Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

General conversation and chit chat - The place for non-shooting specific topics. Introduce yourself here.

Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by TassieTiger » 31 Jul 2020, 12:42 pm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-31/ ... h/12510508

2 years jail - to be served at home?
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3748
Tasmania

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Raven » 02 Aug 2020, 9:31 pm

Great role model he is for those 4 kids. Should have a licence to breed.
Raven
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 9
New South Wales

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by boingk » 02 Aug 2020, 10:38 pm

2 year suspended sentence. Common stuff if he doesn't have a big record.

Basically if he fahks up again inside 2 years he'll be re-sentenced and probably go into custody.

Seriously though, who the hell thinks that this kind of thing is a good idea?
Long time shooter, beginner reloader.
boingk
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 244
New South Wales

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by marksman » 03 Aug 2020, 12:20 pm

l'm glad he did not do it with a gun :unknown:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Victoria

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 03 Aug 2020, 4:10 pm

marksman wrote:l'm glad he did not do it with a gun :unknown:

I think it's safe to assume that had they discharged firearms near all those houses in the suburbs they would both be facing stiffer sentences.

Those guys got more than the bloke who ran down all those emus and laughed about it on video. People who deliberately hurt animals usually lack empathy that can make them a danger to humans as well. This was pointed out by the magistrate. The older bloke got 12 months minimum incarceration, which he deserved for letting the young bloke drive his ute and egging him on.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by womble » 03 Aug 2020, 5:11 pm

Pretty much.
I believe in the states people who hurt animals for sadistic pleasure, particularly young people, go on a list with the fbi.
Because they profile as likely to hurt or kill people later in life. Potential serial killers. Unfortunately some blokes just are’nt quite wired up correctly in the brain. Born that way. Lack of empathy, lack of conscience, lack of remorse etc being a main trait of psychopaths or even sociopaths.
Don’t know if that speaks for these guys, time will tell.
User avatar
womble
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 407
Victoria

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 04 Aug 2020, 6:19 pm

I separate cruelty from unlawful killing, which should be punished butnot as bad as torture. What rides me more than people who kill a bunch of emus's and what I can never understand is people keeping single animals in tiny enclosures, battery hens and even pet birds in cages.

Particularly birds, an animal who's brain is designed by evolution to experience, process and enjoy the widest spaces and vistas open to any creature...so we stuff it in the smallest space possible and watch it go insane for 10-30 years.

Then that person complains if the yob next door has his dog chained up its whole life... :crazy:
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 05 Aug 2020, 3:22 pm

Completely agree. Some birds live longer than 30 years. And why anyone would want to eat eggs or meat from battey or barn hens raised in filthy unnatural conditions with no sunlight and pumped full of hormones to make them grow and anti-biotics to help them survive in their unsanitary facilities is beyond me. You're only as healthy as what you eat.

My only contention is that cruelty can also accompany unlawful killing. Is running over a mob of kangaroos, for example, unlawful killing or cruelty if said animals are left to die slowly of their injuries, or joeys are to crawl out of their dead mother's pouches and slowly freeze to death as in this case? It's not the unlawful killing, per se, but the cruelty that often accompanies it.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by allthegearandnoidea » 05 Aug 2020, 6:35 pm

With eveything I see on the news with 10 schoolboys charged with stabbing an unconscious man they randomly attacked, Karens and other assorted sovereign citizen nutjobs declaring their special status, this is the last straw - combined with the looming economic implosion - I despair for this country.
allthegearandnoidea
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 167
Queensland

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 06 Aug 2020, 12:28 am

Flyer wrote:
My only contention is that cruelty can also accompany unlawful killing. Is running over a mob of kangaroos, for example, unlawful killing or cruelty if said animals are left to die slowly of their injuries, or joeys are to crawl out of their dead mother's pouches and slowly freeze to death as in this case? It's not the unlawful killing, per se, but the cruelty that often accompanies it.


Same could be argued for us killing female animals of any type. We cant account for any young nearby. I'd rather the guy be punished as hard as necessary for each and every animal killed, including joeys yep sure, but without the torture talk. Thats just me, I prefer to save words like that for putting away the real sadists.
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by rc42 » 06 Aug 2020, 7:56 am

Society has funny 'morals' when it comes to what's cruelty and what isn't.
Baby chickens identified as male are placed on conveyor belts that feed them into meat grinders whilst still alive and that's RSPCA approved, in fact there's no part of the meat and dairy industry that isn't based on cruelty and suffering of animals. If a food product has a smiling cartoon animal on it then that's the animal type suffered to make it.
It seems that you can commit any act of cruelty if there's money to be made and you've paid some of it to the government.

