Animal Cruelty To Be Classified As A Serious Crime

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Anyone who has ever owned a family pet knows they are loved members of the family. Animals in our modern world are at our mercy, someone who knowingly abuses an animal is an animal themselves.


These are the types of Laws I don't mind, now, if we could remove the Government sanctioned fondling at Airports that would be great.

Totally agree. We have begun to overcome racism, & the next hurdle for most humans is species-ism

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.

How do I remove a star for this thread? I misread & thought the OP was PRO this new law - clearly he is not, & is a prime example of a species-ist who assumes that having no tail & two legs befits one to be called human, which it does not.

a reply to: kiro8lak

The 'Thread's discussion' alone is worthy of a S & F in my opinion.

There, I gave you back your star

a reply to: smithjustinb

Sadly your not being realistic about this law, your just whining because it has obviously struck a nerve.

Animals are one of the beautiful things left and should be treated as such.

Who knows, this law may stop a lot of sick people that start out abusing animals and end up moving on to people...does this bother you

a reply to: EnronOutrunHomerun

I was surprised to see childhood bedwetting in that Triad in your first link. Because animal cruelty is a calculated act, and bedwetting is involuntary. I can only assume that extreme embarrassment/punishment and subsequent shame some children experience in regards to the bedwetting (and not the bedwetting itself) are the catalyst towards sociopathic tendencies?

I say this b/c my son was a bedwetter until about age 10. He was such a heavy sleeper. I just put a protective cover over the mattress and changed his sheets when it happened. And I told him it was nothing to be ashamed of, and not uncommon, and one day he would grow out of it, when his bladder grew to meet the demands of holding his urine thru the night. Once, to my horror, my father-in-law asked out loud in front of others "Did you wet the bed??? Aren't you too old to be wetting the bed???" Before I could say a word, my then 7-year-old son said, "Yep. Sometimes I do. I'll grow out of it when my bladder catches up. It's not a big deal." ...just as matter-of-fact as sunshine. I couldn't have been prouder. "Grandpa" never mentioned it again.

The main reason I was surprised to see it listed along with animal cruelty, as a precursor to sociopathology, is that the boy (now grown) has always had amazing amounts of empathy for all living creatures, and animals have always gravitated to him.

Sorry if this is a tangent off topic, but animal cruelty is a calculated act, and bedwetting is not. Just found it curious and wondered if extreme shame, and not the bedwetting itself, would be more accurate?

a reply to: smithjustinb

This is some long overdue, but amazing news!

a reply to: smithjustinb

So...

You eat dogs, huh?

That's... odd.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Good, hope animal abusers get their rears abused in prison. I have no sympathy for those who harm them who cannot fight back.

Hopefully, the cops who shoot innocent animals for #s and giggles will also have their boom boom time in prison as well.

Animals are the new MaRIJIHUANA.....
sOON THEY LEGAlise pot, and fill the prisons with new criminals....probably a lot of animal cruelty cases.....face it, they need the slaves in there....

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.

Everyone getting flustered and outraged about this, I cannot imagine why, except that this law might directly impact your activities in some way and threatens to curtail them. The examples given in the OP are ridiculous and nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to a non-threat, and in fact, a much needed change in law and legal perception of the "value" of non-human animals.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

Animals are food. We are supposed to kill them.

You have a very long way to go to maturity, in all ways perhaps save physical.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Me and my knee-jerks

So now cops who shoot pets better think with their heads and not their trigger fingers?

What's good for the gander...

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: romilo

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

Not exactly. That is your opinion, and a hypocritical one if you support this law.

In some parts of the country (like where I live) cats have a job. I have a small farm. There is hay. Mice live in hay. Mice also build up a tolerance to poisons (which I don't like just littering the property anyway, I'd have dead raccoons all over the place).

Most of my cats are not pets, they have a job to do and I have to keep a certain number (at least 5, although I would rather have around 9) to keep that rodent population down to something manageable. I don't keep all of these cats in the house. Two are housecats, the rest are, literally, barn cats. Most of these don't last more than a year. There are coyotes, foxes, hawks, eagles, osprey, owls, the horses that occasionally step on them, and then the highway that borders my property. My husband even accidentally ran over one in the drive way. It takes a toll. So we have one or two queens, they have their litters and we keep who we want and the rest go to other farms that need them around July and August, (or some housecat homes). I have no trouble getting rid of kittens.

These cats have full food dishes, they are on free feed but if I were to make sure every cat on this place had their full panel of shots when only half will survive the year I would be beggared by the expense. The house cats get their shots, and if it is a bad rabies year they get that but that is it. By most definitions of those who live in cities this is neglect.

