Puppieeees.

[woodchip]

So maybe you think I'm going to post some nice friendly topic about cute friendly puppy dogs...well, only in a round about way.
On the local news channel, a drunken father got upset at his sons puppy and under the evil influence of the devils own liquid, pick the beast up and threw it down on the ground. Not once but three times just to make sure the little dog stayed quiet. He did a good job as the wee animal is now forever still. Authorities found out and now the father is scheduled for four years in the big house for animal cruelty.
No this is not a post looking for harsh comments against dear old dad (else I'd a put it in PTMC). Rather this a exploration as to the harshness of the mans sentance. Four years of a mans life in prison for killing a animal seems to me to be a bit on the extreme side. Before some of you followers of PETA pipe up, remember the killing of animals per se is not illegal. Farmers do it as do hunters. Drivers of cars do it. Homeowners kill mice all the time. Fisherman do it. I think you get the idea.

So what make the killing of the puppy so reprehensible? The manner in which it was done? A farmer can slaughter a pig by hitting it in the head with a hammer. Trappers harvest animals by use of leg traps. Turkeys are shot with shot guns and bow and arrows are used to kill deer. Mice and rats are killed with poison and sticky traps. Chickens are killed by wringing their necks and drivers of cars squash and maim animals most horribly. So I don't think the manner of killing is applicable.

Perhaps because a puppy emotes certain appealing characteristics? Well cute bouncy lambs ket whacked for food all the time. Young adorable calves get butchered. Bambi's have no protection during hunting season.

So why does a man go to prison for killing his puppy?

[Darkside Heartless]

He intentionally and needlessly destroyed an animal, that's what he got punished for. Hunting and slaughtering are done for food, and roadkill is an accident, so they don't get punished.

At least that's what I think.

[Top Gun]

Probably because he deliberately killed an animal for no reason whatsoever in cold blood. As Meathead said, all of the animals you mentioned are used for agricultural purposes. Roadkill is accidental, often inavoidable death. However, at least on this continent, dogs are used for nothing but pets. Needlessly killing a puppy ranks up pretty high on my heartless scale.

[bash]

That'll teach him for not buying the kid a tarantula or a snake as a pet! Chip, I agree with you that the sole reason for a sentence this substantial is because everyone loves puppies. It's Petism! My guess is his lawyer will make the same argument and this will be overturned and substituted with some sort of anger management/fine punishment. That said, it's extremely lame that a father would do that to his child's pet.

[Will Robinson]

What law did he break?

[woodchip]

"Probably because he deliberately killed an animal for no reason whatsoever in cold blood." Top Gun

Nope. There are certain species of animals such as starlings and red squirrels here in Mich., that you can shoot year 'round. You don't use them for a dang thing as they are considered nuisence animals so when you shoot them you do so in "cold blood".

Will:

http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/michigan.htm

[CDN_Merlin]

I think it has to do with it being a pet with a concious mind? It's like killing your own child.

I wonder how he'd feel if I killed him cause he woudln't stfu?

[Will Robinson]

According to that this must be his third or more offense! Are they treating the incident as three seperate crimes? His lawyer must really suck! Good for him.

(4) A person who violates subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or community service for not more than 200 hours, or any combination of these penalties and the cost of prosecution. A person who violates subsection (2) on a second occasion is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or community service for not more than 300 hours, or any combination of these penalties and the cost of prosecution. A person who violates subsection (2) on a third or subsequent occasion is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or community service for not more than 500 hours, or any combination of these penalties and the cost of prosecution.

[index_html]

So why does a man go to prison for killing his puppy?

While people kill wild animals for food and you kill rodents because they're pests, do property damage, carry disease, etc., pets are a willful responsibility and I think there's a reasonable expectation that owners treat them without cruelty. I think killing your child's puppy in such a brutal fashion, after a conscious decision was made to care for the animal, constitutes depraved indifference toward what amounts to a family member for most people. I guess it comes down to the circumstances of the act.

Reminds me of Monty Python's Meaning of Life for some reason,

Soldier: "I mean, at home if you kill someone they arrest you, here they'll give you a gun and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers. Now, at home they'd hang me, here they'll give me a f***king medal, sir."

[Flabby Chick]

Couldn't really know why he got such a harsh sentance without knowing what was said in the trial, but my guess is that it haad somthing to do with the fact that he was rat-arsed and cruel in the presence of a minor. If he can't handle the drink maybe he'll feel different now. I still think it's harsh though.

I think the fact that other crimes such as rape, kiddie crime, spoucial abuse ect is dealt with so lightly (In my opinion) that 4 years for killing a dog looks so rough. We've sort of been desensatized.

