Posted on 12/08/2004 9:02:24 PM PST by Calpernia
hard to believe isn't it?
yeah it is i would almostt hink this wasfrom the onion but i know the onion wouldnt print it becasue they would think it is way to far fetched
only in NJ
the judge found him innocent, there was just too much publicity in this case. In NJ, the SPCA works with impunity, they can carry guns and make arrests with NO formal police training.
I'm pasting a copy of an article about it here. Seems a lot of the articles that were on the Net about it are starting ti disappear.
THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO THE ISSUE OF KILLING ANIMAL ``PESTS''
I WOULDN'T GO as far as The Wall Street Journal, but when it comes to man versus rat, I tend to side with the man almost 100 percent of the time.
The man in this instance is Frank Balun of Hillside, N.J. - now referred to by the New York press as the ``Hillside Rat Killer.''
Balun is charged with the brutal murder of a rat July 28 with a broom handle.
The rat killer is a 69-year-old grandfather who - or so the local director of the Humane Society claims - ``took the law into his own hands and beat the victim to death.''
According to press reports, the murderer set a trap for the rat, which had been plaguing his tomato patch. Once the rat was trapped, Mr. Baleun phoned the Humane Society to take it away.
In the meantime, however, the rat tried to escape, and to protect his twin 6-year-old grandchildren, Balun bashed it over the head with the broom handle and killed it.
The Humane Society's agent eventually arrived on the scene and removed the cage and the victim.
Several days later, when Balun went to pick up his cage, Lee Bernstein, the director of the Humane Society served him two summonses for cruelty to animals.
Mr. Balun faced a fine of $1,250 and up to six months in jail.
The case so outraged public opinion that the Union County prosecutor ordered that all charges against Balun be dropped. Now, steamed by what has happened, the Hillside Rat Killer wants total vindication. He has asked for his day in court, and trial has been set for Aug. 24.
The Wall Street Journal has said that on trial with Mr. Balun will be ``the notion that the life of any creature, such as a rat, is worth more than the safety or comfort of a human being.''
Although I agree that Balun should never have been charged with cruelty to animals, I cannot go along with The Wall Street Journal's broad assertion that the comfort of human beings justifies the death of any animal. Intelligence is, after all, the ability to make distinctions.
For example, a man who builds a home in the Arizona desert and has his sleep interrupted by a coyote's howl is surely not legally or morally entitled to drive his Jeep onto property not his own and shoot the critter with a .22. Surely people assume certain risks when they take homes in places that are known or likely to be the habitat of wild animals.
That, however is not the view of some residents living beside Lake Whitehurst in Norfolk. They have complained that beavers are gnawing down trees in their yards, and they have renewed demands that the city kill the beavers.
As in the past, the city has knuckled under to their demand and is now slaughtering beavers by the score in the cruelest manner imaginable. The underwater traps used by a city-hired trapper cause a slow and agonizing death that sometimes takes many hours.
It is tempting to ask what makes the beavers any different from Balun's rat, apart from the Wall Street Journal's observation that ``children don't take stuffed rats to bed with them at night.'' Children do take stuffed beavers to bed at night. And for good reason. They are admirable for their industry and improvement of their environment.
In making dams, beavers provide excellent flood and drought control devices. The dams provide a beneficial habitat for waterfowl, amphibians and a variety of fur-bearers. And in places where beavers make dams, there are nearly always more fish and birds than before. They certainly do chop down trees. But there has never been an instance where beavers totally destroyed their habitat by gnawing down too many trees.
Balun's method of execution for the rat took about 15 seconds. It was merciful compared to the heartless slaughter of beavers in Lake Whitehurst.
And the slaughter is meaningless. Nearly all knowledgeable experts are agreed that such extermination programs defeat their own purpose. The beavers that remain at Lake Whitehurst after this season's kill will have less competition for food. They will grow stronger and produce larger families - thereby expanding rather than reducing the beaver population at the lake.
But, nevertheless, the beaver slaughter continues.
Small wonder Mark Twain said that man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to.
In a 1992 report by the NCIB, National Charities Investigation Bureau, PETA spent 42% of its organizational expenses on fundraising. Only 20% on actual research and investigation in to animal cruelty.
More current reports examining PETA's tax filings have shown as little as 1% of PETA's total revenue actually goes directly to helping animals; usually small donations to animal clinics or similar organizations. PETA's 2001 tax filings show some interesting donations:
1. Compassion Unlimited Plus Action - Bangalore - Donation - $11.11
2. PETA Research & Education Foundations - Donations $29.16
3. In Defense of Animals - Donation $71.11
4. Virginia Police Defense Fund, Norfolk Police Union - Donation - $150
5. Society for Abolition of Animal Exploitation - Donation - $150
6. Kalamazoo Animal Liberation League - Donation - $150
7. Vieques Humane Society - Donation - $25
8. SNAP - Donation - $50,000
PETA's donations totaled only $206,655.58, but they had a total revenue of almost $14 Million.
PETA spent the following on
1. PETA TV - Expense - $13,268.84
2. Electronic equipment, computers, cameras - Expense- $33,869.24
3. Automobiles - Expense - $148,362.02
4. SNAP Vehicle - Expense - $150,000.00
5. Buildings and improvements - Expense - $295,101.60 (After a $195,000 donation of property)
6. Land - Expense - 94,170.00
It makes one ask the questions, what is PETA really about? Why do they choose to spend more money on promoting themselves than actually helping animals?
In 1999, PETA euthanized 1,325 of the 2,103 animals it took. PETA claimed that euthanizing the cats was much kinder than leaving them in the streets. PETA made the statement that a quick painless death is much better than a slow painful one. However, when hunters or farmers talk of quick painless ways of killing animals, PETA calls them barbarians and claim no animal death is justified.
PETA is only concerned with money and securing the wages of their directors.
Bunny burgers for the poor?
News 24 ^ | September 21, 2004
Posted on 09/24/2004 9:43:42 PM PDT by Ptarmigan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1226600/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.