After all, humans die up and down the country day after day. "No big deal, it's a part of life." :rolleyes:
No.
I never said that he should be let off.
Your analogy is also flawed.
Humans are not killed up and down the country day after day, and even if we to imagine they were (lets pretend we read the Daily Mail), it would be illegal. The situation is not the same animals, they are killed legally.
He should have been punished, and indeed he was (in my view too harshly). There is an element of (probably childless housebounds) posters who are reacting as if it was a child and not a cat
That's awful. Cat's are people's family members, regardless of whether they are human or not.
My house certainly wouldn't be the same without our cats, so they are like family members. I'd rather him steal my car than kill my cats, for which he'd probably get a longer sentence.
He should have been punished, and indeed he was (in my view too harshly). There is an element of (probably childless housebounds) posters who are reacting as if it was a child and not a cat
Nobody is acting as if it were a child. Child killers get many years in jail, This guy got a few months. Proportional to the crime.
My house certainly wouldn't be the same without our cats, so they are like family members. I'd rather him steal my car than kill my cats, for which he'd probably get a longer sentence.
Its not an opinion, "family" has a definition, its a fact.
I can't beleive there is someone over the age of 10 who thinks that cats can genuinely be a member of a human family. :eek:
Your analogy is also flawed.
Humans are not killed up and down the country day after day, and even if we to imagine they were (lets pretend we read the Daily Mail), it would be illegal. The situation is not the same animals, they are killed legally.
Your original quote seemed rather dismissive about the whole situation, but you did in your later post say that you didn't think that the offender should be let off, although you do think that the sentence is harsh. How you can possibly think that is beyond me tbh.
You also said that "Animals die", not "Animals are killed" so I'd say that my analogy is perfectly justified.
Animals die up and down the country day after day. No big deal, its part of life.
It was an unnecessary act. As I have said Animal Welfare or Pest Control are out there. If I had a terrible problem with an unwanted stray visiting my premises I would have it removed. By either they come and collect it, or take it to the RSPCA as a stray. No need to take on such merciless actions.
Your analogy is also flawed.
Humans are not killed up and down the country day after day, and even if we to imagine they were (lets pretend we read the Daily Mail), it would be illegal. The situation is not the same animals, they are killed legally.
Excerpt from;
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006
Protected animals
(1) In this Part, an animal is a “protected animal” if it is—
(a) of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b) under the control of man on a permanent or temporary basis, or
(c) not living in a wild state.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), “British Islands” is to be construed in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30).
...
Unnecessary suffering
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person causes a protected animal unnecessary suffering by an act, and
(b) the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act would have caused the suffering or be likely to do so. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2006/asp_20060011_en_1
So basically, it is a fact that this man man committed an offence. Unless you think that his actions were 'necessary'.
Your original quote seemed rather dismissive about the whole situation, but you did in your later post say that you didn't think that the offender should be let off, although you do think that the sentence is harsh. How you can possibly think that is beyond me tbh.
I was dismissive of the over reaction of some here, simply because it involved a cat.
Your analogy is also flawed.
I never denied what he did was wrong. Simply that in the scheme of things it does not warrant the response of some posters.
Humans are not killed up and down the country day after day, and even if we to imagine they were (lets pretend we read the Daily Mail), it would be illegal. The situation is not the same animals, they are killed legally.
In actual fact, the killing of protected animals (as defined above) in that manner is not legal, as you were inferring.
Therefore, your analogy is also flawed.
My sentence would have been that he should have been taken from this place to another place, tied up in a plastic bag, weighted down with bricks and cast into the nearest canal.
He should have been punished, and indeed he was (in my view too harshly). There is an element of (probably childless housebounds) posters who are reacting as if it was a child and not a cat
Whether it was an animal or a human, what it was is loved by someone.
Childless housebounds. How much ruder and more patronising can you get and how much further can you show your ignorance and embarrass yourself?
I think you need to read the definition of a family!