FC

[Palzon]

priors + sociopathic behavior = harsh sentence

[Dedman]

So why does a man go to prison for killing his puppy?

Because it is cute. It all boils down to that.

[Drakona]

You know, there was a much-talked-about case like that in my hometown when I was growing up: three men chained a dog up and took turns swinging at it with a baseball bat until it was dead. People argued the same thing--"It's just a dog, people kill animals all the time." Indeed they do, but don't destroy the circumstances surrounding different killings so as to equate them. There is a massive moral difference between beating an animal to death for fun, or killing an animal in a cruel way in a drunken rage, and shooting an animal for food or putting one down when it's wounded. One's a pretty conceivable prelude to doing the same thing to a person, and the other isn't.

I don't think it's at all the fact that it was a cute puppy (though the fact that it's an animal that didn't harm him and trusted him probably helps). I think it's the way in which he killed the animal. If he loses control of himself like that, it might not be an animal next time.

Four years does seem awfully harsh for just the one crime here, but there could be reason. See Palzon's post.

[Dedman]

I don't think it's at all the fact that it was a cute puppy...
I think it's the way in which he killed the animal.

If he had done the same thing in the same way for the same reasons to his childs fish, snake, lizard, spider, insert non cute non mammal here, would he have gotten the same sentence?

Don't get me wrong. As an animal lover I detest what he did. I agree with you about the morality of the situation. It's just that mammalism - for lack of a better word - is alive and well in our society. Greater value is placed on mammals than on other classes (philums?) of animals. And greater value is placed on the cuter mammals.

[Lothar]

"phyla"

I can't imagine killing most other types of animals in the same way as this guy killed the puppy. Throwing a spider to the ground 3 or 4 times? That just doesn't make sense. Throwing a snake to the ground? Would that actually kill it?

I think the animal has to be large enough that it can be thrown around in a rage, and fragile enough that it'll actually die from being thrown (but robust enough to not die in the first throw), in order to fit into what this case seems to be about. I'm hard pressed to think of non-mammals that fit, though it's easy to think of mammals that work. Puppies and kittens and large rodents (all of which are fairly common pets) work here, but the only non-mammals I can think of are, possibly, large lizards or birds, both of which I think would've led to a similar sentence. (My wife also points out that most animals would fight or flee the first time you threw them -- cats included. Dogs are the only critters that I know of that stick around after being attacked by their owners.)

So, in conclusion, I don't think the sentence was because it was a puppy -- I think we'd see the same thing with any sort of animal of the appropriate size and robustness. It just so happens that puppies are the most common animals of this type.

[Dedman]

"phyla"

Thanks. It's been over 20 years since I had biology.

[Delkian]

So what make the killing of the puppy so reprehensible?

Killing anything that's capable of feeling pain, and doing it in a cruel way and/or for no reason whatsoever is automatically reprehensible.

A farmer can slaughter a pig by hitting it in the head with a hammer.

Does he have to hit it three times before it dies or at least goes unconscious?

Trappers harvest animals by use of leg traps.

... which is damn retarded, although I suppose (from your post) that it's not illegal.

Turkeys are shot with shot guns

... which probably doesn't leave them much time to suffer.

and bow and arrows are used to kill deer.

... which is also stupid if it causes unnecessary pain (compared to shooting it with something that causes instant death).

Mice and rats are killed with poison and sticky traps.

Like others have said, they're pests, so the 'no reason whatsoever' card doesn't work here.

So I don't think the manner of killing is applicable.

It is.

There is a massive moral difference between beating an animal to death for fun, or killing an animal in a cruel way in a drunken rage, and shooting an animal for food or putting one down when it's wounded.

Exactly.

If he had done the same thing in the same way for the same reasons to his childs fish, snake, lizard, spider, insert non cute non mammal here, would he have gotten the same sentence?

Are fish, snakes, lizards and spiders all capable of feeling and realizing pain?

(I can't answer that question myself because I don't know enough about the physiology or nervous systems of those creatures.)


IMO the sentence is completely warranted.

[Dedman]

Are fish, snakes, lizards and spiders all capable of feeling and realizing pain?

I suppose on some level they are but like you, I am not entirely sure. What does that matter though? Why should pain be the qualifier? What if that guy had pithed the puppy before killing it? It would not have felt any pain. Would that have made it ok?

Seems to me it is a value of life issue. I believe that every life has an intrinsic value. To destroy it needlessly is wrong.

Except for mosquitos. We should be able to kill as many of those as we can

[Topher]

I would argue that because it was his son's pet, that it was abuse to his son because it was undeserved. I believe four years in prison is appropriate for child abuse.

Was this done infront of his son? If so, even more reason...