Cat Escapes Its Silver Coffin

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

A 19-year-old surrendered to authorities after a cat was found cocooned in duct tape in a Philadelphia yard last week.

James Davis, 19, told Pennsylvania SPCA law enforcement officers he wrapped a cat in duct tape the evening of September 21.

The cat, nicknamed Sticky, apparently spent several hours alone before being discovered in a yard on the 2200 block of Edgley Street. The female cat was so tightly wrapped in duct tape that she could not walk.

"I've been doing this for a lot of years and I have to say that this is the worst case … I've seen animal's feet duct-taped and their mouths duct-taped, but never a body suit like this," George Bengal of the PSPCA said.


Source: cbs3.com...

Sorry if this is not a correct place to post this. But I wanted to share it with everyone.

To me it seems, animals have no rights (under constituion); they are treated as property. They lack even the right not to be abused and tortured. This is unfortunate but without a radical reassessment of the rest of our society, it is the inescapable truth.




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Actually, they may not have the right by constitution, but they have the right by law. There are several laws in place to protect the safety of the animals. Whether one agrees with these laws or not is something else entirely. I personally feel that if we were to be free for all against the animals, eventually the system would turn on us and we would be royally screwed.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
If you can torture another living thing you have no conscience.

WTH is wrong with some people?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Peoples' cruelty to those who cannot speak for themselves (animals, birds, etc) has been an issue that has brutally traumatized my psyche and caused me to wimper in the dead of night. I am a poor and disabled person who, as a result, has really no power, it seems, but then I learned about and joined, The Humane Society Of The United States, who seek to constantly combat oppression to critters, even the ones who await their slaughter for consumption. Magically, I feel better.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
My apologes if I was not entirely clear in OP. The message I wanted to pass was as they have no Constitutional rights, shouldn't they have? Afterall, every life is equal.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
They --SHOULD-- have constitutional rights.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by simonecharisse
 


Thanks..I echo your sentiment. But then how do you suggest seperating the technicaalities. For eg. if you decide to give constitutional rights to animals that would include insects too for eg. house fly, mosquito etc. I know this sounds funny and kinda silly' but how does one propose to draw a line from animals to insects if every life is treated equally.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Yeah, therein lies the challenge. We as humans have not learned our place in nature.. or perhaps we have simply forgotten. I do not kill roaches or spiders or other insects when I happen across them. They leave me alone and I leave them alone. I have no reason to kill them.

Ants and Mosquitos, however, don't leave me alone. They attack and even though it is simply part of their nature, it is also part of my nature to defend this shell I am in from attack. Thus they get squashed.

This is a matter of evolution and growth on the part of humans. We have to learn what it means to be a part of this world... for now, some, if not most, feel that we own this world and are somehow seperate.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 

I don't have an answer, as your question brings up enormous complexities and soul searching. Rogerstigers post makes a lot of sense to me. I know that I myself, do not let spiders crawl around in my little apartment, and mosquitos and flies are even MORE persona-non-grata. (As with roaches, and ants.)



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Is this seriously a thread about whether animals should have constitutional rights????


Ok, sorry for that but really guys....

The Constitution is for and should only be for HUMANS. The constitution LIMITS what laws can be enacted in protection of humans civil rights. Limits to laws... Animals can not and should not be expected to abide by the law of the land... humans can and should, therefore laws about human conduct have to be LIMITED in order to protect OUR rights.

Until we expect animals to abide by the law, the constitution should not protect them from it.

The constitution does not give anyone rights... it protects them through the limiting of laws. We are all born with rights whether we live in the U.S., Zimbabwe, or the moon.

Perhaps you do not understand the document itself. Please, please read through it... United States Constitution








[edit on 3/10/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Animal cruelty is one of sick sides of our society. Together with Human to Human cruelty. But constitutional rights to animals? Like - vote for me, my cat food is the best? Freedom of barking? Real donkey and real elephant fighting for presidency?
I agree with rogerstigers - there are laws, they have to be followed and criminals punished. Constitutional rights though....
If illegal foreign worker would get cat with American citizenship - would he become legal?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Wow, what the hell happended to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Im an not advocating animal abuse or cruelty or anything, but come on!!! What is going through peoples heads when they say animals should have constitutional rights?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Should animals be protected? Yes.

