US sheriff says mom forced son to kill pet hamster

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


Agree but my point is why were the police involved and the de escallation of what is a crime. Your point is more than valid and as of right now amy example is not comparable, but if tptb are involved in this! where does it stop? That's my concern.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The teacher was right to report the incident and it should be investigated. Appropriate action should be taken based on the results of the investigation.

Right now we don't know if the kid made up a lie, or if this really happened and it's just the tip of the abusive iceberg and the child needs to be given a new home, or somewhere in-between like the mom needs a week in jail and some counseling. She'll have her day in court and that's where the decisions will be made based on the evidence.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Such kind of person shouldn't be allowed a day in court but sent to a hungry tiger/ bear so the nature can teach her how it is to kill someone who cannot defend themselves.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by anotherdad
 


Okay, I think we're on the same page now.

The article indicated that the child told his teacher about the incident, and the teacher alerted authorities as a precaution.

Maybe the kid made it up, maybe he didn't, but from what I understand, authorities do not take lightly to child abuse, and arresting the mother while the investigation is pending sounds like protocol.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
She should be made an example for human virus, so if anyone ever tries to harm defenseless animals again they will remember the fate of this particular virus.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


How many of those sheeps were pets? In other words, was there a bond between owner and pet?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


I remember volunteering at an urban elementary school helping kids with math (No not spelling) and one of them one time told me about finding a snake and putting it in a box to keep as a pet. His dad found it and "cut it into little pieces and threw it over the fence" that "sucks" but to me did not require an investigation. I worked with this boy at that time over 6 months and no other incedents like that. My point is authorities do not need to be involved and if something is causing that much stress to behave that way an investigation would probably only make it worse.

If it means anything to what i think of people doing things like these, That incident happened over 15 years ago and still bugs me.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by niteboy82
 


Don't get me wrong please, the mother made horrible (to say the least) decision. But the alternatives would be....
1. Waste tax payer money over a dead rat.
2. have tptb tell us how to parent.
3. make people get a liscense to have children.

Thats my point and to back up my previous quote "that sucks" end of story IMO


I would like to make a 4th suggestion. How about we just sterilize everybody and the entire human race can go bye-bye. Who's with me??



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by Retseh
 


How many of those sheeps were pets? In other words, was there a bond between owner and pet?


I hope people like you have a one on one with a shark in open water, there will be a bonding of course but digestive kind of.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by niteboy82
 


Don't get me wrong please, the mother made horrible (to say the least) decision. But the alternatives would be....
1. Waste tax payer money over a dead rat.
2. have tptb tell us how to parent.
3. make people get a liscense to have children.

Thats my point and to back up my previous quote "that sucks" end of story IMO


No need to waste money on such virus, simply let nature take care of her in a similar fashion. Economic and in harmony



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 

She is a sick and twisted freak, who shouldn’t be anywhere near children or animals.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by anotherdad
 


The difference between the two is simple. In the case you cited the father himself killed the snake and you made no mention of him killing the snake out of punishment. However, in the recent case, the mother is said to have made the child kill the pet and it was because he was being punished. Yes, both involve the killing of a "pet" and it can be argued that the snake was not a pet (as there is no indication the father or mother ever purchased food for it, etc), but there is indication that the hamster was a pet because she recognized it as such, probably purchased food for it but ordered him to kill it (if the allegations are true.)

The main thing here, assuming it is true, is her making the child perform the act. That's what we should focus on.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by EMPIRE]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Is this directed towards the person I quoted or myself?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by anotherdad
 


The difference bwteen the two is simple. In the case you cited the father himself killed the snake and you made no mention of him killing the snake out of punishment. However, in the recent case, the mother is said to have made the child kill the pet and it was because he was being punished. Yes, both involve the killing of a "pet" and it can be argued that the snake was not a pet (as there is no indication the father or mother ever purchased food for it, etc), but there is indication that the hamster was a pet because she recognized it as such, probably purchased food for it but ordered him to kill it (if the allegations are true.)


