal into the wild?


If you do that then you are idiot.


Whatever dude.


Not only does that harm the animal (domestic animals released into the wild do very poorly and most look forward to a slow death) but in some cases they can do huge damage to the environment.

So yes I would happy be on a jury and find you guilty with uttermost pleasure.

If it bites a member of the family or is dangerous then a quick round to had will be much more humane or better yet call animal control.


I'm the type of person who doesn't believe in pets. I think treating an animal as property is, in many cases, disrespectful to that animal. I am a minority in thinking this way. But, I don't care. I don't want any pets. Not that I couldn't handle the responsibility. I believe animals deserve basic respect. Imo, all animals deserve to be free and out in the wild and I would be happy to put them there so that they can live as free animals. If an animal fails to survive on its own, then that is its natural weakness on this planet and it naturally doesn't belong here in the most primal sense. Just like a lot of humans. If you fail to sustain yourself. That's called, "natural selection". You think I should be locked in a cage for wanting something to be free? Well, thats just like, your opinion man. And I really don't care about it.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: smithjustinb
And then, you'll be put on some watch list? I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals. But, this is government overreach and piss poor execution of legislative power. Animals are food. We are supposed to kill them. That's the way I see it. Do they include bugs as animals? I mean they're drawing lines in the sand and then saying you're equal to a murderer for crossing them. America is going down the drain pipes with these liberal nut jobs running our country.


Really animals as bugs, what are you 4 years old?


Yeah really. No. They are conscious beings. They are trying to survive just like anything else. Just because they're small and ugly, they're not animals? Like I said, lines are being drawn in the sand.


Then again I have read the rest of your posts and can already see your thought process..enjoy your superiority to pets.


To be honest. If, I had a pet dog and he an I were on a deserted island and he was the only food. I would eat him without hesitation. If that isn't superiority, I don't know what is.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
For the record, I believe anyone who tortures an animal is a sick individual and should receive a harsh punishment. But, letting one go in the wild is freeing the animal and if it can't survive on its own, then that is its problem.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
news.yahoo.com...


A recent decision by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) means animal cruelty crimes will soon be included within the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) - National Incident Based Reporting System



When this change goes into effect in 2015, federal law will regard animal cruelty as a crime against society and a Group A offense, a category that includes crimes of a serious nature, including arson, burglary, kidnapping and homicide.


So, come 2015, animal cruelty is now going to be right up there with murder and kidnapping.


There will be four categories under the new animal classification: Simple/gross neglect; intentional abuse and torture; organized abuse; and animal sexual abuse.


Simple neglect? Like setting your dog free into the wild because he bit a family member? I have cats that hang out outside my house that I feed. So now, am I not allowed to stop feeding these strays? Or do I have to take them to the local shelter so that no one who wants them will cause them to be humanely "put down".


Equally important, these cases may serve as an early warning to alert the criminal justice system to individuals who pose a future danger to the community.


And then, you'll be put on some watch list? I'm all for the ethical treatment of animals. But, this is government overreach and piss poor execution of legislative power. Animals are food. We are supposed to kill them. That's the way I see it. Do they include bugs as animals? I mean they're drawing lines in the sand and then saying you're equal to a murderer for crossing them. America is going down the drain pipes with these liberal nut jobs running our country.



I do hope the people who are giving you all those stars are applauding the change in the law and not your response to it.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
More harsh punishment is over due. Locally "Anti animal cruelty" law was only recently was put in place in my state. Looks like they countered it with AG- Gag / anti surveillance laws, protecting the farms, some of who need to be exposed.

What's kept it from being enacted over time is people worried about being charged unfairly. What is simple neglect under their guidelines anyway, as is worried about here. It's likely it's not about what you're worried about(feeding the strays or not), but will look more into it. Though the rest of the decision seems alright.

