Want to kill your animal and avoid prosecution?

[ QUOTE ]


I'm sorry but kicking a little dog to death IS cruelty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you think something doesn't mean it is so. And that is a lesson you could take to another thread here too.

I think we would all agree that kicking a dog to the extent where one would injure or kill it is completely wrong but the question is whether it is cruelty in the eyes of the law. In these circumstances it has been determined that there is no case to answer.

The fact that you don't like this decision, like other decisions, does not make the decision wrong - it simply means that you do not agree. So, your tendency to make unfounded proclamations 'kicking a dog to death IS cruelty', 'there was an illegal meeting', 'the vet changed their evidence' simply demonstrates that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what happens in courts and in welfare enquiries or the ability to see and understand both sides of a case.

You had zero credibility before, you are in a minus balance now.
 
So it is wrong to kill an animal, but acceptable to attack a person, because they have killed an animal?
confused.gif

Please can you explain the difference for the animal of different forms of a quick death.
I am aware that rabbits are shot every day, that was rather my point! I was trying to point out that it is the species, rather than the act, which causes the problem for people.
 
SHOCKING! Too right, what a message to send out.

Even before I'd read this post I have to say that the RSPCA only seem to be interested in money making and glam court cases and prosections. It's damned annoying to know that hardly any of my donation to the RSPCA went to the poor animals - I think they really are a bunch of Rob Dogs!

Must add that they do occassionaly get it right.
 
That is truly dreadful that the poor dog was kicked to its death, totally unacceptable and in my opinion CRUELTY. Maybe the dog did die instantly but the man should not have been able to walk away from this with no punishment.
 
[ QUOTE ]
SHOCKING! Too right, what a message to send out.

Even before I'd read this post I have to say that the RSPCA only seem to be interested in money making and glam court cases and prosections. It's damned annoying to know that hardly any of my donation to the RSPCA went to the poor animals - I think they really are a bunch of Rob Dogs!

Must add that they do occassionaly get it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow this... Everyone seems happy to donate to organisations who take on the rescue cases (the poor animals) therefore mopping up after the cruelty, but no one seems to want to help finance the case to prosecute the person causing that suffering... Without the rspca in horse cases the WHW, Horsetrust, redwings etc etc would not have the rescue horses to help because they would have been killed by, or still be suffering with the owners causing the suffering.

Added to that if paying the boarding, veterinary bills, feed bills, rehab, etc etc isn't helping those poor animals then what is?????
 
[ QUOTE ]
So it is wrong to kill an animal, but acceptable to attack a person, because they have killed an animal?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not acceptable to attack a person but I'm affraid it would be a "knee jerk" reaction. But absolutely not accepatable no.


[ QUOTE ]
Please can you explain the difference for the animal of different forms of a quick death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain?

[ QUOTE ]
I am aware that rabbits are shot every day, that was rather my point! I was trying to point out that it is the species, rather than the act, which causes the problem for people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is the species, rather than the act, which causes the problem. However, in my personal that is wrong. And animal is an animal and none should be protected more than the other. Who are we as humans to say which animals are more important than others? Sorry but it seems we try to play God all too often.
 
[ QUOTE ]
there was no legal basis to prosecute this man, you might not like it but that is the law and the police and the RSPCA and all other prosecuting agencies have to work within the law. In fact it might have been slightly unethical to to allow a caution - but it is at least a recordable outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said MH, it's the decision of the CPS not the RSPCA and until you've worked with those guys you cannot possibly be qualified to comment on whether they are any use or not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i hardly think that the RSPCA can be that bad, all charities are regulated and if there were such huge problems with the organisation then this would be brought to light, partiularly when such an organisation is in the public eye

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be suprised!
 
I presume that you are a vegan then Patty?
Re different forms of killing, if it is instant, does it matter to the animal, how it is killed?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I presume that you are a vegan then Patty?
Re different forms of killing, if it is instant, does it matter to the animal, how it is killed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not - does this mean I should accept the killing of animals just for the sake of killing? Or should I find it acceptable for a man to kick a little dog to death just because it died instantly?

