Yes, some people do. But they don't often then turn around to tabloid newspapers and say "Yeah, I did it. I can't believe how out of order this has been to me."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but tabloid newspapers sometimes exaggerate or spin stories to create the most engaging story.
Can you believe that he is as thick as s**t.
He owns a dog that is probably capable of killing an adult, lets it off of a lead near children, incites it to attack a cat, and pleads guilty to the same in court.
Doesn't that tell you something about his intellect.
He owns a dog that is probably capable of killing an adult, lets it off of a lead near children, incites it to attack a cat, and pleads guilty to the same in court.
Doesn't that tell you something about his intellect.
Oh, I'm not saying that he's a nice or intelligent guy, don't get me wrong. I just have a hard time believing that he's quite as callous as the article portrays him.
Oh, I'm not saying that he's a nice or intelligent guy, don't get me wrong. I just have a hard time believing that he's quite as callous as the article portrays him.
Some people see cats as nothing more than vermin and I suspect he is one of them. I think his response is more to do with him being quite miffed that he has had all this hassle over a cat.
Yes, some people do. But they don't often then turn around to tabloid newspapers and say "Yeah, I did it. I can't believe how out of order this has been to me."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but tabloid newspapers sometimes exaggerate or spin stories to create the most engaging story.
So I guess you know what really happened then - please tell.
BTW why do you struggle to believe that someone did what was reported - was it just too evil?
So I guess you know what really happened then - please tell.
BTW why do you struggle to believe that someone did what was reported - was it just too evil?
I don't know what happened. And yes, I struggle to believe it because it was not only evil, but then a really callous reply.
If there was not quote from the guy, then I probably would have believed it. But as soon as I saw a quote that didn't show any remorse, and seemed to be playing the whole issue down, it rang alarm bells.
They haven't had their dog taken away from them, they've just been given community service, and Johnson seems to be more concerned that people are blaming the dog than that people are blaming him. His comments don't come across like someone who set his dog on a cat for kicks. And that raises questions for me.
He owns a dog that is probably capable of killing an adult, lets it off of a lead near children, incites it to attack a cat, and pleads guilty to the same in court.
Doesn't that tell you something about his intellect.
Knowing the locals here they will let him know what they think of him
The story doesn't elaborate on the assertion that these people deliberately set the dog onto the cat.
No it doesn't. But even where this story is reported independently all accounts seem to agree that they encouraged the dog to attack.
I think the community service sentence is reasonable, but I don't understand why they have been allowed to keep the animal and why they have not been banned from keeping a pet.
This is why there is so much animal abuse and animal neglect and animals put to sleep. Because the law sucks at making the real culprits, the people who cause the suffering, get a proper a sentencing.
People are bizarre. Unfortunately, nobody does or says anything that really surprises me anymore. He probably can't see why there has been such a fuss over a cat. I'm no cat lover but even I can understand they are often much loved family pets probably as his dog is to him, but maybe he can't get that. I know of someone who used to live near me who thought nothing of setting his dogs on any animal for "fun".
Hmm....I just wonder how Johnson would have reacted if his dog had strayed into a big cat enclosure, and itself been ripped to shreds.
Probably not much actually. Where's there's no sense there's no feeling.
He's got off very lightly IMO. I really hope he gets shunned socially.
Oh, I'm not saying that he's a nice or intelligent guy, don't get me wrong. I just have a hard time believing that he's quite as callous as the article portrays him.
and yet the facts do indeed suggest that he deliberately encouraged his dog to attack the cat, which he surely must have realised was somebody's pet. Even if just a feral, still a cruel and unnecessary act.
I don't know what happened. And yes, I struggle to believe it because it was not only evil, but then a really callous reply.
If there was not quote from the guy, then I probably would have believed it. But as soon as I saw a quote that didn't show any remorse, and seemed to be playing the whole issue down, it rang alarm bells.
They haven't had their dog taken away from them, they've just been given community service, and Johnson seems to be more concerned that people are blaming the dog than that people are blaming him. His comments don't come across like someone who set his dog on a cat for kicks. And that raises questions for me.
