• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

girl who threw puppies in river will not be charged

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
iGas said:
Said the guy that go home empty handed after spending a boat loads of cash on a hunting trip. And, how many gut shots have you made if you are lucky enough to hit the target?
Click to expand...

What the flying fuckity fuck!!!?! 😵😵😵
It's called leisure as is fishing or other things people do.

Wow just fucking wow! I've been around USENET for a long time and many forums and I've yet seen something as obtuse as comparing blatant animal abuse to recreational hunting. Grow some fucking balls for crissakes! 🙄
 
iGas said:
How many hunters that you know hunts for foods or the real motive is to kill something?

How much does it cost to buy a cow from the market, and how much does it cost to shoot a deer, moose, or bear?
Click to expand...

I am starting to think you are unfit for society. We should probably lock you away now, before you get into serial killing.
 
Minerva said:
What the flying fuckity fuck!!!?! 😵😵😵
It's called leisure as is fishing or other things people do.

Wow just fucking wow! I've been around USENET for a long time and many forums and I've yet seen something as obtuse as comparing blatant animal abuse to recreational hunting. Grow some fucking balls for crissakes! 🙄
Click to expand...

:wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub:
 
Something about the girl strikes me as retarded. I mean, she looks mentally retarded, possibly doing this at the direction or instigation of the person holding the camera.
 
Minerva said:
What the flying fuckity fuck!!!?! 😵😵😵
It's called leisure as is fishing or other things people do.

Wow just fucking wow! I've been around USENET for a long time and many forums and I've yet seen something as obtuse as comparing blatant animal abuse to recreational hunting. Grow some fucking balls for crissakes! 🙄
Click to expand...
You mean recreational killing, and what the girl dis is simply recreational killing as well.

There is no different between the 2. Both are needless killing.

I came from a family of hunters in Vietnam (during the war) and have been on hunts for food, and my family & I stop hunting once we are here in North America because we do not need to hunt to survive. And as Vietnamese we pretty much eat everything including the bone marrow, as well as 99% of the gut, while the "self proclaim hunters" kills needlessly and take maybe 50% of the animal on a good day, or often just for the trophy/rug.

Last time I checked I still have some balls thanks 😉
 
Last edited:
iGas said:
I came from a family of hunters in Vietnam (during the war) and have been on hunts for food, and my family & I stop hunting once we are here in North America because we do not need to hunt to survive.
Click to expand...
You mean, you started buying animals killed by other people. There is no difference between the slaughterer and the consumer. Its the same.
 
iGas said:
Maybe is because she doen't want them. It is any better than sending the animal to the SPCA to get kill?

I agree what the girl did isn't a pleasant thing and there maybe good home for those puppies. But I can't understand how you guys freak out over a few puppies, but it is okay that you guys supports American that travel over seas to kill people.
Click to expand...

TROLOLOLOLOL-Cat.jpg
 
Unfortunately, iGas is right... Maybe his analogies are a little off, but I get his point. Yes, they're cute puppies. My mind wants to make me wish hateful things on this girl, but my logic will not allow me, especially since I don't know the whole story. It's easy to jump to conclusions based on the short video.

This was not cruel. It was abhorrent to more "civilized" people, but it was not cruel or inhumane. I do not think this was pleasure killing. Yes, she smiled - caught in the moment. This little girl is not going to be a serial killer. She did not dunk them into the water, holding them there for a moment, then bring them out and watch them suffer. Let's be realistic here, people.

I'm surprised we haven't heard her side of the story yet, but I am guessing these puppies were simply unwanted. I mean, do you think she just stumbled upon the bucket of puppies and decided it would be fun to throw them into the river? lol..

I said it in the locked thread, and I'll say it again here. This kind of thing goes on right here in the good ole USA probably every day during spring. Millions of unwanted animals are put down in animal shelters yearly. How many do you think are put down outside of animal shelters? Probably more. I'll be stereotypical, but rednecks do not take unwanted animals to shelters. They are disposed of, and nobody is the wiser. The difference here? They made the mistake of filming it and put a short clip with no backstory on the internet.

This is just a fact of life. If you are taught that unwanted animals are simply disposed of, then that is what you practice. For whatever reason, most people consider drowning of baby animals to be the most humane way to put them to sleep.

Honestly, would you rather she held the puppies under water until they stopped struggling? If she was gleeful and smiling while doing that, I might be a little more worried. If she tortured them by repeatedly dunking them until they slowly drowned, I would be immediately outraged.

That just simply isn't the case.
 
Last edited:
Eli said:
Unfortunately, iGas is right... Yes, they're cute puppies. My mind wants to make me wish hateful things on this girl, but my logic will not allow me, especially since I don't know the whole story. It's easy to jump to conclusions based on the short video.

This was not cruel. It was abhorrent to more "civilized" people, but it was not cruel or inhumane. I do not think this was pleasure killing. Yes, she smiled - caught in the moment. This little girl is not going to be a serial killer. She did not dunk them into the water, holding them there for a moment, then bring them out and watch them suffer. Let's be realistic here, people.

I'm surprised we haven't heard her side of the story yet, but I am guessing these puppies were simply unwanted. I mean, do you think she just stumbled upon the bucket of puppies and decided it would be fun to throw them into the river? lol..

