Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man Gets 18 Months For Beating Puppy To Death
MaineToday.com ^ | 12/08/04 | Alan Crowell

Posted on 12/08/2004 12:45:36 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

SKOWHEGAN -- A 26-year-old Fairfield man was sentenced to 18 months behind bars Tuesday for beating a 4-month-old wolf-hybrid puppy to death with his fists.

James Mayhew pleaded guilty to aggravated animal cruelty in Somerset County Superior Court. Superior Court Chief Justice Nancy Mills sentenced Mayhew to five years in prison with all but 18 months suspended. Mayhew will be on probation for four years after he is released.

Kennebec and Somerset County District Attorney Evert N. Fowle said Tuesday afternoon that his office treats animal cruelty cases seriously because studies show a link between abuse of animals and violence against humans.

"People who would abuse or torture innocent animals are people who would do the same (to humans) under the right circumstances," Fowle said.

It was the second time in less than a week that a prison sentence was handed down for the relatively rare felony charge of aggravated animal cruelty in Fowle's jurisdiction.

In Augusta last week, Superior Court Justice Joseph Jabar sentenced a Randolph man to four years behind bars for running over and killing his girlfriend's pregnant cat.

Jabar said the act amounted to domestic abuse because it was an attempt to control his girlfriend. One witness described the man "howling and laughing," before killing the cat.

In the Mayhew case, Fowle said there was no link to domestic violence. The Fairfield man was apparently upset because the puppy urinated in his apartment.

"He beat the dog to death because it urinated inside his residence, but the dog urinated because it was scared to death of him because of past abusive treatment," Fowle said.

Police said the puppy was beaten over a period of two months and died on July 31.

An autopsy concluded the puppy had a broken rib, a severely bruised lung and bruised muscles around the head and ears.

Police said at the time of Mayhew's arrest, a veterinarian who performed the autopsy concluded the puppy either bled to death or suffocated on its own blood.

Mayhew had no other pets or animals at his Mountain Avenue home. He apparently had seen the dog advertised for sale and bought it at eight or six weeks old.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: animalcruelty; fairfield; jamesmayhew; puppy; puppypulp; redheadedstepdog; sadism; sadist; skowhegan; tenderizingthemeat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last
To: CGTRWK

... he will come out unemployable and hardened and there is a good chance he will have been turned into a real threat to society.
___________________________________________________________

Here's the rub, my friend. By killing the puppy-who wasn't killed for food, or because it was attacking him-he has ALREADY demonstrated his threat to society! He preyed on something weaker than him and that couldn't properly defend itself...what do you want to bet that several humans might very well fit into that category? THAT is the point.


101 posted on 12/08/2004 1:24:30 PM PST by exnavychick (Just my two cents, as usual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK
and there is a good chance he will have been turned into a real threat to society.

As opposed to now, you mean. < /sarcasm>

102 posted on 12/08/2004 1:25:01 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

To: areafiftyone
OMG that is sooo sick. He deserves to be beat up himself!

He likely will be when his fellow inmates find out what he's in prison for...Apparently those who harm children or animals seem to get their butts kicked when in jail..some sort of convicts code or something...

104 posted on 12/08/2004 1:26:14 PM PST by blinachka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

In the old days (and it probably still happens), when the farm cat or dog had another litter, it was into the burlap sack with a rock and into the river off the bridge. Not nice, but we better start rounding those people up if the majority on this thread have their way.


105 posted on 12/08/2004 1:27:06 PM PST by leadpencil1 (google "al-Taqiyya")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: blinachka
those who harm children or animals seem to get their butts kicked when in jail

Er, I don't think that's quite the correct verb....

106 posted on 12/08/2004 1:27:07 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

Comment #107 Removed by Moderator

To: steve-b
I have stated that locking up someone in anticipation of crime is wrong.

I have also stated that people are not property, as animals are.

We have manslaughter (which is murder without intent (or by accident)). People are tried for murder based upon intent because murder is among "people".

Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.

Killing an animal should either have no legal implications (think: roadkill) or at most destruction of private property.