These outside cats get put in a heated room if it is 10 below (if we can find them all) but any temperature over that and they are on their own. Most would consider this neglect as well. And to be honest, I do more for these barn cats than most people do. I'm considered soft because I feed them as much as I do and my house cats get their shots. I dropped 800 bucks on a C-section for my mamma kitty who has been with us for years and is our housecat, she is a pet and a member of the family. The others, although we rely on them, we don't get attached to. You see cats as pets, and I, by necessity of my culture and lifestyle, only see some of them as pets.

On another note, if I, by God see a mouse I will kill it. With alacrity. That could be considered cruelty as well. So could poisoning them for that matter. Vermin or not, why does the mouse have greater value than the cat? This value is determined by what HUMAN BEINGS value. Cute, cuddly kitten or nasty, disease spreading mouse...? Well of course we like the cat better. We determine this based on social perception, what WE value and well... like, not any real morality value. To make a law that ignores this is begging for an invasive, abusive law that judges differing value systems, not real malicious intent or even real cruelty.

Perceptions of neglect vary. That is my point. This is where the potential for abuse of the law lies because it is ultimately interpretational. I don't consider myself personally superior or inferior to a cat. It is a moot point. A philosophical exercise. Humans run this world for better or for worse, we determine which animals we value and for what purpose and my first obligation is to my own species. I also don't consider myself or (most of) my neighbors particularly cruel or sociopathic. In fact, in my experience there is more empathy, kindness and generosity in these rural communities than any urban one that I've ever been in. In an urban environment contempt for other human beings is far more prevalent. This is a horrible law and an absurd one that will only perpetuate the legal shut out of small farmers and those that would control their own food supply, as well as put more non-violent criminals behind bars to feed the for-profit-prison machine.

a reply to: redhorse

I'd like to thank you for your post. It seems to be the first that treads a reasonable path.

If you take the opinion that animals are a higher life form than humans, as one of our posters did, you run into two immediate problems, the simplest of them is that it kills our concepts of evolution bringing organisms to higher and better stages.

The second problem applies to those who think animals are higher, and to those who think they are equal.

Not whether abuse is bad, because it is, but why are we unwilling to give animals the protection we give to humans? People don't go into South American jungles to protect all of the animals against each other. My understanding is that some animals kill others in horrible ways. But we don't care about that, people say it's natural.

But we (as humans) do send police and soldiers to stop one group of people killing other people in horrible ways. Whatever your philosophy, humans don't see the death of a mouse as seriously as the death of a person. Even bald eagles, supposedly protected and double protected, are killed by wind turbines by the dozens and there are no penalties attached. We see experimental energy devices as more important than our national symbol.

Even PETA kills far more animals than it saves. The figures from Georgia indicate that it kills somewhere in the 90% range of the animals it gets.

And what makes animals special to us? Only our opinions of them. To say that a dog is better than, or at least as valuable as, a human, only says that your opinion of a dog is more correct than those who eat them.

If hitting an animal deserves our most serious punishment, it leaves open the question of why don't we treat people who hit people as severely? A stone in the ribs of a dog? Severe penalty. A stone in the ribs of a policeman at a demonstration? Maybe disturbing the peace or some minor assault charge.

And as far as proving that the animal abuser is a psychopath who needs to be locked up for society's protection? You're starting much too late. Lock up the school bully for years. Also get the boy who pulls pig tails, he obviously doesn't care about people. Maybe take a guy who gets drunk at a bar on his 21st birthday and lock him up before he becomes an alcoholic and kills someone in an accident.

But the funniest part of that is how many of you object to the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug leading to hard drugs and other crimes? All of you? Then how do you label animal abuse as a gateway crime leading to mass murder and similar acts? Sure, it indicates a person with a twisted soul, but you're not going to start locking those people up.

Oh, and protecting all living things? I don't believe you mean what you're saying, unless you protest against abortion.

a reply to: smithjustinb

This is good and long overdue!

Too bad it wasn't around when my neighbor killed his dog

Just because animals are edible doesn't make them only food... They're living creatures just like you, show a little more respect.

a reply to: Voyaging

If you're responding to me, let me know and I'll answer.

a reply to: charles1952

I apologize, I should have been more clear. No, it was not directed towards you, it was meant for the OP.

a reply to: Voyaging

Dear Voyaging,

Thanks, I probably would have written another phone book worth of stuff. You've just saved everybody that torture.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: romilo

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

Yup steak is a steak, thats why i would like to see cats/dogs/mankind meat factories on the markets, lets respect our own kids and our pets but rest of em are fair game and dam their rights and freedoms