• 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 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
They would'nt have survived or suffered, they looked at most three weeks old. Its a method that has been around for years.

The fact that you think these pups may cause waterway problems tells me you're either an idiot or a city slicker, and not exclusively either one.

And again, its disturbing the way she is acting, but we have no idea what the whole story of the video is.

Really? What do I know, I only have about oh...seven years of zoology behind me, worked for a vet and along with a zoo. Maybe I am a bit outside my territory on this.

I thought I read (and don't believe) that all the pups were rescued downstream...anyway I guess that requires reading...something those city slickers do.

I guess if everyone decided to thrown their pets in this waterway instead of euthanizing them or disposing of them properly it'd be no problem.

What other story does one need? I am curious. Perhaps someone was off camera with a gun at her fucking head telling her to laugh it up.

To those that say other animals hunt for fun...it really has nothing to do with justifying human behavior. I have never gotten that.
 

Why film it? Why would she be charged with animal cruelty if she was old enough?

In regard to animal shelters here, yes, many are euthanized due to overpopulation and the one's that use gas chambers are held in disdain and protested. This overpopulation has led to 10,000s of pets to be transported and adopted to people in the north.

One of my adopted dogs was on death row and scheduled to be gassed in GA but was rescued and brought up north the day before his last day.
 
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.

If you are to be killed, how would you like the death served?
Quick and painless? Or long and excruciating?


Does this concept really confuse you all that much?

There was a "controversial" case earlier here in my hometown, where a man shot his dog because the dog became violent and could not be trusted. Whether the story is true or not, untrustworthy animals or animals in severe distress deserve a quick death - problem is, apparently doing it yourself in the city is definitely a big no no. Also doesn't help that he failed to kill the dog, despite shooting it 6 times - which turns into an even worse situation.

As for hunting, the whole point of hunting laws and provisions is to protect the victims (wild game) from unnecessary suffering. The goal is a good shot that brings a quick death - when animals suffer due to bad attempts or illegal methods of hunting, the Game authorities bring some fierce heat to the hunter.

In case you can't comprehend - if you are going to kill an animal, don't make it suffer. Snap the neck, cut the throat, shoot the heart... head shots aren't a good idea most often, most wild game have large domes but fairly small brain cavities - you miss the important part of the brain that houses the autonomic functions, you're then causing unnecessary suffering.
But throwing an animal into a river to drown? Yeah, that's not fast, and you're making them stress to survive - and all for your personal enjoyment/entertainment?

And actually, many hunters do eat what they kill... it's more common than prize hunting.
And prize hunting is also typically done during specific seasons... in the name of local animal population control.. so it's justified to simply hunt for sport and sport alone.
But still, getting wild game to eat is often the goal. Or if you only seek to bag a carcass, selling it for meat is a rather typical route taken.

Healthy wild game is also far better meat - the opinion of the flavor may differ, but nutritionally, it is better than mega-farm meat. Though perfect comparisons just aren't possible, since their aren't many wild bovines, and the wild creatures of the bovine family are very different from the species we raise for milk or meat.
And most other species that are hunted just aren't commonly farmed to begin with.

/ramblin man
 
Last edited:
Really? What do I know, I only have about oh...seven years of zoology behind me, worked for a vet and along with a zoo. Maybe I am a bit outside my territory on this.

I guess if everyone decided to thrown their pets in this waterway instead of euthanizing them or disposing of them properly it'd be no problem.

You stated her actions could cause problems, I stated her actions alone couldnt.

I thought I read (and don't believe) that all the pups were rescued downstream...anyway I guess that requires reading...something those city slickers do.

I read that as well, and also dont believe that, whats your point here?

What other story does one need? I am curious. Perhaps someone was off camera with a gun at her fucking head telling her to laugh it up.

Perhaps she is lacking cognitive fuction required to have any sort of empathy? 100s of possibilities we don't know from a short video

Replied
 
As for hunting, the whole point of hunting laws and provisions is to protect the victims (wild game) from unnecessary suffering. The goal is a good shot that brings a quick death - when animals suffer due to bad attempts or illegal methods of hunting, the Game authorities bring some fierce heat to the hunter.
No, the point of game laws is to protect game populations from over-hunting and to generate revenue. If an animal is made to suffer, provided the hunter has the required permits and is hunting lawfully, there's not a damned thing the game wardens or conservation officers can do about it. They can chastise the hunter but then the hunter can just tell them to fuck off, and there isn't a damn thing they can do.
 
Granted the war was 15 years a ago, but still, Bosnia has a $4200 per capita Income..Mexico has about 10,000.

Its a close one.