The questions your post raises for me are;
a) why would he plead guilty to it if he didn't do it?
b) why does it seem odd to you that someone would show no remorse? Some people will kill even other people and never lose a nights sleep over it.
a) why would he plead guilty to it if he didn't do it?
b) why does it seem odd to you that someone would show no remorse? Some people will kill even other people and never lose a nights sleep over it.
a) Hypothetically, he might have pleaded guilty because he did set his dog after the cat without thinking about the consequences of what would happen when the dog got hold of it, as opposed to gleefully watching his dog catch and maul the cat.
b) They do, but that kind of psychopathic behaviour is rare, and I said, the quote in the DM just came across like someone who was reasonably defending their behaviour, and was completely inconsistent with the nature of the crime. If he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I'd be more inclined to believe it, but saying "This is a harsh sentence, and she's a good dog who we rescued from a bad home" just doesn't sound like he's responding to the claim that he set his dog on a cat and watched as it tore it apart.
a) Hypothetically, he might have pleaded guilty because he did set his dog after the cat without thinking about the consequences of what would happen when the dog got hold of it, as opposed to gleefully watching his dog catch and maul the cat.
b) They do, but that kind of psychopathic behaviour is rare, and I said, the quote in the DM just came across like someone who was reasonably defending their behaviour, and was completely inconsistent with the nature of the crime. If he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I'd be more inclined to believe it, but saying "This is a harsh sentence, and she's a good dog who we rescued from a bad home" just doesn't sound like he's responding to the claim that he set his dog on a cat and watched as it tore it apart.
I believe that something happened. What I don't know is exactly what happened. We have various elements to this story:
The charges of which the pair were convicted
The eyewitness accounts
A quote from the RSPCA
The description from the journalist
A quote from the perpetrator
The charges don't go into specifics
The eyewitness account doesn't describe the actions of the owners, just the dog.
The RSPCA spokesperson wasn't a witness
The journalist is obviously likely to be putting a spin on it
My point is that the quote from the dog owner just doesn't sound like it is from someone who thinks the events played out in the way that they are implied to have played out by the rest of the article.
No, but they can and do kill my fish and the birds in the garden, also my sister's finches. Don't know why you'd think they might kill a dog.
Other animals kill fish too, we used to have a pond at mums, only the black cat was interested, but a heron used to come down. Also what killed the fish was actually the frogs at spawning time. Also a fox could of killed the finches if a cat could get in, a fox could of got in easier. So that is your responsibility to make it safe from other animals. As for dogs, there needs to be a licence for certain breeds, due to the amount of idiots.
a) Hypothetically, he might have pleaded guilty because he did set his dog after the cat without thinking about the consequences of what would happen when the dog got hold of it, as opposed to gleefully watching his dog catch and maul the cat.
b) They do, but that kind of psychopathic behaviour is rare, and I said, the quote in the DM just came across like someone who was reasonably defending their behaviour, and was completely inconsistent with the nature of the crime. If he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I'd be more inclined to believe it, but saying "This is a harsh sentence, and she's a good dog who we rescued from a bad home" just doesn't sound like he's responding to the claim that he set his dog on a cat and watched as it tore it apart.
If he set his dog on the cat, what did he think would happen? I think you're grabbing straws.
Psychopathic behaviour is rare, but not that rare. I see no reason not to think he and his wife are like that. I remember police once commenting on how some youths who'd gang raped a woman seemed genuinely bewildered as to why anyone was bothering to make an issue of it, and a man standing trial for killing an Asian expressed surprise anyone cared as it was "only a P*ki". I think we must recognise that some people are such strangers to morality that they cannot even understand it.
I believe that something happened. What I don't know is exactly what happened. We have various elements to this story:
The charges of which the pair were convicted
The eyewitness accounts
A quote from the RSPCA
The description from the journalist
A quote from the perpetrator
The charges don't go into specifics
The eyewitness account doesn't describe the actions of the owners, just the dog.
The RSPCA spokesperson wasn't a witness
The journalist is obviously likely to be putting a spin on it
My point is that the quote from the dog owner just doesn't sound like it is from someone who thinks the events played out in the way that they are implied to have played out by the rest of the article.
He pleaded guilty to deliberately inciting his dog to attack the cat, and has offered no evidence in mitigation. IMO we don't need to go any further than that.
You appear to be looking for reasons to excuse his actions, but I don't think you will find them.
He pleaded guilty to deliberately inciting his dog to attack the cat, and has offered no evidence in mitigation. IMO we don't need to go any further than that.
You appear to be looking for reasons to excuse his actions, but I don't think you will find them.
Do you have any evidence of that? No mitigating evidence has been reported, but that's not the same thing.