Unless someone in your family has been having it away with a cat!?!? :eek:
Quite frankly, I'm sure most people would rather have a flea off the back of a diseased spider as a family member than either of you if your obvious intellect, tact and eloquence are anything to go by.
Comments
I never said that he should be let off.
Your analogy is also flawed.
Humans are not killed up and down the country day after day, and even if we to imagine they were (lets pretend we read the Daily Mail), it would be illegal. The situation is not the same animals, they are killed legally.
That's awful. Cat's are people's family members, regardless of whether they are human or not.
I'm not housebound by the way.
No they are not.
Very good.:)
Your opinion.
My house certainly wouldn't be the same without our cats, so they are like family members. I'd rather him steal my car than kill my cats, for which he'd probably get a longer sentence.
HOLY SHIT!
I think you need to read the definition of a family!
Unless someone in your family has been having it away with a cat!?!? :eek:
Nobody is acting as if it were a child. Child killers get many years in jail, This guy got a few months. Proportional to the crime.
Its not an opinion, "family" has a definition, its a fact.
I can't beleive there is someone over the age of 10 who thinks that cats can genuinely be a member of a human family. :eek:
Christ on a bike!
Your original quote seemed rather dismissive about the whole situation, but you did in your later post say that you didn't think that the offender should be let off, although you do think that the sentence is harsh. How you can possibly think that is beyond me tbh.
You also said that "Animals die", not "Animals are killed" so I'd say that my analogy is perfectly justified.
NO NO NO NO!!!!
It is not "opinion" that a cat can be a family member., it is a fact.
In the exact same way that it is not opinion that you could be related to a carrot. (lets ignore evolution over a billions year period)
It was an unnecessary act. As I have said Animal Welfare or Pest Control are out there. If I had a terrible problem with an unwanted stray visiting my premises I would have it removed. By either they come and collect it, or take it to the RSPCA as a stray. No need to take on such merciless actions.
I hope amielouise is feeling embarrassed.
Protected animals
(1) In this Part, an animal is a “protected animal” if it is—
(a) of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b) under the control of man on a permanent or temporary basis, or
(c) not living in a wild state.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), “British Islands” is to be construed in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30).
...
Unnecessary suffering
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person causes a protected animal unnecessary suffering by an act, and
(b) the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act would have caused the suffering or be likely to do so.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2006/asp_20060011_en_1
So basically, it is a fact that this man man committed an offence. Unless you think that his actions were 'necessary'.
I corrected myself and said like a family member. Don't take things so literally :rolleyes:
My point is, cats do mean an awful lot to people. Therefore, he deserved a harsh sentence. Even if they mean nothing to someone else.
I never denied what he did was wrong. Simply that in the scheme of things it does not warrant the response of some posters.
All right.
So had it been a pot bellied pig (ugly creatures), he should have got a lesser sentence?
IMO, if was someone's pet. Why should the sentence be any less harsh?
I wish someone could have killed all my ex-neighbours cats. She made our lives a misery living next door to her:mad:
Therefore, your analogy is also flawed.
My sentence would have been that he should have been taken from this place to another place, tied up in a plastic bag, weighted down with bricks and cast into the nearest canal.
So do people. Does that make it alright to stuff them into plastic bags and drown them?
Whether it was an animal or a human, what it was is loved by someone.
Childless housebounds. How much ruder and more patronising can you get and how much further can you show your ignorance and embarrass yourself?
Quite frankly, I'm sure most people would rather have a flea off the back of a diseased spider as a family member than either of you if your obvious intellect, tact and eloquence are anything to go by.
I don't believe it is proportional to the crime. Child killers get many years in jail. Pet killers should get at least some.
I don't know about amielouise but you and good shepherd should hang your heads in shame.
How many millions of people are there? I repeat, does that make it alright to stuff them into plastic bags and drown them?
What a charming fellow you must be.
If more of these morons were jailed for their actions perhaps this nonsense would end.