Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Maynard–the Rottie That Was Shot By Father 'n' Son, Then Left For Dead
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 8, 2010 at 12:52 am #685943
velo_nutParticipantTwo to be exact. And a cat. But really, it’s just a cat.
January 8, 2010 at 1:49 am #685844
fjMemberThis is horrible and tragic and unnecessary. However, I agree, it is just a dog. We treat animals like this way worse in many slaughter houses across America. It’s horrible. Worse than horrible. Why is that OK? So you can have your steak?
January 8, 2010 at 1:49 am #685944
fjMemberThis is horrible and tragic and unnecessary. However, I agree, it is just a dog. We treat animals like this way worse in many slaughter houses across America. It’s horrible. Worse than horrible. Why is that OK? So you can have your steak?
January 8, 2010 at 2:47 am #685845
JoBParticipantfj..
if you want to put your animal down.. you walk up next to it and discharge your weapon into it’s skull.. that requires one shot.
you don’t tie it to a tree and use it for target practice…
i don’t think you have to be a kid for violence to escalate from animals as targets to humans.
all you have to do is be indifferent.
January 8, 2010 at 2:47 am #685945
JoBParticipantfj..
if you want to put your animal down.. you walk up next to it and discharge your weapon into it’s skull.. that requires one shot.
you don’t tie it to a tree and use it for target practice…
i don’t think you have to be a kid for violence to escalate from animals as targets to humans.
all you have to do is be indifferent.
January 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm #685846
velo_nutParticipantWow JoB, I talked about shooting a cute little raccoon and it gets flagged and closed for being illegal.
You graphically describe how to kill an animal, “you walk up next to it and discharge your weapon into it’s skull”.
I’m so offended! I’m gonna tattle on you!
January 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm #685946
velo_nutParticipantWow JoB, I talked about shooting a cute little raccoon and it gets flagged and closed for being illegal.
You graphically describe how to kill an animal, “you walk up next to it and discharge your weapon into it’s skull”.
I’m so offended! I’m gonna tattle on you!
January 8, 2010 at 4:28 pm #685847
GenHillOneParticipantWhether I agree with it or not, I’m not sure what the law says about “putting down” an animal with a bullet to the head. Maybe someone else can quote the law. But from what I saw, velo-nut, your other comment (deleted before the thread was closed) began with “what they don’t know…” in response to another that specifically said what you were proposing was illegal. Though I suspect you’re looking for attention, that’s bold (arrogant or stupid) talk coming from someone who has all of his personal info linked to his user name.
January 8, 2010 at 4:28 pm #685947
GenHillOneParticipantWhether I agree with it or not, I’m not sure what the law says about “putting down” an animal with a bullet to the head. Maybe someone else can quote the law. But from what I saw, velo-nut, your other comment (deleted before the thread was closed) began with “what they don’t know…” in response to another that specifically said what you were proposing was illegal. Though I suspect you’re looking for attention, that’s bold (arrogant or stupid) talk coming from someone who has all of his personal info linked to his user name.
January 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm #685848
velo_nutParticipantOh, I’m sorry. I forgot to use my </sarcasm> tag.
January 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm #685954
velo_nutParticipantOh, I’m sorry. I forgot to use my </sarcasm> tag.
January 8, 2010 at 4:55 pm #685849
GenHillOneParticipantYeah, I hear that works at the airport too. </sarcasm>
–
Back on topic, if you believe the line needs to be drawn in cases like Maynard’s (or slaughter houses, don’t think they’re exclusive), let the decision makers know. Thanks again for bring it to our attention.
January 8, 2010 at 4:55 pm #685958
GenHillOneParticipantYeah, I hear that works at the airport too. </sarcasm>
–
Back on topic, if you believe the line needs to be drawn in cases like Maynard’s (or slaughter houses, don’t think they’re exclusive), let the decision makers know. Thanks again for bring it to our attention.
January 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm #685850
JoBParticipantvelo_nut..
i didn’t pull your post. i confess.. i didn’t even read it.. so i have no context.
my point is that even if you choose to put your own animal down… which would not be my choice… you can do so in a humane fashion.
Tieing a dog to a tree so that two people can repeatedly fire at it is target practice… and could perhaps have been excused if it had been effective.. tho i would argue that the first shot that did not kill was cruelty.
Not following the dog down the bank to check and dispatch a killing shot was both indifference and cruelty..
Aside from being cheap and mean.. these guys aren’t even effective. If they own guns for protection, they are likely to end up dead unless their target is totally defenseless.