Not that I agree in any way with what these jerks have done, dangerous driving just for the sake of some kind of sick sport, but their real punishment is for the stupidity of doing it where there were witnesses, leaving evidence and bragging about it by text or social media.
rc42
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 343
Queensland

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 06 Aug 2020, 5:13 pm

mickb wrote:
Flyer wrote:
My only contention is that cruelty can also accompany unlawful killing. Is running over a mob of kangaroos, for example, unlawful killing or cruelty if said animals are left to die slowly of their injuries, or joeys are to crawl out of their dead mother's pouches and slowly freeze to death as in this case? It's not the unlawful killing, per se, but the cruelty that often accompanies it.


Same could be argued for us killing female animals of any type. We cant account for any young nearby. I'd rather the guy be punished as hard as necessary for each and every animal killed, including joeys yep sure, but without the torture talk. Thats just me, I prefer to save words like that for putting away the real sadists.

I guess it's just a matter of semantics. Whether you use the word "cruel" or "torture" it still amounts to the same thing: intent to injure, maim or kill without regard to suffering. There is a difference between that and killing cleanly without inflicting pain (or killing cruelly because you need to eat to survive and have no other means). I believe that is why they were charged and convicted of animal cruelty offences – because it was cruel and I don't see any other way to describe it.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 06 Aug 2020, 5:26 pm

rc42 wrote:Society has funny 'morals' when it comes to what's cruelty and what isn't.
Baby chickens identified as male are placed on conveyor belts that feed them into meat grinders whilst still alive and that's RSPCA approved, in fact there's no part of the meat and dairy industry that isn't based on cruelty and suffering of animals. If a food product has a smiling cartoon animal on it then that's the animal type suffered to make it.
It seems that you can commit any act of cruelty if there's money to be made and you've paid some of it to the government.

Not that I agree in any way with what these jerks have done, dangerous driving just for the sake of some kind of sick sport, but their real punishment is for the stupidity of doing it where there were witnesses, leaving evidence and bragging about it by text or social media.

Absolutely. But even a chick that is macerated or a calf that's stunned and bolted has a quick a death. Can the same be said for deliberately running over an animal or group of animals and leaving it/them to die slowly?
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by TassieTiger » 06 Aug 2020, 5:30 pm

Best thing that could have happened here was something from the dundee movie...one of those poor skippy’s should have had a straight pull 12g with bird shot and let the pricks have it...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3748
Tasmania

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Grandadbushy » 06 Aug 2020, 6:25 pm

Firstly there was no reason to run those animals over other than for reasons only they would know ,but if the animals were human the charge would be akin to murder and in this case they should be charged with that in mind , as far as other animals (ie food) well most killed are killed as humanely as possible (or should be) as far as eggs well we can't dictate to people on what they eat but i do find the battery hens do it hard and can't see why they aren't run in paddocks with laying sheds , little bit more work collecting eggs but kinder on the animal and better tasting egg same as pork free range pork kills the taste compared to the battery porker. I'm not a greeny or an animal liberationist by far i will kill pests and anything edible and eat it but i will not torture or let an animal suffer if it is within my control and it's usually about 0.1% when it isn't
Grandadbushy
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 368
Queensland

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 06 Aug 2020, 7:16 pm

If people feel strongly about treatment of animals then there are at least some choices. Free-range eggs are better than barn or cage eggs and the price difference really isn't that much. Same with free-range pork and free-range chicken – you can make a conscious decision to buy it instead of battery chicken/pork and the price difference isn't that much. The taste (IMO) is usually better, too, and I would rather eat heathy, clean animals than diseased or antibiotic-filled ones.

There are also cases of caged-egg producers fraudulenty selling their eggs as free-range, too, so you could go a step further and simply not buy eggs from any producer that keeps battery hens – whether they offer barn-laid, free-range or otherwise.

We rightly condemn countries such as China for keeping dogs and cats and other animals in small cages before killing them – at least they eat them – yet many are happy to buy caged eggs or intensively-farmed chicken meat that is tantamount to the same.

How we treat animals says a lot about us as "civilised" humans. You don't have to be a "Greenie" to have empathy. Respect and kindess to each other and animals is not a preserve of any side of politics.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by marksman » 06 Aug 2020, 7:22 pm

l actually think these guys should be studied and l do not think they are of sound mind
l dont see killing animals as a sport or a bit of fun and l cannot understand what they thought this was :unknown:
“If you do not read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed”. Mark Twain
User avatar
marksman
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Victoria

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 06 Aug 2020, 7:28 pm

marksman wrote:l actually think these guys should be studied and l do not think they are of sound mind
l dont see killing animals as a sport or a bit of fun and l cannot understand what they thought this was :unknown:


Not excusing these guys legally or morally but dont most hunters kill for sport or a bit of fun. I am not eating 98% of the stuff I shoot or have shot either, and dont really feel like I need to be studied because of it.
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by TassieTiger » 06 Aug 2020, 8:08 pm

mickb wrote:
marksman wrote:l actually think these guys should be studied and l do not think they are of sound mind
l dont see killing animals as a sport or a bit of fun and l cannot understand what they thought this was :unknown:


Not excusing these guys legally or morally but dont most hunters kill for sport or a bit of fun. I am not eating 98% of the stuff I shoot or have shot either, and dont really feel like I need to be studied because of it.


