Sing Sing guard gets year in jail for killing 5 kittens

News Radio 88 ^ | 3/22/02

[Conservative til I die]

Actually, what you state flies in the face of fact. Animals lie somewhere between property and life with rights. A human does not have the right to gun down 300 stray dogs with a machine gun.

[Conservative til I die]

While cruelty to animals is a senseless waste of resources, animals are merely property. sending someone to prison for a year for killing some kittens is utterly useless.

While exploding someone's car is a senseless waste of resources, cars are merely property. Sending someone to prison for a year for exploding another's car is utterly useless.

[Conservative til I die]

"Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals children in the womb."

"Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals and children in the womb."

Better?

[Conservative til I die]

"I wish there was something about that in the Bible"

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous [man] regards the life of his animal, But the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel.

The groups who sought to stop cruelty to animals were founded and filled primarily with Christians in the early days. Darwinism provides no rationale whatsoever for treating animals well.

Once you believe that all that matters is money and property, and that there is no God but one's self, humane treatment of others becomes secondary.

Aha, and therein lies the rub. The biggest supporters of Darwinism, both natural and social, as well as being the most anti-religious and anti-Christian in particular, are the fringe libertarians and Marxists.

[Conservative til I die]

You are spot on (this coming from a vegan). The man's real crime was killing cute animals. I wonder if the judge has ever been to a slaughterhouse?

Our laws and ethics do not operate within a vaccuum. We use common sense and cultural values to realize that cruelty to animals that are commonly kept as companions and pets, and not as food or pests, is wrong. A dog does not equal a cockroach in the eyes of our culture, our ethical structure, or our legal system, and nor should it.

Just the same as the law recognizes that "murder" in self-defense is not the moral equivalent of premeditated, 1st degree murder.

PS-The various states of the USA have regulations on the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. Abuse is not endorsed in slaughterhouses either.

[monkey]

Killing kittens is culturally unacceptable, because we use cultural values to determine acceptability? That is circular and meaningless reasoning.

Killing kittens is illegal because they are cute, and people use them as pets. Not so for those ugly old pigs and cows, except maybe those cute pot-bellied pigs. It's all about how our feelings, you see (as long as we aren't inconvenienced, of course). Oprah rules!

If "cultural values" are so defined, then abortion is fine too.

[Mini-14]

"Wake up folks! It was a litter of kittens, not someone's child."

I have a cat for 16 years, and loved her from the day she was born. If someone killed her, I might just find a new use for my screen name.

[Mini-14]

I am both Christian and Libertarian. Perhaps there is a difference between myself and "extremist" libertarians.

[gg188]

he should be charged for theft of another's property.

Absolutely correct. This is the first time I believe I have ever seen what is a tenet of libertarianism ever stated outside of drug threads. In his natural state, among man's rights are dominion over animals (given him by his Creator, though lots of atheists are onboard with this as well), of course. Animals have no rights (except to animal worshippers, which we become when we start treating them like people and like gods.)

This isn't an argument for animal cruelty. This is merely a statement of an aspect of political philosophy.

I personally am not libertarian. I hope that some libertarians here haven't fired up a blunt yet this morning and will come and cogently argue the conservative side of this issue based upon property- and natural rights.

(It's a separate issue, but human nature can't help but consider the utter insanity of a one year sentence for this man's cruelty, while rapists and all variety of human vermin routinely roam free, rewarded, even INCENTED in crime. We have become a nation that gets more outraged at the death of an animal than the murder in a clinic of a human baby, legal, even ritual. We institutionalize the worship of NATURE. We've had threads like this before, and we see the results of the left's takeover of education and academia in the last forty years. Common sense humanity morphs into literal state-defined "sacred cows."

You can see how we got where we are, and where we are going.

[Nowhere Man]

Personally, people who are this cruel deserve the same treatment in retribution. Maybe to some, this is a bit harsh, but I often wonder about people like this on how they treat their kids, spouses, etc. Myself, I took in a mother cat and three kittens last year and they are the most loveable dears one can have.