OP Article states that,


"The National Sheriffs' Association is committed to providing law enforcement officers with information about the realities of animal abuse and its close link to other crimes," said Thompson. "We are gratified by the FBI's response and [FBI] Director Comey's commitment to improve public safety."

Within that PD, especially those who have cases of officers in animal case misconduct, those issues should be addressed with this too.

a reply to: smithjustinb




I'm the type of person who doesn't believe in pets. I think treating an animal as property is, in many cases, disrespectful to that animal. I am a minority in thinking this way. But, I don't care. I don't want any pets. Not that I couldn't handle the responsibility. I believe animals deserve basic respect. Imo, all animals deserve to be free and out in the wild and I would be happy to put them there so that they can live as free animals. If an animal fails to survive on its own, then that is its natural weakness on this planet and it naturally doesn't belong here in the most primal sense. Just like a lot of humans. If you fail to sustain yourself. That's called, "natural selection". You think I should be locked in a cage for wanting something to be free? Well, thats just like, your opinion man. And I really don't care about it.

That aligns well with PETA -granted some Liberals also- as they also don't believe in having animals for pets. However, that is talking about DOMESTICATED animals. A dog especially does not function properly in the wild as does it's wolf ancestors. Just by nature alone, due to domestication over the years is enough to have them easily be killed by not only other canines such as wolves but easily affected by humans.


originally posted by: smithjustinb
For the record, I believe anyone who tortures an animal is a sick individual and should receive a harsh punishment. But, letting one go in the wild is freeing the animal and if it can't survive on its own, then that is its problem.


You're trying to defend your position, that is understood. But if you're talking about putting a domesticated dog or cat out in the middle of the woods, no people around for miles and miles, then it would be your problem to place an animal in such a place, because they likely have a very hard time and meet a sad fate.



edit on 22-10-2014 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I would assume they won't include confinement farming? You wonder why you and your family are sick research where and how your food is produced.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I'm happy with this law. I've been in one fight in my life and it was while growing up. I saw someone sticking a firecracker up a cats rear. That person got a severe beating. The cops afterwards agreed with me that the guy simply tripped on the curb.

Anyways, I see all animals as beings worthy of life and being free from cruelty, I won't even kill a fly that manages to find it's way into my house or a wasp nest above my door. I understand where others are coming from though, meat is delicious and the last thing anyone ever wants to do is to start seeing human qualities in their food. I should know, because that's how I see cows, pigs, and chickens these days and that's a tough view to get past when you're eating them.

In practice from this law I hope that it puts a dent in the rate at which cops kill our pets, and I hope it makes us take a real look at factory farming. Neither of these things are ok and we do nothing about it.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
OK, I've had enough fun watching.

Please notice that there is nothing in the source article saying any penalty will be increased or any new law will be made.

In fact, the only change that is happening is that the FBI will be moving reported animal abuses offenses from the "other" category, to a more highlighted category along with other serious crimes.

Again, no new penalty, no new law, it's just an "accounting" shift.

Don't get so excited.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: romilo

Dogs are pets. Cats are pets. Steak is steak.



In India the Dogs are the food and they see the Cow the way we see a Dog. If they can see such qualities in the creature, doesn't it imply that they're there?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952

Again, no new penalty, no new law, it's just an "accounting" shift.


That includes putting you on a watch list and facing higher scrutiny in situations where those lists are checked.

Again, I wish all the worst in the world for someone who neglects an animal and ties it to a tree with a short leash without food. I consider that extreme neglect. They mentioned, "simple neglect". That's the key term that has me worried about how easily someone might could be put on one of these watch lists by doing something that a lot of people would not consider neglect, like leaving your dog in the wild to try to survive on its own.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: romilo

Dogs are pets. Cats are pets. Steak is steak.



In India the Dogs are the food and they see the Cow the way we see a Dog. If they can see such qualities in the creature, doesn't it imply that they're there?


Meat is meat.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: romilo

Dogs are pets. Cats are pets. Steak is steak.