Each to their own - I used to enjoy hunting for the sport when I was younger but now - I’ll not take the shot unless I intend to utilise the animal in some way. That’s not to say I wouldn’t shoot animals to preserve crops or kill pests from killing other animals (ie cats etc) but Killing for the absolute pleasure of killing ? Yeah - maybe anyone that does that, should be studied...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3748
Tasmania

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Grandadbushy » 06 Aug 2020, 8:14 pm

Mickb mate with all due respect i don;t think that is quiet true with most shooters, some do it for food , some do it as a job, some do it for the humane help of an injured animal although there are those that trophy hunt like presumably poachers, those that leave the carcass there without a head but this is done illegally, i hunt ferals as a job/pastime but i do it as clinically as possible and ''not for fun'' , You sound like a sensible bloke and seeing ''hopefully'' you are not as stupid as those other clowns then it is a different situation, i agree with you there are some that do shoot /hunt for fun but in some way shape or form they are doing our fauna a service and providing they do it legally and humanely then there shouldn't be any reason for people to complain, but those other clowns defy all the traits of a normal human they possibly do need testing for the possibility of having some grey matter between their ears. :thumbsup:
Grandadbushy
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 368
Queensland

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 06 Aug 2020, 8:24 pm

Flyer wrote:I guess it's just a matter of semantics. Whether you use the word "cruel" or "torture" it still amounts to the same thing: intent to injure, maim or kill without regard to suffering. There is a difference between that and killing cleanly without inflicting pain (or killing cruelly because you need to eat to survive and have no other means). I believe that is why they were charged and convicted of animal cruelty offences – because it was cruel and I don't see any other way to describe it.


They are dictionary definitions and they dont amount to the same thing. If cruelty is the name of the offence, that is fine slap him with it. Again torture is a different level and I dont support the new and lazy usage of it with mundane crimes. The legal system is already too sloppy these days. A drug dealer who ruins kids liives isnt tortuing them., but someone who barrels over a few marsupials is a torturer needing specialised studies by the FBI apparently. Australians are losing their sense of proportionality due to sensationalism.
Last edited by mickb on 06 Aug 2020, 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 06 Aug 2020, 8:55 pm

Grandadbushy wrote:Mickb mate with all due respect i don;t think that is quiet true with most shooters,


mate id say actually it is true for many shooters. I do pest destruction and culling but the vast majority of 'casual shooters' I see are not doing it for some sense of 'civic duty'(though it can have such secondary benefits) regardless what they claim nor are they doing it to put food on the table or wear the skiins. eat all the pigs, or wear their skins . They are doing it and buying the guns and going to all the trouble of begging landowners to get on properties because they love the sport. Which is an honorable reason.

I dont get carried away imputing some dark purpose to anyones reasons to hunt, or the lengthy apologies. If someone wants to do it for sport, even if its to hang trophy mounts on the wall or pig tusks on a necklace, have at it.
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by TassieTiger » 06 Aug 2020, 9:44 pm

I refuse to hunt with ppl who shoot animals for the sake of...well shooting animals and then leaving them 100% to rot / slow wounded death - and nothing more. It makes no sense to me. If you want to test your shooting skills why do it on living creatures and risk a wounded animal...move to targets...wildlife is a valuable resource in its own right.

Last year, I’ve taken an older guy on my property who wanted to shoot some wallaby for his dogs....it just so happened as we approached the main dam, a couple ducks flew over and he shot them. He then recovered them, held them up gleefully for a photo, scratched out a hole in the ground and buried them...there’s the gate mate - good luck to you...
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3748
Tasmania

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Grandadbushy » 06 Aug 2020, 9:55 pm

Yeah mickb i respect your opinion and you're entitled to it but i do see things in a different light on the subject but that doesn't mean i'm right or wrong but just a different opinion cheers
Grandadbushy
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 368
Queensland

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Grandadbushy » 06 Aug 2020, 10:01 pm

Yes TT i agree if it ain't an absolute pest or edible than leave it , as you said if they want to spruce up their shooting they should move to targets not live animals, that bloke would have been walking home if he was with me.
Grandadbushy
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 368
Queensland

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 07 Aug 2020, 1:19 am

mickb wrote:
marksman wrote:l actually think these guys should be studied and l do not think they are of sound mind
l dont see killing animals as a sport or a bit of fun and l cannot understand what they thought this was :unknown:


Not excusing these guys legally or morally but dont most hunters kill for sport or a bit of fun. I am not eating 98% of the stuff I shoot or have shot either, and dont really feel like I need to be studied because of it.

