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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

Dear smithjustinb,

I'm going to stick with my position. Here's why.

What you are quoting from page 62 (and by the way, that's a nice piece of digging you did, I'm impressed) refers to the offender data segment. On page 64, the manual talks about the offender data segment:


The Offender Segment captures data about each of the offenders in the incident (e.g., his/her
age, sex, race, and ethnicity). The reporting agency should submit a separate Offender
Segment for each of the (up to 99) offenders involved in the incident. If the reporting agency
knows nothing about the offenders—i.e., no one saw the offenders, there were no suspects,
and the number of offenders is unknown—then the agency should enter 00 = Unknown as the
data value for Data Element 36 (Offender Sequence Number), and leave Data Elements 37
through 39A blank. There must be at least one Offender Segment in each incident report.


And if you look at the bottom of Page 4 and the top of page 5, you'll see the data they're looking for from the offender. The name isn't a data category.

So, I still don't see name anywhere. They're collecting data by numerical code, not name. You can find all of the offender codes on Pages 119-121 in the manual. No names.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Now if you're looking for a more likely way for the Feds to get the information, the local FBI agent makes a deal with the cops to let him know when they charge someone with animal abuse.

That skips all the normal channels. I'm not sure how the local police would take that request, though.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

I feed feral cats as well, though I have never considered them pets. Only one ever made the transition from feral to pet in all of the years I have been doing so.

Personally I do not see this law pertaining to those kind enough to feed feral animals. If it does, then I am doomed because possums also tend to come to my porch to eat the food I put out. And there is no way in the world I am letting a possum into my home nor claiming ownership of it.

Of course, these things are not abuse at all. Putting food out is not a cruel thing. We actually have a local law or two that seeks to dissuade the habit ( claiming that more feral animals will get attracted ) but I ignore it.

FTR my statement about steak being steak was meant to be hypocritical - pointing out that we tend to view things through a cultural lens.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: smithjustinb

So...

You eat dogs, huh?

That's... odd.

Obama has.
Koreans do.
Many people would not eat horsemeat, but the French do and some Canadians do.
It is all about culture.


That's right and in our culture we view cats and dogs as beloved pets that shall not be eaten or abused, and that's why this law is a good law.

And anyone that has a problem with laws like these that are crafted to deliver harsher punishment to animal abusers, should perhaps consider moving to a place that provides a safe environment for them to practice their sick and twisted acts.

I hear Somalia and third world countries are a good places to consider, where there is no threat of evil government overreach!



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

They're not changing any law or increasing any punishment.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

You're right. No names are recorded.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   
What it's saying is you can do whatever to an animal, but the next step, or maybe it was the first, is to kill it. Then eat it. Then it's legal since that's what we do. An animal that has sweet human love made to it, surely can't be as bad as locked in a cage all its life then eaten. Maybe instead of the whole bride over seas thing we should be allowed to free these beasts, legalize polygamy, and have many pig, cow, whatever brides at our disposal.

They couldn't kill these animals if they were a husband, or a wife, to someone that loved them, and made love to them. Get PITA on board, this could be big.

"Love animals? Marry one, lest they be turned into a lunchables".



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

And anyone that has a problem with laws like these that are crafted to deliver harsher punishment to animal abusers, should perhaps consider moving to a place that provides a safe environment for them to practice their sick and twisted acts.

I hear Somalia and third world countries are a good places to consider, where there is no threat of evil government overreach!


I don't think its sick and twisted to eat a dog. I've personally never ate one, but I have no moral obligation not to. That doesn't make me sick and twisted. I think if you are that influenced by social norms to where you can't go outside of them and ask yourself, "does it really matter if I eat a dog" and conclude that it doesn't, I think you are the one who's twisted. Torturing an animal is a different story. I think a torturer is sick and twisted.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: 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.



Your a very very good example of why this law needs putting to effect. A 100% certified psychopath.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
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.


What excuse if there to leave a domesticated animal out in the wild?