I only looked for 5 or 10 min, but everything I read said second world country. I only spent a couple months there (many years after the war), but from what I saw people were living pretty comfortably. It is certainly not first world, not everyone had large yards and cars and most of the homes I visited were apartment style, but it wasnt third world Africa style either. There was a lot of money spent on recreational activities, restaurants and travel (to Croatia mostly). The numbers you listed may be lower, but the cost of living is also very low.

***One thing that I noticed then, and might be relevant now is that there were a lot of wild dogs running around on the streets, but not one single family I met had any pets, and I never ever saw anyone out walking a dog. I'm not justifying the actions of this girl, but I don't think they have the same attachment towards dogs as North Americans do.

***Disclaimer: This is based on my personal experiences in the country, not intended to be displayed as a fact.
 

Now you are going to semantics.

We don't make laws/actions based on letting one or two slide through.

This is how most think here, it's all excuses. This incident has gone global, to treat it as a individual iterm would be insane.

The videotaping and emotion portrayed makes it more serious then just some little girl sent to the river to kill puppies.

In the end I feel retarded or not, she is responsible for her actions and needs to be locked up or taken out of society regardless.

I don't believe mental defects preclude one's removal from the population.
 
also "pets" are a different class than game. A stray cat <> feral as well always.

There is a big legal separation being livestock, game, and pets.
 
My guess is 20 years from now we'll see her in the news again. However, this time she'll be one of those moms who goes crazy and drowns her 3 children in the bathtub.
 
She maybe had her own reasons for throwing those puppies and we don't have the right to judge.. but it just makes me sad..

Just a thought, hunters hunt for food or for trophy, girl throw puppies for trophy as well?
 
My guess is 20 years from now we'll see her in the news again. However, this time she'll be one of those moms who goes crazy and drowns her 3 children in the bathtub.

lol. No you won't. People, especially the internet and silly liberals, care more about puppies than human babies. Everyone know this.
 
Killing for food or population control is ok with me as long as it is quick. Killing just to kill is a sign of someone who is mentally unstable IMHO.
 
Why film it? Why would she be charged with animal cruelty if she was old enough?

In regard to animal shelters here, yes, many are euthanized due to overpopulation and the one's that use gas chambers are held in disdain and protested. This overpopulation has led to 10,000s of pets to be transported and adopted to people in the north.

One of my adopted dogs was on death row and scheduled to be gassed in GA but was rescued and brought up north the day before his last day.

I don't know why they filmed it. That would help answer some of the variables: Is this kid an evil bitch, or just misguided?

If she would have been charged with animal cruelty, then that is fair enough. I assume you could be charged if you did this in the US? What about my scenario of drowning the puppies in a bucket? Could you be charged for that? I don't know if I would agree with that.

Anyway... My point regarding the animal shelter killings is that there are millions of unwanted animals in the US alone, let alone the rest of the world. The sad fact of life is that many of these animals do not die graceful deaths, simply because they are deemed unwanted. When you don't care about something, it is easy to kill it. I think that was the point iGas was trying to make with his poorly worded hunting analogies. It doesn't matter if it's a deer, dog, rabbit, bird, cat, cow, pig, rat, etc. If you don't care about it, you feel nothing when you kill it.

Motive has everything to do with something like this. It is the difference between homicide and murder; misguided and psychopath. In my opinion, this girl did not derive pleasure from this. She was not interested in torturing the puppies. She was simply disposing of them. Now, I'm not going to argue against the fact that the method chosen could have lead to suffering. I completely agree that throwing them into the river was a terrible way to handle the situation. She is a kid though. Perhaps she just didn't even think about the fact that they could suffer? She should have though, and the potential cruelty charges show this.

Maybe she did this specifically because she did not want to physically hold them under water? I don't know. None of us do. I'm just throwing things out there. I just think it would be good for all of us to take a step back and evaluate the situation, rather than just reacting based on a small slice of information. This applies to everything, not just this subject.
 
I can't say enough about the possibility that she was doing it at the behest or instigation of the person behind the camera (deliberately). When I was a young kid, I was a bit socially isolated.

One of our neighbors had a son that was two years older than me, who had lived with his father for several years after they got a divorce. He came to live with his mother one year, who lived a few houses down from me, and I thought he was pretty cool because he smoked cigarettes (that he stole from his mom) and had all this cool stuff (that he had stolen from other people).

What a rotten fucker that kid was. Always instigating that I do shit, always wanting to steal shit, to shoot animals with his pellet gun, always wanting to set fire to something, throw rocks at someone or something with windows, etc etc.

Of course, I was always the one who should do it because "he already did it before". He would either pretend that he was being 'generous' by letting me 'have the fun' (you can do it, I've already done it before), or if I refused, he would use the old 'you're too chicken shit' until I relented.

And of course, this would ensure I would be the one to get fucking caught or receive the worst punishment, since I was the "do'er" while he merely watched. And he would always say it was my idea, that I wanted HIM to do it but HE refused. Manipulative little fucktard.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top