My argument is the only rational answer.
108 posted on 12/08/2004 1:27:23 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion

Anyone who would torture a domestic animal death would probably do the same to a human.


109 posted on 12/08/2004 1:28:18 PM PST by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Sound logic. Let me know when you run for judge. You've got my vote.

I think some of these people were seconds in the movie called "Hang 'em High." Sort of scary for our jury system of justice.

Muleteam1

110 posted on 12/08/2004 1:28:22 PM PST by Muleteam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

they already do...


111 posted on 12/08/2004 1:28:22 PM PST by Americanwolf (Democratic Underground... Digital Crack for the the loony left.....Hey troll! Put the pipe down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
I have stated that locking up someone in anticipation of crime is wrong.

OK, so we've confirmed that in your world, the two killers in Msg#77 would get precisely the same punishment. Check.

112 posted on 12/08/2004 1:28:37 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: zoobee

To all you people who think this guy received too harsh a sentance:

Work in my wife's veterinary clinic for a while a see abused pets. You will change your tune. I'm still bothered by stuff I saw that happened 7-10 years ago.


113 posted on 12/08/2004 1:28:45 PM PST by superiorslots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1
Putting down animals you can't afford to feed is different from getting your jollies from killing animals.

Get it?

114 posted on 12/08/2004 1:28:51 PM PST by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel Fischer; ScottM1968

My bad...I was actually trying to reply to ScottM1968. Sorry!!


115 posted on 12/08/2004 1:30:06 PM PST by exnavychick (Just my two cents, as usual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: bullseye876

And you would be appropriately sent to jail for murder or attempted murder.


116 posted on 12/08/2004 1:30:17 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1

What do you think would have happened "in the old days" if some stranger had come onto the farm and killed a productive farm animal just for some kicks?


117 posted on 12/08/2004 1:30:46 PM PST by Durus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

Your point is well taken. An animal is physical property and should not be treated any differently than vandalism.

But, with all the cuddling, softness and best friend stuff, you might as well pack in this logic. Soon, juries will be awarding pain and suffering to the owners of dogs, etc.


118 posted on 12/08/2004 1:31:29 PM PST by fritzz (Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
We have manslaughter (which is murder without intent (or by accident)). People are tried for murder based upon intent because murder is among "people".

Manslaughter is also among "people", and thus logically equivalent if the distinction between "somebody who isn't likely to ever do it again" and "somebody who chooses to be a thug" is rejected.

Really, I would have thought that DU, not FR, was in need of this sort of Moral Philosophy 101 lesson.

119 posted on 12/08/2004 1:31:31 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.

That is up to the individual who has a pet or an animal in their life to decide. To many, MANY people, they have great value in more ways than can be counted...and not all monetary.

My argument is the only rational answer.

Darlin', if they ain't a liberal statement, I don't know what is! :)

120 posted on 12/08/2004 1:31:47 PM PST by najida (Aunt to Miss Emily Ann- Cutest Baby in the World.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

I never commented on your positing. I only said what I have stated.

You put words into my mouth by saying I thought such things.


121 posted on 12/08/2004 1:32:00 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1
"Not nice, but we better start rounding those people up if the majority on this thread have their way."

A drowning death for a newborn pup is a lot more merciful than beating a 4 month old puppy to death with your fists.

122 posted on 12/08/2004 1:32:52 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
We even have to put down animals. This criminalizes that behavior, too.

This sicko didn't euthanize an animal; he tortured it for 2 months until it finally died. Big difference.

123 posted on 12/08/2004 1:32:59 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Er, I don't think that's quite the correct verb....

Well, that too...but first they get a good beatdown...and then they become Bubba's personal shower-toy...(oh yuck!)

124 posted on 12/08/2004 1:33:51 PM PST by blinachka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

Nope. Shooting an obviously out-of-control thug on a rampage in your own home (which is presumably where one's pets are to be found) is clearcut self-defense. Any DA who would bring charges needs to be removed from office.