My great uncle was Assistant Warden at West Penn here in Pittsburgh many years ago (1930's/1940's) and many inmates did keep pets. Personally, it is a good idea as long as the prisoner isn't like a scum bag like this guard, maybe teaching them some humanity.

Well, I'm at work so I have to cut this short, but the judge is a lot kinder to this guy then I would have been. B-(

[areafiftyone]

I saw a special on TV about a program they have in some prisons. They take puppies and give them to the inmates to train to be seeing eye dogs. The inmates get real attached to the puppies and you even see them cry when they have to give them away. Pet are good for imates - they bring out compassion that has been buried away for years. They are not a cure for anything but they do seem to help the prisoners realize there is something in this world that is dependent upon them. This guard was cruel and deserves the year in jail. I would believe this guard can be just as cruel to humans if given the chance. I would love to put him in a compactor for a few minutes to let him feel what its like to know you are going to be crushed to death.

[John O]

As their stewards we are to treat them humanely and minimize their suffering when possible.

Of all your post this is the one line that gives a reason not to be cruel to animals.

(please note that I am playing devil's advocate here. I've owned up to 21 cats at a time and always treated them exceptionally well. )

Animals are not human. They are at best property.

We are required, however, to be good stewards of what God has given us.

So the question arises, How does my duty to be a good steward of what God has given me, overrule my neighbors right of freedom to do what he wants with his property?

GSA(P)

[John O]

Wow. Kittens are "property." God, I'm glad you don't live in my neighborhood.

Do you have pets? Who owns them? If they are not owned by you then anyone can come and claim them at any time.

The question you (and others) struggle with is not the fact that animals are property. Its how the guard chose to dispose of his property (since that property was all cute and cuddly as kittens are)

The point I make (and I am a cat lover) is that getting a year for disposing of ones own property is bad law. (as are all animal cruelty laws)

GSA(P)

[John O]

You're not a Christian, are you?

Bought by the Blood of the Lamb. I certainly am a Christian.

The bible commands us to be good stewards. It doesn't tell us to force our neighbor to be a good steward. In some cases it is good stewardship to eliminate excess animals. Apparently in this case the animals were excess property.

God Save America (Please)

[SarahW]

I think you're diseased. Positively mental.

If you don't know the difference between a shovel and a domestic animal, God help you.

[John O]

What an ass you are. Most free-market lovers can tell the difference between living property like a pet and inanimate property like a toaster oven.

I don't recall calling you names. Why do you feel the need to call me names?

I can tell the difference between animate and inanimate property. But why does (or should) that difference make a difference. As a previous poster said, if it were rats that were crushed would you be so upset? Property is property.

Was it wise for him to dispose of the kittens this way, apparently not. Was it good stewardship? possibly. We don't know if the market in that area would let him sell the kittens before they ate more than their worth or grew into unmarketable cats.

GSA(P)

[John O]

(I was going to report abuse on you but I thought I'd try public correction first.)

First you unprovokedly call me names and now you threaten the health and safety of my children.

Does a possibly abandoned litter of animals mean so much to you that you would threaten to kill someone's kids over it?

You need to either seriously rethink this (and apologize) or seek professional help. Your balance seems to be off.

GSA(P)

[John O]

While exploding someone's car is a senseless waste of resources, cars are merely property. Sending someone to prison for a year for exploding another's car is utterly useless.

Assuming that the explosion is treated as theft instead of as attempted murder stealing a car is a felony. Stealing a kitten is not.

Like it or not a car has more value than a kitten. You can walk down almost any street in summer and find someone giving away free kittens. Very rarely would you find someone giving away free cars.

GSA(P)

[John O]

I think you're diseased. Positively mental.

Did I call you names? Why do you feel the need to call me names?

If you don't know the difference between a shovel and a domestic animal, God help you.

I know the dfference between them. My question to you is "Exactly why does the difference between a shovel and a kitten make any difference in how someone disposes of them (assuming that he owns each item)?"

GSA(P)

[SarahW]

If you have to ask the question, you prove my point.