I'm not looking for reasons to excuse his actions, and it's disingenuous of you to claim that I am. What I am doing is critically appraising the article. Tabloid reportage of an incident does not always correspond with the actual events, and I'm surprised and saddened that so many people will take it as read.
As I've stated before, my issue is that his quote seems to have been taken out of context.
If he set his dog on the cat, what did he think would happen? I think you're grabbing straws.
To what end would I be grabbing straws? What I'm saying is that there would be a difference between:
"That's it Yuna, chase the cat... oh shit, she's just killed the cat. I think we'll be off now..."
and
"That's it Yuna, kill the cat, rip its guts out!"
Do you disagree that there is a difference between these two actions? That while both are horrible, one is definitely worse? What I'm saying is that the article clearly implies the latter, while the facts reported don't point to one over the other.
Psychopathic behaviour is rare, but not that rare. I see no reason not to think he and his wife are like that. I remember police once commenting on how some youths who'd gang raped a woman seemed genuinely bewildered as to why anyone was bothering to make an issue of it, and a man standing trial for killing an Asian expressed surprise anyone cared as it was "only a P*ki". I think we must recognise that some people are such strangers to morality that they cannot even understand it.
Yes, and as stated earlier, if he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I would be agreeing with you. But he didn't, he said "Yuna has been to obedience lessons, there is nothing wrong with her whatsoever. She was a rescue dog and before we owned her she was beaten by her previous owner, but we got her trust." That doesn't sound like someone defending himself on the charge of him setting his dog on a cat, it sounds like someone who thought the article was going to be about his dangerous dog.
To what end would I be grabbing straws? What I'm saying is that there would be a difference between:
"That's it Yuna, chase the cat... oh shit, she's just killed the cat. I think we'll be off now..."
and
"That's it Yuna, kill the cat, rip its guts out!"
Do you disagree that there is a difference between these two actions? That while both are horrible, one is definitely worse? What I'm saying is that the article clearly implies the latter, while the facts reported don't point to one over the other.
But how could he have expected the dog to chase the cat and not kill it? The facts reported don't point to one over the other, but the first action you suggested makes no sense.
I don't know to what end you're grabbing at straws, but I do know that that's what you seem to me to be doing.
Yes, and as stated earlier, if he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I would be agreeing with you. But he didn't, he said "Yuna has been to obedience lessons, there is nothing wrong with her whatsoever. She was a rescue dog and before we owned her she was beaten by her previous owner, but we got her trust." That doesn't sound like someone defending himself on the charge of him setting his dog on a cat, it sounds like someone who thought the article was going to be about his dangerous dog.
It sounds to me like a man who just doesn't get it, quite frankly.
Comments
Can you believe that he is as thick as s**t.
He owns a dog that is probably capable of killing an adult, lets it off of a lead near children, incites it to attack a cat, and pleads guilty to the same in court.
Doesn't that tell you something about his intellect.
Oh, I'm not saying that he's a nice or intelligent guy, don't get me wrong. I just have a hard time believing that he's quite as callous as the article portrays him.
Some people see cats as nothing more than vermin and I suspect he is one of them. I think his response is more to do with him being quite miffed that he has had all this hassle over a cat.
So I guess you know what really happened then - please tell.
BTW why do you struggle to believe that someone did what was reported - was it just too evil?
I don't know what happened. And yes, I struggle to believe it because it was not only evil, but then a really callous reply.
If there was not quote from the guy, then I probably would have believed it. But as soon as I saw a quote that didn't show any remorse, and seemed to be playing the whole issue down, it rang alarm bells.
They haven't had their dog taken away from them, they've just been given community service, and Johnson seems to be more concerned that people are blaming the dog than that people are blaming him. His comments don't come across like someone who set his dog on a cat for kicks. And that raises questions for me.
:rolleyes: Cat don't kill dogs. Unless you own a lion or something. Perhaps you are in the circus. You sound like a clown.
nice one
I did laugh.:D:o
Knowing the locals here they will let him know what they think of him
No it doesn't. But even where this story is reported independently all accounts seem to agree that they encouraged the dog to attack.
I think the community service sentence is reasonable, but I don't understand why they have been allowed to keep the animal and why they have not been banned from keeping a pet.
They are clearly unsuitable people to own a dog.
Hmm....I just wonder how Johnson would have reacted if his dog had strayed into a big cat enclosure, and itself been ripped to shreds.