125 posted on 12/08/2004 1:33:52 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: paul51

At the very least, he should be sterilized. Just imagine how he'll deal with a baby or toddler that doesn't potty train fast enough for him.


126 posted on 12/08/2004 1:34:54 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
You put words into my mouth by saying I thought such things.

You said that it was unjust to consider likelihood of future crime when handing down punishment for past crime. That statement inexorably leads to the conclusion that the two cases described in Msg#77 are to be punished identically.

You staked out your position; you're stuck with its logical implications.

127 posted on 12/08/2004 1:35:58 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: chris1
"Anyone who would torture a domestic animal death would probably do the same to a human."

Statistically speaking, those who have become serial murderers started out torturing and killing animals.

128 posted on 12/08/2004 1:35:59 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1
These people on here are scary.

You are right. They obviously can't handle the real world.

Pets are people to them and a crime done to an animal equates to the same to a person.

This is truly sick to see among so-called "conservatives".

You'd all better not buy farm property or live in range country.

You couldn't have your senseless convictions there for long.

Animals are animals. People are people. Animals are only property by law.

We can shun people who do gross things to animals, but what more should be really do, when we gleefully look forward to a nice fillet mignon for our personal pleasure?
129 posted on 12/08/2004 1:36:23 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968; Americanwolf
Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst. Killing an animal should either have no legal implications (think: roadkill) or at most destruction of private property. My argument is the only rational answer.

Your post confirms who's a DUmmy and who is not. Lord help anyone who deals with you on a daily basis.

130 posted on 12/08/2004 1:36:27 PM PST by Americanwolfsbrother (Democratic Underground: Home of the Mental Midget Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
My argument is the ONLY rational answer.


131 posted on 12/08/2004 1:37:10 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1

Give it up... you know there is a difference between now and then. Was it wrong then to do that sure.. it was pretty damn cruel to kill an animal that way, but there were not laws on the books then that they could be charges with. there are now, and we know much more now about how to determine whether the psychology involved is a socio-path or a farmer that need to control population.


132 posted on 12/08/2004 1:39:49 PM PST by Americanwolf (Democratic Underground... Digital Crack for the the loony left.....Hey troll! Put the pipe down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I've adjusted my thinking. I'm with post #92. The odds are great that in 10 or 15 years we will read about a kids body found in a field and see this sickos pic on a mug shot. I have no tolerance for cruel and violent people. I say, give em a double dose of their own. If that makes me sick, so be it.
133 posted on 12/08/2004 1:40:10 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: najida
Animals can only be considered property. That is the only valid thought to have.

You may not recall the big animal rights protests of the late 80's and early 90's, but they logically made the same argument all of you are making. But they rightfully made it against any killing of animals.

You see, their perspective is perfectly consistent. When you buy it in part, you buy it in whole because our juries can see the logical progression.

The "animals have rights" line of thought will force vegetarianism upon us all.

Which is precisely what PETA wants.
134 posted on 12/08/2004 1:40:32 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Animal rights activists take your argument and extrapolate it to its logical conclusion--that any animal cruelty is wrong.

This means all slaughter of animals is inherently wrong, regardless of intent.

We must retain an "animals are property" stance or we are all screwed if we eat meat.


135 posted on 12/08/2004 1:43:41 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

And that kind of logic is how people like James Mayhew slide in under the radar, until they start killing off fellow humans. If his crime is prosecuted for being the henious act that it is, all to the good. He should also be psychologically evaluated while in prison, to determine the extent of his likely pathologies, and therefore his risk to society in general. After he serves his time, he ought to be followed up with by a shrink if he has a serious mental problem, as a condition of his four-year parole. As a previous poster stated, the fear of punishment is usually the only thing that keeps people like that under control. Sadly, even that doesn't always work.


Animals are property at best and pests and disease risks at worst.
___________________________________________________________

This gives me a glimmer of why you take the position you do.


136 posted on 12/08/2004 1:45:43 PM PST by exnavychick (Just my two cents, as usual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

areafiftyone wrote:


OMG that is sooo sick. He deserves to be beat up himself!






He probably will be.