Do you think so? Considering the large number of sporting shooters who don't even hunt – or hunt only very occassionally – I'd almost be willing to bet that at least in some parts of the country, on any given weekend, there are more people shooting at paper, steel and clay targets than at living things.

Of those that are, how many are shooting ferals?

Maybe you're right – maybe there are those who enjoy killing and use the above as an excuse – but I'd like to think that most shooters have enough respect for life that they do it for the right reasons and not simply to destroy another living creature for the "fun" of it.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 07 Aug 2020, 1:33 am

mickb wrote:They are dictionary definitions and they dont amount to the same thing. If cruelty is the name of the offence, that is fine slap him with it. Again torture is a different level and I dont support the new and lazy usage of it with mundane crimes. The legal system is already too sloppy these days. A drug dealer who ruins kids liives isnt tortuing them., but someone who barrels over a few marsupials is a torturer needing specialised studies by the FBI apparently. Australians are losing their sense of proportionality due to sensationalism.

As I said, semantics. One is a noun the other an adjective. You can't have torture without cruelty, and it is arguable that any form of cruelty is also a form or torture. What those guys did certainly meets the following definitions.

cruel
[ kroo-uhl ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR cruel ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective, cru·el·er, cru·el·est.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.

torture
[ tawr-cher ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR torture ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
a method of inflicting such pain.
Often tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
a cause of severe pain or anguish.

So I don't see how you can label this a "mundane crime". I don't see it as such. Neither does society, which makes the rules.

As for the drug dealer reference: people who take drugs have a choice in the matter. Even under addiction they can seek help. I am not defending drug dealers – certainly not condoning selling to kids – but even your local bartender is a drug dealer. Different people have different poisons. If they're not hurting others – and let's face it, alcohol hurts more people than just about all other drugs combined – then consenting adults can do what they want to themselves as far as I'm concerend.

Defenceless animals don't have a say.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 07 Aug 2020, 1:34 am

[quote="TassieTiger] wildlife is a valuable resource in its own right. [/quote]

Must be nice to live in a state where shootable game is a 'valuable resource" mate. :D In QLD, we have the worlds largest populations of pigs, estimates are they outnumber people 2-1. Between them and cats they take out an estimated 1 million native animals a year. Then there are the goats, donkeys, horses, camels, scrub bulls etc. People want to shoot them on sight, shoot them for sport, shoot them for trophies or leave them to rot not only are they are enjoying their sport, they are doing the world a favor. Win Win.
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by Flyer » 07 Aug 2020, 1:52 am

TassieTiger wrote:I refuse to hunt with ppl who shoot animals for the sake of...well shooting animals and then leaving them 100% to rot / slow wounded death - and nothing more. It makes no sense to me. If you want to test your shooting skills why do it on living creatures and risk a wounded animal...move to targets...wildlife is a valuable resource in its own right.

Last year, I’ve taken an older guy on my property who wanted to shoot some wallaby for his dogs....it just so happened as we approached the main dam, a couple ducks flew over and he shot them. He then recovered them, held them up gleefully for a photo, scratched out a hole in the ground and buried them...there’s the gate mate - good luck to you...

We don't agree on much, but I applaud you for that.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: Animal cruelty case - some ppl....

Post by mickb » 07 Aug 2020, 1:58 am

Flyer wrote:As I said, semantics. One is a noun the other an adjective. You can't have torture without cruelty, and it is arguable that any form of cruelty is also a form or torture. What those guys did certainly meets the following definitions.


And you could also say a great many crimes cause pain, suffering, deliberate harm to people, like breaking a guys jaw, or arm, or stealing grandmas pension money. But not all crimes apply torture to the charge list for reasons it falls under a specific application and to over apply it yoyu risk it becomeing superflous.

My opinion is the application is overused for a case of running down animals. Frankly its sensationlaism. In fact I would not even have it in relation to animals any more than I would have 'murder' against an animal.

This is just my position sorry. You dont have to agree with it, but at least say you understand the words because I have written it three times now. :)

cruel
[ kroo-uhl ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR cruel ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective, cru·el·er, cru·el·est.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.


Answered above, again.

As for the drug dealer reference: people who take drugs have a choice in the matter
Defenceless animals don't have a say.


No 'kids' are not 'people' being seen to have a choice in 'such matters', as they are minors. Unless you are saying they have a choice in being abused , coercion, and could just seek help to avoid it. :roll:

Read my first paragraph again. We can agree to disagree, but at least if we understand one anothers position, the semantics you are so worried about will reduce about 95%.;)
Last edited by mickb on 07 Aug 2020, 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
mickb
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 504
Other

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Off topic - General conversation