But changing the constitution? No. This is a document which applies to human matters. And you don't change it just because you feel sorry for a cat.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain

My apologes if I was not entirely clear in OP. The message I wanted to pass was as they have no Constitutional rights, shouldn't they have? Afterall, every life is equal.

Where do these ideas come from? What drugs are you on?

I do not advocate cruelty to animals in any form. But to declare that you think an ant should have Constitutional rights (I wonder what party would get the ant vote?) is plainly absurd! Do you believe as well that a person who swats a housefly is guilty of murder? Would you like to see chickens allowed to drive cars as well?

As I mentioned, I am against animal cruelty in all its forms. But it is arguments like this that make me despise and distrust any attempt to protect animals legally. The Constitution is a document covering the government of people, not the government of animals.

I can't believe I am even responding to this thread....

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Here we go..another soon to be serial killer let go unpunished.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
....well....if you beat a cat and get caught, chances are, you'll suffer more than if you beat a person...

Animals protected by the constitution that AREN'T human? Hmm...some of us are really boned then...That's all I need...my livestock picketing me for redress of their grievances...

But in a way, yeah, we should give them the SAME rights WE have...then the government can kill them, shut them up, imprison them with no cause, invade their homes, tap their phones and tax them to death...after a few months of THAT crap, they'll be begging to just be animals again...



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Actually none..perhaps you did'nt read this line in the OP. And I asked other members to discuss how to seperate insects from animals if suppossedly such a law be enforced. Please don't just read one sentence.



To me it seems, animals have no rights (under constituion); they are treated as property. They lack even the right not to be abused and tortured.


Not constitutional right to vote or any such things, but rights not to be abused or tortured. If someone would use a silver duct tape on a human in a similar manner and leave it for dead would that person get the same prison sentence as as happened in this case? No, it will be more severe.

There are many other articles how dogs, cats and other animals are totured thry frying them in Ovens, dismembering their tails/paws, skinning the animals alive etc and they get out with a light sentence or a small fine. But that animal is crippled for it's life, many even die frying in ovens.

If a similar thing would have happened with a human everyone would be shouting murder and for death penalty etc etc.

So how about enforcing thru constitution a right not to be abused and tortured? Surely this wont bring other aspects such as voting, taxes etc etc.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain

So how about enforcing thru constitution a right not to be abused and tortured? Surely this wont bring other aspects such as voting, taxes etc etc.

Have you ever read the Constitution? I don't mean read what people say about it, have you actually read the document itself? It has absolutely nothing to do with laws against cruelty to animals!

The US Constitution is a document giving certain rights to the US government. A part of that document declares certain limitations on the government by specifying rights which the people did not and will not and can not give to that government. It does not specify what is legal and what is not, what punishment fits what crime, or anything remotely resembling that.

You need to read the Constitution and understand it before you start talking about it, because your extreme ignorance on the subject is not only showing, the glare from it is blinding people.

The US Constitution Online

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
You do know we have animal cruelty laws don't you?

As for the constitution, it has absolutely nothing to do with this. I guess nobody read this earlier so I will repost it.

This thread is frustrating. :bnghd:


Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Is this seriously a thread about whether animals should have constitutional rights????


Ok, sorry for that but really guys....

The Constitution is for and should only be for HUMANS. The constitution LIMITS what laws can be enacted in protection of humans civil rights. Limits to laws... Animals can not and should not be expected to abide by the law of the land... humans can and should, therefore laws about human conduct have to be LIMITED in order to protect OUR rights.

Until we expect animals to abide by the law, the constitution should not protect them from it.

The constitution does not give anyone rights... it protects them through the limiting of laws. We are all born with rights whether we live in the U.S., Zimbabwe, or the moon.

Perhaps you do not understand the document itself. Please, please read through it... United States Constitution












[edit on 4/10/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
im sorry but i found this funny... this made me laugh the image of the cat like that.

im sure the cat is ok yes?





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join