Throw the book at them. These guys are a classic example of the need for better gun control laws…
irresponsible behavior with a firearm ought to be grounds for revoking licenses and confiscating guns. We don’t allow that kind of irresponsible behavior with automobiles…
As it is, even if convicted, these bozos will retain their weapons.
January 8, 2010 at 5:39 pm #685964
JoBParticipantvelo_nut..
i didn’t pull your post. i confess.. i didn’t even read it.. so i have no context.
my point is that even if you choose to put your own animal down… which would not be my choice… you can do so in a humane fashion.
Tieing a dog to a tree so that two people can repeatedly fire at it is target practice… and could perhaps have been excused if it had been effective.. tho i would argue that the first shot that did not kill was cruelty.
Not following the dog down the bank to check and dispatch a killing shot was both indifference and cruelty..
Aside from being cheap and mean.. these guys aren’t even effective. If they own guns for protection, they are likely to end up dead unless their target is totally defenseless.
Throw the book at them. These guys are a classic example of the need for better gun control laws…
irresponsible behavior with a firearm ought to be grounds for revoking licenses and confiscating guns. We don’t allow that kind of irresponsible behavior with automobiles…
As it is, even if convicted, these bozos will retain their weapons.
January 8, 2010 at 5:51 pm #685851
DBurnsParticipantJoB, please add ‘stupid’ to ‘cheap and mean’ – did you read my earlier post? :)
Which is also why you are exactly right to say that irresponsible behavior with a firearm ought to be grounds for losing AND ever again owning guns, how about!?! Wow.
January 8, 2010 at 5:51 pm #685967
DBurnsParticipantJoB, please add ‘stupid’ to ‘cheap and mean’ – did you read my earlier post? :)
Which is also why you are exactly right to say that irresponsible behavior with a firearm ought to be grounds for losing AND ever again owning guns, how about!?! Wow.
January 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm #685852
WSMomParticipantdid this happen in West Seattle??
January 8, 2010 at 6:15 pm #685971
WSMomParticipantdid this happen in West Seattle??
January 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm #685853
miwsParticipantJust got this reply to my e-m, from Dan Donahoe:
“Mr. Xxxxx,
Thank you for writing to the King County Prosecutor’s Office regarding the upcoming trial of Travis and Terrance Hedin. I want to assure you that we have charged both defendants with the maximum charge under state law, which is animal cruelty in the first degree. Animal cruelty in the first degree is a felony that carries a standard sentence range of up to a year in jail, but the maximum sentence is up to five years in prison. We consider this a very serious case and it is scheduled to go to trial on February 1st at the King County Courthouse in Seattle.
Sincerely,
Dan Donohoe
King County Prosecutor’s Office”
Mike
January 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm #685975
miwsParticipantJust got this reply to my e-m, from Dan Donahoe:
“Mr. Xxxxx,
Thank you for writing to the King County Prosecutor’s Office regarding the upcoming trial of Travis and Terrance Hedin. I want to assure you that we have charged both defendants with the maximum charge under state law, which is animal cruelty in the first degree. Animal cruelty in the first degree is a felony that carries a standard sentence range of up to a year in jail, but the maximum sentence is up to five years in prison. We consider this a very serious case and it is scheduled to go to trial on February 1st at the King County Courthouse in Seattle.
Sincerely,
Dan Donohoe
King County Prosecutor’s Office”
Mike
January 8, 2010 at 7:11 pm #685854
JoBParticipantDburns..
LOL.. i thought it went without saying that they were stupid… anyone who tries to claim the reward for turning themselves in for cruelty to their own dog is pretty stupid…
WSMom…
no.. this didn’t happen in West Seattle.. but if some of the posts are any indication… it could.
tho.. i have to admit.. i don’t think any of our posters are actually stupid enough to try to turn themselves in for the reward…
January 8, 2010 at 7:11 pm #685978
JoBParticipantDburns..
LOL.. i thought it went without saying that they were stupid… anyone who tries to claim the reward for turning themselves in for cruelty to their own dog is pretty stupid…
WSMom…
no.. this didn’t happen in West Seattle.. but if some of the posts are any indication… it could.
tho.. i have to admit.. i don’t think any of our posters are actually stupid enough to try to turn themselves in for the reward…
March 15, 2010 at 10:16 pm #685855
KBearParticipantThey got away with it. Unbelievable.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2011353676_two_men_charged_with_animal_cr.html
March 15, 2010 at 10:16 pm #685982
KBearParticipantThey got away with it. Unbelievable.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2011353676_two_men_charged_with_animal_cr.html
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.