People dont have to be vegan to KNOW that kicking a little dog to death is flipping cruel.

What that man did to that beautiful little dog is nothing but cruel. If not then PLEASE will you explain to me just what it is because for the life of me I cant see it as anything else?
 
what is YOUR definition of cruel???

different people have different ideas, if you express what you think cruel is you will balance your argument better.
 
Oh fee gods sake people, he probably just aimed a kick at the dog as he was mad, I would place a bet he didn't intend to kill the dog and certainly did not repeat kick it "Kicking it death" implies a prolonged attack. This was not the case

Good on the RSPCA for not taking it to court, as there was no cruelty, only a rather unfortunate and untimely death.

Now what makes me mad is that someone could come and attack your horse / dog which is essentially a family member and will face very little in terms of criminal punishment. This I think needs changing as its not property damage due to the emotional suffering. Now if this was the case, the lady in question could have taken this bloke to court for the loss of the dog.
 
[ QUOTE ]

What that man did to that beautiful little dog is nothing but cruel. If not then PLEASE will you explain to me just what it is because for the life of me I cant see it as anything else?

[/ QUOTE ]

What that man did to that dog was moronic, brutal, stupid, and evil!! It showed he had an uncontrolled temper and a total disregard for animals. BUT, under the law, it did not constitute cruelty because the poor little chap died BEFORE he could suffer.

I repeat - for those who cannot understand plain English - in LEGAL terms, cruelty is defined - in law - as 'causing unnecessary suffering'. The dog didn't suffer pain - or even fear - because it died instantly. End of ...
 
I agree it is the law that needs changing. The RSPCA have their faults - sure they do - as do we all. I regularly work with the RSPCA and the officers I work with are superb. The job is a nightmare - how many of you guys would walk into a situation ALONE where there are very aggressive people, some of whom are travellers (no offence to travellers on the forum but you can be very scarey) and argue with them over their animals? Until you have a gun pulled on you its hard to understand how scarey it is. Sure you can call for back up but you may have the [****] kicked out of you by the time they arrive. Its easy to sit online and say yes I would do this, that and the other but going out to abuse cases day in day out with little support, aggressive people being nasty to you all day, lots of criticism from everyone else and worst of all the horrible, horrible guilt that you can't save all the animals you encounter, is no easy task.

Ok - got that off my chest!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree it is the law that needs changing. The RSPCA have their faults - sure they do - as do we all. I regularly work with the RSPCA and the officers I work with are superb. The job is a nightmare - how many of you guys would walk into a situation ALONE where there are very aggressive people, some of whom are travellers (no offence to travellers on the forum but you can be very scarey) and argue with them over their animals? Until you have a gun pulled on you its hard to understand how scarey it is. Sure you can call for back up but you may have the [****] kicked out of you by the time they arrive. Its easy to sit online and say yes I would do this, that and the other but going out to abuse cases day in day out with little support, aggressive people being nasty to you all day, lots of criticism from everyone else and worst of all the horrible, horrible guilt that you can't save all the animals you encounter, is no easy task.

Ok - got that off my chest!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you I was getting tired of defending the rspca on here seemingly by myself!!

The problem is that people all have their ideal way of keeping animals and anything other than this standard is regarded as cruel, unfortunately not in the eyes of the law. Someone was slating the rspca for not moving a dumped dead horse... Not an area the rspca would be involved in. Others want the rspca to seize horses because they are not wormed, vaccinated and in their opinion have the field over populated.. again not illegal as long as all the animals are (in a vets opinion) in good condition. The rspca is bound by the law not by peoples opinion. And if they did illegal things like some people have inferred on here then they would be the first to be strung up by their mistakes. I'm not saying that they are perfect but given the job they do and the fact that they are a charity only then I believe they do the best job they can.

Without the rspca the CPS would be having to pay out a hell of a lot on boarding, vets fees etc etc and in turn your income tax would go up (that's if they even decided to keep the animals until the case is heard 18 months of boarding of 132 equines is a fair old bill to pay!)!

