22-year-old Svajunas Beniukas was arrested on animal cruelty charges after internet users helped police identify him and the bridge from which the small brown dog was thrown.
Posted on 11/19/2009 4:50:35 PM PST by JoeProBono
Police in the Lithuanian town of Kaunas arrested 22-year-old Svajunas Beniukas on animal cruelty charges after internet users helped police identify him and the bridge from which the small brown dog was thrown. The video shows a man holding the dog, called Pipiras, Lithuanian for pepper, and laughing as his friend records the event on his mobile phone.
Checking that the coast is clear, he makes a joke about dogs flying and then drops the animal off the bridge. Crashing onto a farm track below, Pipiras yelps in pain, and lies twitching on the ground.
But despite falling over 20 feet and sustaining multiple fractures and internal injuries, vets said the dog would survive.
"He's lived with me for four to five years," Petras Dunskaitis, the dog's 70-year-old owner told a Lithuanian newspaper. "He didn't deserve such a fate."
Originally posted on a Lithuanian website, outrage at the treatment of the dog snowballed as the 40 seconds of footage spread across the globe, even making it to Facebook through the efforts of a 3,000-strong group calling itself the "Lithuanian Dog Support Group".
Lithuanian police said a key breakthrough was tracing the local website, www.15min.it, where the footage originally appeared. The website's users identified the man as Beniukas.
Local media reported that Beniukas may have sought revenge on the dog after it was suspected of killing some of his mother's chickens. He has been charged wtih animal cruelty and faces up to a year in jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
22-year-old Svajunas Beniukas was arrested on animal cruelty charges after internet users helped police identify him and the bridge from which the small brown dog was thrown.
Sad when “animal cruelty” generates more outrage and even judicial punishment than murder/homicide... like abortion.
This POS should be strung up by his gonads and used as a pinata.
What a jerk.
See post three.
B**tard!!
I agree.
People that kill unborn babies need to be executed by the civil magistrate on charges of murder in the 1st degree.
The person that dropped the dog over the bridge should pay all property restitution, as well as be incarcerated for 6 months or so.
Please remember that using profanity is against the rules. It includes substituting symbols for letters.
A year is the LEAST this cretin should receive! There is no justification for cruelty to a helpless animal - none - ever. Animals do feel pain and this dog did not understand why it was being tortured. Many abusers of animals grow up to become abusers of people/serial-killers. String ‘em up early!!
So are you saying that I cannot be outraged by both? Because I am.
And I’m sure I don’t even need to put out the reminder that those who commit acts of animal cruelty often escalate up to the levels of murder and torture of humans.
I guess it kind of saddens me that there are some out there who cannot be outraged by more than just abortion. I’m outraged by what happened to Shaniya Davis. I’m outraged by what happened at Fort Hood. I’m outraged by abortion and the utilitarian use of fetal tissue. And I’m outraged by people who are cruel to other living creatures— whether they are human or animal.
Hmm. I guess I’m a power multi-tasker when it comes to outrage.
>So are you saying that I cannot be outraged by both? Because I am.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying, as I said before, that it’s sad to see when animal cruelty generates MORE outrage AND more judicial punishment than the [state sanctioned] murder termed abortion.
I agree that this guy was a cretin in his actions. I also agree that there was no justification in what he did.
However, pets are property - they don't have a soul.
Six months in the county lockup would send a clear message that you don't mess with other peoples property.
One year, if it was his first offense, would be cruel and unusual punishment.
By the way, dogs are far and away my favorite pet - but they're just that - a pet.
We will have to disagree on the “soul” aspect of animals. They are, sadly enough, considered to be “only” property by some and legally that has largely remained the case. However, to many here they are family - and valued much more than as just “animals we care for in our homes”. The sanctity of life is a thread which underlines both issues and I am constantly amazed at those who think that some life is not that valuable. That is what has created the current slippery slope we find ourselves on. When ALL life is not valued, we begin to justify certain actions: i.e. abortion, euthanasia, and abuse of animals.