Inmates often have hatred of people who are cruel to smaller weaker things like children or animals.


137 posted on 12/08/2004 1:45:59 PM PST by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno-World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
You are sounding very nutty.

Neither punishment is handed down in your situation for what may happen in the future, but for how the current situation came to be (premeditation).
138 posted on 12/08/2004 1:46:08 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968; Americanwolfsbrother
You line that you argument is the only rational answer indicates that you do not play well with others... What gives your rational trump over everyone else's.

You make the comment that the people here cannot deal with reality. That is pretty arrogant also. What gives you the corner on knowing everything and being right all the time.

Ok how about this. I come to your house. I see you dog in the yard. I feel that it is going to attack me just laying there sleeping. I beat it. Now you come out and start yelling at me for attacking you property.. I am now in fear for my life from a human and I beat you to death.... i am going to be charge for both crimes... That is reality!

Why because the court can see a pattern there. This is no different that what our friend did expect that he was mad at the dog for peeing on his floor. What happens if he had a Kid and it did the same thing... Myself and the rest of society are not willing to take that chance.

If you want a reality where unchecked violence is accept as a norm and is not challenged by everyday citizens..Try Russia they let you beat your dogs and family over there...

That is reality too...... Just because you have your view of what you think reality does not mean yours is rational.
139 posted on 12/08/2004 1:47:03 PM PST by Americanwolf (Democratic Underground... Digital Crack for the the loony left.....Hey troll! Put the pipe down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion

Disagree. 5 years hard labor would have been much more fitting.


140 posted on 12/08/2004 1:50:15 PM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I'm glad this guy got 18 months. I'm an animal lover, too (wife is on the board of the local Humane Society, she had an impact on me). We have a dog, two cats, three bunnies, two birds, two hamsters and a bunch of fish (all in in one "animal room").

I am also a staunch conservative, gun owner, hunter & fisherman. I'm glad the guy got 18 months, but the next time somebody beats up a 4 year old, they need to get 18 years.

The same judge might give a guy probation for hitting his kid...after psychological analysis, blaming it on Bush, his parents, drug "dependency" social injustice, blah, blah, blah.

Perspective and truth, please.
141 posted on 12/08/2004 1:50:30 PM PST by rightinthemiddle (The Mainstream Media is Enemy #1. The Bureaucracy is Enemy #1.5.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavychick
Again, if animals have rights and are not property, we must treat all animals as if they have these extra rights.

We cannot therefore kill animals for fun (hunting), food (farming), or safety (protection).

This argument was used somewhat successfully by animal rights activists a decade ago. By agreeing to their basic premise, we screw ourselves for any rational argument made from the flawed premise that animals can have people-like status.

They seem that way to us (and I have had many pets). But we cannot allow it them to be "personified into law".

Or we will be made vegetarians in the not too distant future.
142 posted on 12/08/2004 1:50:55 PM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

No way. I'm all for locking up sick sadistic freaks like this nutbar. Luckily, I'm confident that a vast majority of Americans share my views.


143 posted on 12/08/2004 1:52:31 PM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

"We can shun people who do gross things to animals, but what more should be really do, when we gleefully look forward to a nice fillet mignon for our personal pleasure?

"

Well, now. I eat meat. I hunt. What I do not do...ever...is intentionally be cruel to an animal, pet or wild.

Yes, my cats are my property. If you steal them, you'll get to go to jail. If I beat them to death, I will go to jail.

We have laws about cruelty to animals. You can slaughter meat animals if you wish, but you can't beat a puppy to death just because it peed on your floor.

Amazing that you cannot see the difference. Please don't have any pets, OK?


144 posted on 12/08/2004 1:53:06 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968; wideawake; Skooz
For someone who signed up in the past 3 months, you seem to think you are the arbiter of who is and who is not a conservative around here.

Most conservatives do not tolerate senseless cruelty in anyway. Beating a puppy to death because it isn't housebroken is not at all related to killing a a dog that is attacking you.

Unless you are a metrosexual who is that offended over your carpet getting soiled.