In India the Dogs are the food and they see the Cow the way we see a Dog. If they can see such qualities in the creature, doesn't it imply that they're there?


Meat is meat.


Humans are also meat, and yet you're presumably not a cannibal.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Dear smithjustinb,

The FBI reports are statistical. They don't include names. The reporting departments don't send in individuals names. All of the decisions concerning punishment are still done at the local level, just as was done before.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: romilo

Dogs are pets. Cats are pets. Steak is steak.



In India the Dogs are the food and they see the Cow the way we see a Dog. If they can see such qualities in the creature, doesn't it imply that they're there?


Meat is meat.


Humans are also meat, and yet you're presumably not a cannibal.


I would eat a human if my survival depended on it. But, not in normal circumstances. The same goes for pets. However, if it were me, a dog, and another person stuck in the desert with no food, I'd eat the dog first.
edit on 22-10-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for that clarification, my comment was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I do understand that varying cultures have varying socially accepted norms regarding the treatment of animals. My statement was actually meant to show a bit of the American hypocrisy in this regard. Here we have the luxury of buying meat from a supermarket in a nice, clean wrapper. We do not have to engage in the actual killing or cleaning of the animal itself.

This allows for a moral disconnect which lets many of us remain omnivorious where we might eat much less meat, or become vegetarians otherwise.

Yet here we are discussing household pets. If I were to have a pet cow or pig - there is no way I would be able to mistreat it or see it as food. If that animal became sick, I would find medical attention for it just as I would any member of my family. And, if the time ever came where there was no hope and the humane thing was to stop the animals pain, I would do so mercifully and with a heavy heart. I would not utilize a pet as a food source, regardless of what breed of animal the pet was.

Sadly I have known many people, including members of my own family sadly, who feel that pets are possessions and have no qualms whatsoever about using them as stress alleviation devices. I was raised by a woman who is abusive by nature and feels that unmerited violence is a valid form of communication. IMO that is what we are discussing here, at least in part - those who think that beating on and mistreating animals is OK. Cruelty is cruelty in my eyes, and I am glad that there are slightly stronger rules to dissuade those who are so inclined.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: smithjustinb

Dear smithjustinb,

The FBI reports are statistical. They don't include names. The reporting departments don't send in individuals names. All of the decisions concerning punishment are still done at the local level, just as was done before.

With respect,
Charles1952


Sorry. Nice assumption. But, you're wrong about that.


The Group A Incident Report provides all the information about Group A offenses using up to
six data segments (Administrative, Offense, Property, Victim, Offender, and Arrestee).


www.fbi.gov...

Page 62.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for that clarification, my comment was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. I do understand that varying cultures have varying socially accepted norms regarding the treatment of animals. My statement was actually meant to show a bit of the American hypocrisy in this regard. Here we have the luxury of buying meat from a supermarket in a nice, clean wrapper. We do not have to engage in the actual killing or cleaning of the animal itself.

This allows for a moral disconnect which lets many of us remain omnivorious where we might eat much less meat, or become vegetarians otherwise.

Yet here we are discussing household pets. If I were to have a pet cow or pig - there is no way I would be able to mistreat it or see it as food. If that animal became sick, I would find medical attention for it just as I would any member of my family. And, if the time ever came where there was no hope and the humane thing was to stop the animals pain, I would do so mercifully and with a heavy heart. I would not utilize a pet as a food source, regardless of what breed of animal the pet was.

Sadly I have known many people, including members of my own family sadly, who feel that pets are possessions and have no qualms whatsoever about using them as stress alleviation devices. I was raised by a woman who is abusive by nature and feels that unmerited violence is a valid form of communication. IMO that is what we are discussing here, at least in part - those who think that beating on and mistreating animals is OK. Cruelty is cruelty in my eyes, and I am glad that there are slightly stronger rules to dissuade those who are so inclined.



Well said.



new topics




 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join