The Bible is very clear that animals are property that we are to use wisely, but we are the ones created in God's image - not the animals.
I understand your love for animals, but there is a clear distinction on the value of their lives versus the lives of humans.
When ALL life is not valued, we begin to justify certain actions: i.e. abortion, euthanasia, and abuse of animals.
I have personally pulled torn apart aborted babies from trash dumpsters in California. They were ready to be thrown in the county landfill the following morning.
Yes, a pet that has been killed unjustly is very sad - but holding a murdered, torn-apart baby's eyeballs, arms, legs, and tiny feet in your very own hands is many orders of magnitude sadder.
The Bible actually says we have dominion over them - not that they are “property”. Nor can we say that because we are made in God’s image that animals do not have souls. Angels are not said to be made in God’s image, but would you say they are soulless? I do not doubt the trauma of what you have experienced, but please let’s not devalue some lives just because others are not being valued enough.
Your "interpretation" of the Bible is interesting, to say the least...
Answer me one question...If we can only get to heaven through Jesus Christ drawing us to Him and His atoning sacrifice on the cross, then how do animals obtain repentence and regeneration?
Answer - they can't.
So...if animals have souls then all animals will end up in an everlasting lake of fire and brimstone, since they have no way of being drawn to Jesus Christ.
They do not need to. They are victims of the fall. You are conflating a soul with ability to distinguish between good and evil, but that “ability” only existed POST-fall, so Adam and Eve would have been created without souls and somehow acquired them afterwards - an interpretation with which I cannot hold.
Is Jesus Christ honest and just?
If so, why did he cast demons into the Gadarene swine?
If those swines had souls, then this seems to be an unjust thing to do.
By the way - if you're insinuating that animals have souls and always go to heaven because they weren't part of Adam's fall then I need to congratulate you. That would be the largest "leap of biblical faith" that I have encountered for quite some time.
Actually, you are the one who seems to be making some wild interpretations here. Following your argument, Christ would be equally unjust to leave ANY demoniacs unhealed, yet nowhere in Scripture does it say that He healed all demoniacs. If you have discovered the definition of the “soul” then you are the one to be congratulated since theologians have been wrestling with an exact definition for decades. My original point (which you seem to have missed) is that when one decides which lives are worthy and which not you are on dangerous ground. There are far too many who claim that animals are “property”, ergo “I can treat them in any way I wish and can do as I wish with them.” It’s fine to be indignant and outraged over the loss of any human life, but how about some outrage and indignation for the lives of others?
Because there is no other life outside the life of humans that is so dear to God.
But I digress - we just went in a circle, and you're obviously not open to changing your strongly held view.
Have a great day in the Lord Jesus Christ my FRiend!
I think you are holding to your views as tightly as I to mine. But using the idea that God holds only human lives as precious is not only a stretch but also leads to justification of abuse and neglect of animals. That was, and remains my original point. Have a good vacation.
I believe in the Old Testament it goes into detail about punishing those that kill others’ livestock, and it says we are the caretakers of the animals, not necessarily that we could just do whatever we wanted with them.
As for the comments about whether animals have souls or not, who cares? Science has proven that they feel pain, and some of them have shown self-awareness. This is enough for me to feel anger towards anyone willing to let them suffer, soul or not. I never could understand the belief some have that if it’s below you, somehow the standards should be lowered. Why? Why not care for them and us at the same time? Is it really that difficult?
We should definitely care for our animals with gentleness and kindness.
I have nothing but disdain for the idiot that did this to the dog.
However, was it on an equal footing with somebody tossing a human over the bridge? No - they're two completely different things. Both wrong - but totally different.
I completely agree, solosmoke. I get angered by Christians who take the stance that “animals have no souls” since it invariably leads to a utilitarian/negligent and ultimately abusive mentality - all in the name of “They’re not as important as I am, therefore...” Thanks for the post!
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.