Star!!
2 line post



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Who would have thought that 1 hampster could possibly cause SO much trouble???

Wait, besides Richard Gere I mean...




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by anotherdad
 



The main thing here, assuming it is true, is her making the child perform the act. That's what we should focus on.
[edit on 22-1-2010 by EMPIRE]


How much worse though is it than the parent who has no invlement or to much involement in anything/everything and speaks horribly to the child?

Let me put this way, if i could have gotten out of the Sh#t i had to deal with by killing a hamster, my only response would have been "can i just flush afterwords or do i need to bury it"



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


Agree but my point is why were the police involved and the de escallation of what is a crime. Your point is more than valid and as of right now amy example is not comparable, but if tptb are involved in this! where does it stop? That's my concern.


The police are involved because she broke the law. It's their job to get involved when people break the law. Forcing a child to brutally kill a beloved pet as punishment is child abuse, as well as animal cruelty.

As long as you are using the Slippery Slope logical fallacy to prove your argument, let's turn it around. What if the mother was not arrested for committing child abuse? Where does it stop? Soon, people will be able to abuse their kids all willy-nilly, with the police powerless to stop them!

Seriously. If you think that forcing a kid to eat vegetables is the same as forcing a kid to kill an animal with a hammer, why don't you just start making your kids brutally kill small animals as punishment for not eating broccoli? I bet it would be the end of two hour dinner sessions, one way or another.

You may as well argue that the police's ability to write traffic tickets will mean that it will be illegal to drive soon. This woman is a criminal, and all parties that got involved seem to have done their job properly. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a history of mental abuse in that house, and an investigation should be done to see what kind of help the kid needs.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EMPIRE
 


It doesn't matter if the animal and human have "bond", bond does not make it right or wrong to kill animals. If one kills defenseless animals (which pose no threat to them, or for survival) they out to be eradicated. You trying to justify it's ok to kill animals if there is no bond is disgusting.

And that was for you by the way.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Who would have thought that 1 hampster could possibly cause SO much trouble???

Wait, besides Richard Gere I mean...



It was not just 1 hamster, it was a life..a defenseless animal which had no means to protect itself which was abruptly ended. The punishment should be equal for that bloody virus called human.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking

Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by ZombieJesus
 


Agree but my point is why were the police involved and the de escallation of what is a crime. Your point is more than valid and as of right now amy example is not comparable, but if tptb are involved in this! where does it stop? That's my concern.


The police are involved because she broke the law. It's their job to get involved when people break the law. Forcing a child to brutally kill a beloved pet as punishment is child abuse, as well as animal cruelty.

As long as you are using the Slippery Slope logical fallacy to prove your argument, let's turn it around. What if the mother was not arrested for committing child abuse? Where does it stop? Soon, people will be able to abuse their kids all willy-nilly, with the police powerless to stop them!

Seriously. If you think that forcing a kid to eat vegetables is the same as forcing a kid to kill an animal with a hammer, why don't you just start making your kids brutally kill small animals as punishment for not eating broccoli? I bet it would be the end of two hour dinner sessions, one way or another.

You may as well argue that the police's ability to write traffic tickets will mean that it will be illegal to drive soon. This woman is a criminal, and all parties that got involved seem to have done their job properly. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a history of mental abuse in that house, and an investigation should be done to see what kind of help the kid needs.


I wonder why it's not considered "animal abuse" to torture animals in slaughter houses. Have you ever seen how they treat those animals? That's abuse! I notice how you used "broccoli" and "vegetables" as examples. But would it be child abuse if a mother forced her son or daughter to eat "steak" against their will, if say, the child wanted to be vegan at an earlier age? Or does it have to be a beloved pet? What if they lived on a farm? Would it be child abuse if the mother forced the child to slaughter his own cow for meat? What if it was with a hammer? At what point does it become animal abuse or child abuse? What if the child loved "all animals"? Would that fall under child abuse if they had to eat an animal they loved? I don't know exactly where I'm going with this. I have more questions than I do anwers.





top topics
 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join