145 posted on 12/08/2004 1:53:40 PM PST by Bella_Bru (You're about as funny as a case sensitive search engine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
We do kill animals for food and in no way is an animal considered as having 'equal rights' to a human. I think the differences in opinion here are due to something that the law does not and cannot consider; how we feel about our pets, who in many cases are our best friends.

My dog for instance is a mixed mutt that I got from the humane society. If he were out on the street, he'd probably be picked up and euthanized. Pretty much worthless.

And yet, I care more about that dog than I do about most humans. If someone came up and killed my dog deliberately, I would probably shoot that person or tear them apart. I wouldn't care about prison or the monetary worth of a dog. I'd just kill the SOB. I can't explain it logically but rest assured it is true. People get upset about these things.

Should the law be written to reflect our emotions? Probably not. Just realize that my dog is not some cow or chicken, he's my partner. The law can't really account for that.

146 posted on 12/08/2004 1:53:52 PM PST by Sender (Team Infidel USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
The argument advanced by you, just now -- while not one I agree with -- is, intellectually, a responsible and respectable one.

"My argument is the only rational one," by contrast, is not.

Hence, the gentle visual reminder, earlier. :)

147 posted on 12/08/2004 1:54:34 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968

You seem to think that common sense of the people is not very great... I think our politicians and law makers know where to draw the line. You don't give you fellow man much credit.. and after you arguments here I am not willing to afford you much credit either.


148 posted on 12/08/2004 1:55:28 PM PST by Americanwolf (Democratic Underground... Digital Crack for the the loony left.....Hey troll! Put the pipe down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion
IMO people who value animal life over human life show signs of mental disorder, were my opinion to become the dominant theory of law make you happy to wind up with 18 months in a mental hospital because of your statements here?

Then following your logic, I'm definately not disordered. 5 years seems about right for sadistically beating a 4 month old puppy to death. I'd never let the monster that did it to a 4 month old human infant see the light of day, so all is well. Human life is treated with significantly more value.

That being said, it's disturbing as hell that we actually have freepers who think this was fine and dandy.

149 posted on 12/08/2004 1:55:41 PM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ScottM1968
Animals can only be considered property. That is the only valid thought to have.

WOW! Now that is very liberal! VERY....~~~ sigh~~~
To borrow from you, sweet cheeks, how sad to see such on FR ;)

You may not recall the big animal rights protests of the late 80's and early 90's, but they logically made the same argument all of you are making. But they rightfully made it against any killing of animals.

I am a geezerette, so I remember Sherman's March to the Sea.
What people are against on this tread are saying (for the b'zillionth time...so pay attention)
They are against the intentional suffering of animals. NO ONE HERE as said that they don't want any animals killed. We just know that those who torture animals for fun, are dangerous, mentally ill, and do it to PEOPLE at a later date.

I have skinned, gutted, scaled, plucked and cleaned many a supper. But everyone one of those critters wasn't the end result of a twisted minds day at play.

It they had been, the owner of said twisted mind would have been skinned, gutted, scaled and plucked.

You see, their perspective is perfectly consistent. When you buy it in part, you buy it in whole because our juries can see the logical progression.

No darlin' you are the one that doesn't get it.
(Lean closer sweetie, I think your hearing is defective)
Pleasure derived from killing/torturing said animal is what we are condemning.

The "animals have rights" line of thought will force vegetarianism upon us all. Which is precisely what PETA wants.

Oh please! You sound like Daddy who swore desegregation would end the white race by 1972. He also thought a black model on the cover of Glamour in 1969 was clear evidence that communists had taken over New York (OK, so he was half right)

No one will become vegetarian against their will. As a society progresses, we become more humane and aware of needless suffering. Practices considered OK a 100 years ago are now viewed as 'inhumane' (Bear baiting, check reigns (sp) etc).
We also become extremely aware of the strong correlation between those who get off on torturing an animal and the progression onto human victims.

150 posted on 12/08/2004 1:56:05 PM PST by najida (Aunt to Miss Emily Ann- Cutest Baby in the World.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson