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.

 

Experiment: What would YOU do?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
If this was in U.K. I would imagine any interference would result in a stabbing.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I would not say anything.. but I would kick their asses, just walk over there and SMACK !
and when they are lying at my feet, I would call the police and tell them what I just did...
People that abuse animals for fun are the lowest of lowest and I would get agressive the instant I meet them



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by theubermensch
 


Of course there is. I'm not stupid like almost everyone else in my country. But it sounded like you were implying that it was legal somewhere in the US.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by seabag
 
OP, let me guess what this is about.

TALKING about a criminal act vs commiting one.

In both senarios, people were only talking about a criminal act. And as far as I know, that is legal. 1st ammendment stuff.

Are people more apt then, to turn in individuals just for talking about it?

Apparently so.

(do I get a cookie for guessing right?
)

So if someone was talking about molesting a child later in the day you wouldn't turn them in because it's legal for them to talk about it?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I would get their license plate number
and notify the police. Most likely they
have other dogs they are using this
disgusting sport for. I would also let
the store employee know what I was
doing so he wouldn't sell the dog to
the person who wanted it.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I would be telling the store employee, getting the license plate number, and the calling the police with a tip,
If they were on their way out with the dog, i would be confronting them about it. If they decide to put up a fight, i will be knocking their teeth out. End of story
.

I cannot stand animal abuse, cannot stand it. It sends me into a frenzy. And couple with stupid people, makes me even more angry. So i would probably lash out and teach them a lesson. No need to fight dogs when your getting your ass kicked in the pet store.
edit on 29/1/12 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Depending on the situation around me i would first see about laying the guy out hard if i could get away without being arrested. Simples.

If not... I would call the lads in for a little hand and follow the guy after he left with the dog. We would get hooded and booted. The guy and whoever else in the house would be waking up with some sore ass legs after we set about them with a few hammers etc.

He would be 1 dog down, i would be 1 dog up.


I would first of all speak to an employee about the situation and if they didnt bother about the little dog i would resort to above options.... and probably go mental at them aswel.


What did you do OP?
edit on 29-1-2012 by Vaxar because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2012 by Vaxar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I simply cannot see the relevance of the question to constitutional principles. This is a moral (human) question.

From a constitutional viewpoint, the question raised is...Does thought crime constitute real crime?
The answer is no.

In essence the antagonists in this scenario have committed no crime. They are guilty only of making
public their intention to commit a crime. Threatening to harm an animal is (as far as I know) legal.
By that, I mean, I believe I could threaten the life of my neighbor's dog with impunity. Threatening my
neighbor, on the other hand, would be a criminal offense. (It seems human life is considered more
important constitutionally (or legally) than is animal life.

From a libertarian perspective I believe the same sentiment applies. But libertarian principles
come with a caveat of personal responsibility. The ideal of "...do what thou will, as long as your
actions harm no other" is a strict libertarian principle. But that principle applies only to government,
not to individuals.

As a strict libertarian and constitutionalist, I would challenge the antagonist with what tact I could muster.
But as a realist, I would understand that even if I were successful in this instance, the antagonist would
(probably) only be delayed in his endeavor to obtain a dog for the purpose of illegal fighting.

So, as much as it embarrasses me to admit, I would report the antagonist to authorities, knowing
full well that at the time of the incident the antagonist was only guilty of bad intentions. And would
hope that follow-up investigation by the authorities would lead to an actual arrest for the actual crime.

As one poster put it earlier, confronting the antagonist might lead to getting yourself stabbed.
In my case, the antagonist would be guilty of bringing a knife to a gunfight...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
D) Other: See what it costs to get in on that action.
2



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


C&D.

I'd get their license and tell them they're going to get reported.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I would video record them with my phone... call the police... inform a store employee... and confront them.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


d) I would say things out loud so they could hear me then I would rat them out to the store clerk.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think I'd defo tell the store to stop the sale and then confront the couple if it turned noisy. Man, I reckon that social apathy has caused so much problems for societies across the world. We don't intervene, we don't maintain basic standards of socially acceptable behaviour. I'm not talking about some guy or girl choosing to get their nose, eyebrow, kip or whatever pierced, I'm talking about the stuff that makes a difference to the mindset of what is basically right or wrong. Simple moral codes of conduct.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I would confront the couple, especially the male...probably about an inch from his face and instruct him to "leave the store immediately...or else". I would then watch as they left (if they did) and take down their license plate number to pass on to some of my police friends. If they didn't leave, I would loudly inform every store employee so everyone else in the store could hear also.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Other: Take note of their description. Take note of the conversation. Accidentally see what kind of vehicle they drive and plate number (you can be arrested for stalking if they suspect you are stalking them). Report the incident with the details to your local law enforcement/Bureau of Investigations office with a contact number.