Added to that if your cat/dog is hit by a car and it is not microchipped you will probably end up relying on the rspca picking up and authorising a vet for emergency first aid until you locate your animal. Not if the rspca goes under, I have no idea who would pay that in that future...
 
QR

One of the offences under the new Act include:

the 'mutilation of animals', such as the docking of tails (other than for good medical reasons or an animal undergoing veterinary treatments).

As much as I am happy that docking is now an offence, I find it difficult to accept that it is not an offence to kick a little dog to death as long as it dies instantly.

My personal opinion is that docking is not as cruel as kicking an animal to death.
 
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, I dont even like rats - infact I hate them, but I would never find it acceptable to beat one to death with a shovel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you not?! That's exactly what I did when I found one in my manger and didn't have my dog to set on it....
smirk.gif
 
i agree that a man kicking a dog so hard it died is animal cruelty in my eyes, however i also understand the rspca have nowhere to go with this one and perhaps instead of doing nothing, they could have took this oppurtunity to promote awareness, a bit pr perhaps to get the public to write to mp's etc to get the law changed or even where a loss of temper can put you
this is what annoys me about the rspca, i think (havent personally seen them do) in cases like this they have the perfect oppurtunity to change the laws, instead of making it look like theyre not intrested (im sure they are)
 
I don't really think that this represents a great opportunity for them to change the law. There are 3 big factors considered when trying to get a law changed:
1) the cost;
2) the consistency;
3) public opinion.
Most of us want criminals to suffer longer sentences (you hardly ever see posts saying "ooh, that seems a bit harsh," but keeping people in prison costs money, and by the time you have thrown in the human rights nonsense to justify not spending the money, it is very difficult to get a decent punishment imposed on anyone for anything.
Then you consider what actually happened in this case (from the evidence available). A man lost his temper as a one off; he kicks the dog, the dog dies instantly. This causes much the same level of suffering to the dog as you cause any animal when you put it to sleep; it is much less than the level of suffering legally permitted for chickens in slaughterhouses etc. You therefore either extend the legislation to prohibit causing any pain/suffering/death putting you on a very slippery slope regarding both putting to sleep for non terminal cases and the entire meat industry, or you need to prosecute under other legislation. Yes, if you kick a human once and he dies it is murder, but that is because it is illegal to cause human death. Causing animal death is NOT illegal, and I dont expect to see it become so in my lifetime. You simply cant get a conviction under the cruelty legislation because the dog didn't suffer (see above). Yes, it is arguable that morally kicking and causing death is worse than depriving of water for a period, but the legislation for causing systematic suffering is much easier to outlaw than causing death (see above).
The public upset in this case therefore comes a pretty poor third behind the 2 much bigger practical issues.

I have retired from defending the RSPCA on these boards as I've said it all before, but as I'm posting anyway:
the charity is publicly funded, with a pretty limited pot considering the scale of the work that they are legally entitled to do. Even if the case were prosecutable, cruelty happens too often and they cant put full resources into everything willy nilly. In this case, the dog is dead, the man doesn't pose a long term threat, and there is a distraught owner involved who is entitled herself to pursue a conviction to the full extent of the law should she wish to do so.
As an occasional supporter of the RSPCA, I would much rather see my money spent on (in order of priority):
1) providing adequate care for rescued animals until they can be found a satisfactory home (hesitate to say "good" as one of my big quibbles with the organisation is the excessive standards placed on rehomers);
2) taking animals out of situations where they are currently/imminently suffering cruelty;
3) seeking prosecutions of the causers of cruelty to reduce their future opportunities to cause harm and act as a deterent; the more high profile the case is, the more effective the deterent will be;
4) campaigning for new legislation and raising the profile of animal suffering being legally caused in this country.

Prosecuting people who have caused one-off harm where there is already an owner involved to pursue a prosecution comes after all those other 4 objecives have been completely achieved, and there is no way the funds are in place to even make a decent dent on achieving them.
 
I would like to know if the fiance dumped him after killing her animal or has she forgiven him like alot of abused woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top