I said it in the locked thread, and I'll say it again here. This kind of thing goes on right here in the good ole USA probably every day during spring. Millions of unwanted animals are put down in animal shelters yearly. How many do you think are put down outside of animal shelters? Probably more. I'll be stereotypical, but rednecks do not take unwanted animals to shelters. They are disposed of, and nobody is the wiser. The difference here? They made the mistake of filming it and put a short clip with no backstory on the internet.

This is just simply a fact of life. If you are taught that unwanted animals are simply disposed of, then that is what you practice. For whatever reason, most people consider drowning of baby animals to be the most humane way to put them to sleep.

Honestly, would you rather she held the puppies under water until they stopped struggling? If she was gleeful and smiling while doing that, I might be a little more worried. If she tortured them by repeatedly dunking them until they slowly drowned, I would be immediately outraged.

That just simply isn't the case.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue at all. I'm sure the puppies could swim well enough until they died of hypothermia. They died, slowly, and scared. I don't have an issue with culling animals, and I fuckin' hate dogs, but they still shouldn't be made to suffer. They were thrown in the river out of convenience. They didn't have the balls to slit their throats, or make their deaths quick. They took the easy way out, at the expense of the animals.
 
lxskllr said:
That's not the issue at all. I'm sure the puppies could swim well enough until they died of hypothermia. They died, slowly, and scared. I don't have an issue with culling animals, and I fuckin' hate dogs, but they still shouldn't be made to suffer. They were thrown in the river out of convenience. They didn't have the balls to slit their throats, or make their deaths quick. They took the easy way out, at the expense of the animals.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. The situation could have been handled better.

I don't know about swimming though. I guess I don't remember, but IIRC they barely had their eyes open. One breath of water, and that's pretty much it. In a river that fast moving, I'm pretty sure they died quickly.

We could argue the logistics of their death all day though, those are just simply unknowns.

I just want people to realize that if this were carried out at home, it would have involved a bucket full of water and a stick. I'm pretty sure if that was filmed and put on the internet, people would be even more outraged... lol. You're right, this was an easy way out.. In the sense that it was also the means of disposal, rather than having to bury them. I don't know what that really changes though..

Basically what I'm trying to say is that this is a case where the simplest, most logical motive probably applies. Not some convoluted, evil plot to make puppies suffer. Of course, if that was found NOT to be the case, then all of that goes out the window. But she is innocent unti proven guilty.

🙂
 
Last edited:
iGas said:
You mean recreational killing, and what the girl dis is simply recreational killing as well.

There is no different between the 2. Both are needless killing.

I came from a family of hunters in Vietnam (during the war) and have been on hunts for food, and my family & I stop hunting once we are here in North America because we do not need to hunt to survive. And as Vietnamese we pretty much eat everything including the bone marrow, as well as 99% of the gut, while the "self proclaim hunters" kills needlessly and take maybe 50% of the animal on a good day, or often just for the trophy/rug.

Last time I checked I still have some balls thanks 😉
Click to expand...

Thankfully, a retard like you will never procreate. And if you're Vietnamese, you wouldn't be to hard to pick-up and toss into the river.
 
iGas said:
Said the guy that go home empty handed after spending a boat loads of cash on a hunting trip. And, how many gut shots have you made if you are lucky enough to hit the target?
Click to expand...

I can walk out my back door and shoot a fucking deer. Cost to me = 1 bullet. My hunting rifle has been handed down over 2 generations.

In conclusion, you're an idiot if you can't see the difference between hunting and killing animals for the pleasure of watching them suffer.
 
Capt Caveman said:
Are you really that ignorant and dense to think she didn't do it for the lulz? If not, why would she film it and put it on youtube?
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. If she is disposing of unneeded/unwanted puppies, why post a video on youtube? Why laugh gleefully?

From my side of things, I had a dog that lived to be about 18 or so years old. On his final day, he had a major stroke and was limp and laying on the ground, foaming at the mouth. His life was then ended quickly and humanely, and he was buried. I did not have someone with me to record the event so I could later post it on youtube for entertainment value. There is nothing entertaining about it.

As to the numb nuts suggesting that what she did is no different than hunting, I'd side with lxskllr. People do hunt for recreation. And, we're the top animal on the food chain, except for lions, tigers, and bears... (oh my?). Some animals can be pests, some can be consumed. Pests are most often destroyed in the most effective/quick way possible to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering on the animal, and the same is true of game animals. Lxskllr's examples of cost are pretty much spot on. Having grown up in a hunting family, the rifle/shotgun/bow is a sunk cost, as is the clothing worn for the hunt as it is used and reused over and over again; IE - once you have it, you don't have to buy a new one for the next hunt. Many hunters hunt land with approval from the land owner, and no guide is needed. Your expenses are your gas and your ammunition. If you butcher yourself, you get a good amount of meat at a very small cost.

And to what she did, drowning puppies. Had she done it in a different fashion, it would've been much more humane. Instead, she hurled them in a river. Their bodies have a good amount of gas (oxygen) in them... the animals will float. They most likely died a slow, cold, painful death. Would you like to be bound and tossed into a river, no weight to hold you down? Slowly drifting on and on, until eventually you struck your head on a rock, passed out, and suffocated? I would certainly bet not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top