They could already be under investigation or could be under cover. Making a big ruckus at that point would help no one and not get anything good accomplished.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
My reaction, which i feel would be the only logical reaction for a true constitution reverent, would be to directly confront them about the situation. I have always been good at reading people, if they are closed about the concept of dog fighting then they are probably doing it, which could mean they already feel guilty but are overwhelmed with greed or similar emotions. Since dogs raised to fight are, in practicality, an unsafe weapon, the owner(s) would have to be constantly dealing with a beast that could rip their faces off in heartbeat. And since the activity of dog fighting is considered an underground activity, the owner's would have no protection from sore losers who seek reprimands. Based on these ideas, it can be said that the owner of a fighting dog has already surrendered rights, and given up allot simply to make money, and personally i feel that a dog owner imparts a large portion of him/herself onto the beast, if the dog is willing and ready to fight on a moments notice, then the owner is likely just as unstable, psychologically, and has had his doom already decided (I.E. an individual who is fighting dogs for money is likely feeding a powerful addiction with his proceeds, or is involved in some kind of gang activity, both of which are already a mental prison).

Since the setting is in a pet store of some kind, and most people do not like talking to strangers, talking about a frivilous idea that they may be partaking in or not, could at the very least lead the to be dog owner to abandon his intent of purchasing that particular dog. However, if someone wants to engage in an illegal activity, such as dog fighting, they will do it regardless, and likely seek to purchase another animal elsewhere, ultimately rendering your efforts null. The only thing that can prevent this kind of behavior from occurring in the first place would be to instill as much understanding about the subject matter as possible. Although slightly unrelated, i feel people in general wouldn't engage in the use of methamphetamine if they understood what it does to the body and mind, or purchase coc aine if they knew the manufacturing process and how many people shed blood and sweat so that the purchaser can get high. After all, when the concept of blood diamonds from Africa reached top level media attention, many people and nations did what they socially could to curtail the purchase of them, but the activity still persists because certain groups of African's are desperate to make money and can not make enough or get their money quick enough, to feel secure and safe (if a civil war broke out in your region, and sanctions/turmoil prevented the 'legal' purchase of weapons or food would you not utilize your most liquid assets, such as gold, diamonds, and vehicles, to acquire what you feel you need to survive).

An open discussion means that the individual in question, is feeding a fancy, or is/was joking about the idea, however this may not always be the case. While people can be dark and disturbed, this individual has not broken the social contract of a fascist law, and therefore should not be subjected to any cruel or unusual punishment. However, if you still feel that these comparatively benign would be dog owners should be subjected to some kind of ridicule or punishment, whether by the law or yourself, could only be called fascism. If you feel that a fighting dog owner needs to punished in any fashion that is not acceptable by the social laws, then you need to accept the consequences of striking down, or killing someone, and carry out your justice (before staring a journey of revenge, you need to first dig two graves, one for your victim, and one for yourself).

While i feel that this is the realm for police/law enforcement, i would attempt to negate the behavior as much so as i am constitutionally entitled, because i would prefer my police officers keeping drunks off the roads and detaining murderers. After all, if you are not capable of defending a fascist or socialist ideology, or understanding even what your ideology is, then you have no business arguing politics, and this is moral politics, and remember how would you want other people to react if they saw you doing something illegal? Would you rather be confronted directly by your accuser and understand why he feels the way he does, or be thrown into a broken judiciary system where potentially more psychological damage could be inflicted by your lack of understanding? If you were speeding would you prefer to understand why someone feels endangered by the fact you are controlling a tonne of steel and aluminum in an unsafe manner because you are late to work, or would you rather take the police officer, who is not going to show any sympathy because he has had to peel the spilled bodies of children of the street from a driver who was text messaging her friend the phrase "lol," personally i'd take understanding and responsibility over mindless citation/internment.

Sourpill



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I would do nothing at all ,because anyone talking out loud about any illegal activity in an "off" context is a situation best stayed out of. Look at them just long enough to remember their face, then roll. It does not matter what them, or anyone else thinks. You worry about you. In a cloudy deal such as this, it isn't selfishness, it's self-interest. The difference is vast and radical. BAHGOOFUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
i'd confront them & inform the store owner/clerk.

take their license plate # so if i see them leave with the dog i can report them.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ballisticmousse

Originally posted by rexusdiablos
reply to post by Sandalphon
 

No canine deserves to be purchased and raised for death matches.


UNder the law, this is technically untrue. Police dogs are specifically bred PRIMARILY for the purpose that if a law enforcement officer is trying to take on an armed criminal, the dog is sent in to take on the suspect and take the bullets instead of the officer, in short, the primary task of Police dogs is to engage in death matches with armed suspects.


Sure, it might be legal. I stated that the canine doesn't deserve to be expected to engage in such death matches. You've essentially described a canine being used as canon fodder or a bullet shield. It's a matter of consent. Can we scientifically deduce that animal is consenting to laying its life on the line? In support of your arguement, I'll say that I do understand dogs. I could be steered to believing that they are not unlike Samurai in that they would boldly die fighting by their "masters" side. This leads me to my second point. It's a matter of specieism that the canines life is considered more expendable than a humans.

The hellish suffering we inflict on our fellow earthlings in lieu of assisting, safeguarding and loving them is one of the most baffling concepts I muse over.


edit on 29/1/2012 by rexusdiablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Either a or b, wouldn't confront them because I don't have strong opinions on dog fighting either way, might notify the store owners though just to let them know



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join