Really there are a dozen other options.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnronOutrunHomerun


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?


Oh the irony...you can't exactly champion animal rights concerning harm yet see their death as unharmful like many in this thread are doing. Talking all this crap about animals' wellbeing while chowing down on a fat drumstick.

edit on 10/22/2014 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: 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.



Did you type that with a straight face? With posts like that I'm not sure if you're just trolling at this point or if you're being serious.

If you are being serious then I suggest you go and get a mental evaluation.

I know this is going off topic, but what do you think should be done with disabled people? Or people in wheelchairs that cannot sustain themselves without the help of others?

Do you also think that "natural selection" should take care of them?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Not giving an animal food, abusive and a crime. Force feeding an animal via tube, torturing it nearing the point of death that its organs start to dysfunction, which is the goal, then finally kill it to harvest the defunct organ....well that's just dinner.

edit on 10/22/2014 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

Your a very very good example of why this law needs putting to effect. A 100% certified psychopath.


Why? Because which part? The part about how I believe in natural selection? The part that I believe animals deserve to be free? The part that I believe animals deserve respect? The part that I believe an animal should be able to take care of itself and if not, no one else is obligated to do so? I'm not an animal torturer, or an animal rapist. So, because I think animals should be free, I'm a "100% psychopath" You're 0% able to form a logical conclusion.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: smithjustinb
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.


What excuse if there to leave a domesticated animal out in the wild?


Because idgaf. If a domesticated animal has done something bad enough that I feel like it should be dropped off in the woods somewhere then that's what I'm going to do and you and it can kma. Or, if I'm really mad enough, I'll just put a bullet in its head and call it justice.


Really there are a dozen other options.


Cry me a river.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

I know this is going off topic, but what do you think should be done with disabled people? Or people in wheelchairs that cannot sustain themselves without the help of others?


They're humans. Not dogs. I care about people a little bit more and give them a little bit different considerations than I do animals.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: smithjustinb
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.


What excuse if there to leave a domesticated animal out in the wild?


Because idgaf. If a domesticated animal has done something bad enough that I feel like it should be dropped off in the woods somewhere then that's what I'm going to do and you and it can kma. Or, if I'm really mad enough, I'll just put a bullet in its head and call it justice.


Really there are a dozen other options.


Cry me a river.


And. My point of this thread was to assert this right and in the process, piss off a few whiny liberals. Because I know how much you liberals like to whine. And, honestly, I enjoy eating your whines for breakfast. Which I have succeeded in doing so. So thank you.
edit on 22-10-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
I suggest you go and get a mental evaluation.



I'll get right on that.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

Because idgaf.

Sorry but me speak English.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

If a domesticated animal has done something bad enough that I feel like it should be dropped off in the woods somewhere then that's what I'm going to do and you and it can kma. Or, if I'm really mad enough, I'll just put a bullet in its head and call it justice.

Thats the bloody point! It much more humane to quickly put the animal down. Plus releasing said animal into the wild can cause devastating effects eg in the UK the release of Terrapins has causes a ecological nightmare in our ponds and lakes. Sure 99% of pets will die, the ones that dont can go on to kill local wildlife.




originally posted by: smithjustinb

Cry me a river.


It seems your the one that will end up crying a river on the floor of a prison shower room now that new laws coming into effect



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb


And. My point of this thread was to assert this right and in the process, piss off a few whiny liberals. Because I know how much you liberals like to whine. And, honestly, I enjoy eating your whines for breakfast. Which I have succeeded in doing so. So thank you.


So let me get this straight. Im a Liberal for wanting a law to protect animals from torture and unnecessary suffering?



ATS and its stupid labels.

You likely dont even know what a Liberal is HAHAHA to you its just some label you attach to anything you dont like!


Here something for . If I was in charge id likely scrap 90% of all laws that dont pertain to rape, Murder, unnecessary violence (to human and otherwise), theft, fraud and corruption.

How "liberal" is that for you?

Anyway im off to go eat a nice juicy steak.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join