Probably not much actually. Where's there's no sense there's no feeling.
He's got off very lightly IMO. I really hope he gets shunned socially.
and yet the facts do indeed suggest that he deliberately encouraged his dog to attack the cat, which he surely must have realised was somebody's pet. Even if just a feral, still a cruel and unnecessary act.
RSPCA report on the issue. WARNING ~ picture of the savaged dead cat
The questions your post raises for me are;
a) why would he plead guilty to it if he didn't do it?
b) why does it seem odd to you that someone would show no remorse? Some people will kill even other people and never lose a nights sleep over it.
Cause' a dog and a cat is what the whole thread is about. Try to follow the bouncing ball.
a) Hypothetically, he might have pleaded guilty because he did set his dog after the cat without thinking about the consequences of what would happen when the dog got hold of it, as opposed to gleefully watching his dog catch and maul the cat.
b) They do, but that kind of psychopathic behaviour is rare, and I said, the quote in the DM just came across like someone who was reasonably defending their behaviour, and was completely inconsistent with the nature of the crime. If he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I'd be more inclined to believe it, but saying "This is a harsh sentence, and she's a good dog who we rescued from a bad home" just doesn't sound like he's responding to the claim that he set his dog on a cat and watched as it tore it apart.
"Claim" ?
Do you believe it never happened then ?
I believe that something happened. What I don't know is exactly what happened. We have various elements to this story:
The charges of which the pair were convicted
The eyewitness accounts
A quote from the RSPCA
The description from the journalist
A quote from the perpetrator
The charges don't go into specifics
The eyewitness account doesn't describe the actions of the owners, just the dog.
The RSPCA spokesperson wasn't a witness
The journalist is obviously likely to be putting a spin on it
My point is that the quote from the dog owner just doesn't sound like it is from someone who thinks the events played out in the way that they are implied to have played out by the rest of the article.
Other animals kill fish too, we used to have a pond at mums, only the black cat was interested, but a heron used to come down. Also what killed the fish was actually the frogs at spawning time. Also a fox could of killed the finches if a cat could get in, a fox could of got in easier. So that is your responsibility to make it safe from other animals. As for dogs, there needs to be a licence for certain breeds, due to the amount of idiots.
If he set his dog on the cat, what did he think would happen? I think you're grabbing straws.
Psychopathic behaviour is rare, but not that rare. I see no reason not to think he and his wife are like that. I remember police once commenting on how some youths who'd gang raped a woman seemed genuinely bewildered as to why anyone was bothering to make an issue of it, and a man standing trial for killing an Asian expressed surprise anyone cared as it was "only a P*ki". I think we must recognise that some people are such strangers to morality that they cannot even understand it.
He pleaded guilty to deliberately inciting his dog to attack the cat, and has offered no evidence in mitigation. IMO we don't need to go any further than that.
You appear to be looking for reasons to excuse his actions, but I don't think you will find them.
Do you have any evidence of that? No mitigating evidence has been reported, but that's not the same thing.
I'm not looking for reasons to excuse his actions, and it's disingenuous of you to claim that I am. What I am doing is critically appraising the article. Tabloid reportage of an incident does not always correspond with the actual events, and I'm surprised and saddened that so many people will take it as read.
As I've stated before, my issue is that his quote seems to have been taken out of context.
To what end would I be grabbing straws? What I'm saying is that there would be a difference between:
"That's it Yuna, chase the cat... oh shit, she's just killed the cat. I think we'll be off now..."
and
"That's it Yuna, kill the cat, rip its guts out!"
Do you disagree that there is a difference between these two actions? That while both are horrible, one is definitely worse? What I'm saying is that the article clearly implies the latter, while the facts reported don't point to one over the other.
Yes, and as stated earlier, if he'd said "it was only a cat, who cares?", then I would be agreeing with you. But he didn't, he said "Yuna has been to obedience lessons, there is nothing wrong with her whatsoever. She was a rescue dog and before we owned her she was beaten by her previous owner, but we got her trust." That doesn't sound like someone defending himself on the charge of him setting his dog on a cat, it sounds like someone who thought the article was going to be about his dangerous dog.
But how could he have expected the dog to chase the cat and not kill it? The facts reported don't point to one over the other, but the first action you suggested makes no sense.
I don't know to what end you're grabbing at straws, but I do know that that's what you seem to me to be doing.
It sounds to me like a man who just doesn't get it, quite frankly.