Man spared jail after drowning neighbour's dog in bucket to stop it barking...

[Ammi]

An airline pilot has avoided jail after drowning his neighbour's pet dog in a bucket to stop it from barking.

Stephen Woodhouse killed border terrier Meg, who was bought as a gift for his neighbours' late, disabled 10-year-old daughter.

Woodhouse, 53, drowned the dog in his garden then used a knife to cut open the carcass to remove a microchip and cover his tracks, a court heard

The Flybe pilot, from Long Buckby, Northants, later told police: 'I just had to stop the noise'.

The pet had originally been bought as eight-week old puppy by Alan and Alison Boddington for their seriously ill daughter Lauren, who passed away in 2008.

Following Lauren's death the dog became a valued part of the family and was 'the one thing' they had left of her.

Woodhouse had reached over the Boddington's garden fence and picked up the dog 'by the scruff of the neck' and dragged it onto his property last July.

He then plunged its head into a bucket of water and held it there until it stopped moving.

On Wednesday, Woodhouse was given a 12 week custodial sentence, suspended for two years at Corby Magistrates' Court.

He had earlier pleaded guilty to a charge under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal at an earlier hearing.

Alan, 48, and Alison, 50, bought border collie Meg for Lauren who was born with severe brain damage and died of an acute asthma attack shortly after her tenth birthday

The court heard Woodhouse had attempted to dump the body of the dog on three occasions after he killed the beloved family pet.

First he planned to dispose of the animal by a hedge row in Long Buckby Wharf and later considered areas around Birmingham Airport and Ashby St Ledgers.

Police visited Woodhouse at home the following week after Alison had noticed dog hairs inside the Flybe pilot’s boot and informed police.

During that visit he admitted what he had done and the body was recovered from the house.

RSPCA prosecutor Kevin McCole read extracts of Woodhouse's police interview to the court.

He said: 'The defendant told the police in interview, 'I just reached my hands down,’ ‘it was an act if stupidity, of desperation I suppose. I just had to stop the noise.'

Sara-Lise Howe, defending, said Woodhouse had become distressed by the dog’s barking and had suffered a heart attack a year earlier.

She said: 'He had no idea how it happened. 'He just lost his wits. He just wanted the dog to stop it.'

Miss Howe added that the incident had 'divided' the village of Long Buckby and that the last year had been a 'living hell' for the pilot.

Speaking outside court Mr Boddington said the pet was 'lovely-natured' and didn't cause a lot of noise.

He said: 'She was only a small dog, it’s not like she was a big loud thing that was causing a lot of noise.

'We got Meg as an eight-week-old puppy for our daughter who was special needs as a little companion and obviously she became a very important part of our family.

'We have got lots of memories of Lauren and Meg together and it has traumatised the children and all of us are very, very upset.'

When Meg went missing, the Boddington's other daughter Alexandra, 19, posted a notice on the National Dogs Trust website

Dozens of volunteers teamed up with the family to knock doors in the area for several days in a desperate attempt to find her.

They knocked on Woodhouse's door but when he answered he denied seeing the dog.

The court also heard Woodhouse had since been pronounced as fit to work following psychiatric assessments.

He was also ordered to pay costs of £2,400 and a victim surcharge of £180.

Leaving court he spoke only to admit: 'It was a terrible thing to do.'

He added that he had nothing to say to the Boddington family.


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pilot-spared-jail-after-drowning-neighbour-s-dog-in-a-bucket-to-stop-it-barking-100451603.html?vp=1#UGKewXr

[jennyjuniper]

What a bastard.

[Locke.]

Sara-Lise Howe, defending, said Woodhouse had become distressed by the dog’s barking and had suffered a heart attack a year earlier.

Pity it didn't kill him. Horrible ****. Hopefully someone finishes the job.

[arista]

'I just had to stop the noise'.

Why did no one stop the barking
its against the law - if they bark non stop.

[arista]

https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/yD_NnvXkQCM2DDVQnplVTg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-05-21/74285240-ff9f-11e4-a624-51d8c7c3fdc4_dog-killer.jpg
The Killer

and the (Now Dead) Dog

[Ammi]

'I just had to stop the noise'.

Why did no one stop the barking
its against the law - if they bark non stop.

...I do understand his stress, Arista if the dog was barking constantly as he said..that would have caused a very poor quality to his life and made him feel miserable all the time and maybe the 'discipline' wasn't there with Meg that may have made it better for him..?..but she was bought for a seriously disabled child, to help improve her quality of life..for her parents to see her have joy in something..?..and looking after a severely disabled child is emotionally and physically draining so it's also easy to understand how there may have been a lapse with discipline if that was the case...so although the barking may have been very stressful for him, it's also that thing of seeing beyond that and having an understanding of that.. to thinking of the child, the parents and what was maybe relieving all of their stress a bit in having Meg and what their lives must be/have been at the time...everything is not just about the law, Arista...he could have put in earplugs, there are things he could have done which would have showed consideration and compassion to his neighbours..to their child, he may have felt helpless to the barking that was driving him crazy but how helpless was Lauren to her disability and how helpless were her parents to have to watch her suffer but one thing they could do was to give her Meg which brought her some happiness...

[arista]

...I do understand his stress, Arista if the dog was barking constantly as he said..that would have caused a very poor quality to his life and made him feel miserable all the time and maybe the 'discipline' wasn't there with Meg that may have made it better for him..?..but she was bought for a seriously disabled child, to help improve her quality of life..for her parents to see her have joy in something..?..and looking after a severely disabled child is emotionally and physically draining so it's also easy to understand how there may have been a lapse with discipline if that was the case...so although the barking may have been very stressful for him, it's also that thing of seeing beyond that and having an understanding of that.. to thinking of the child, the parents and what was maybe relieving all of their stress a bit in having Meg and what their lives must be/have been at the time...everything is not just about the law, Arista...he could have put in earplugs, there are things he could have done which would have showed consideration and compassion to his neighbours..to their child, he may have felt helpless to the barking that was driving him crazy but how helpless was Lauren to her disability and how helpless were her parents to have to watch her suffer but one thing they could do was to give her Meg which brought her some happiness...


It is sadly


The Council have the right to remove the dog
with the help of the RSPCA.


Why is "Disability"
being dragged into this
that house was full of others
why did they not do anything
about a non stop barking dog?

[arista]

Ammi
Never say a man needs earplugs in his own home

Pathetic thing to say

[Ammi]

Ammi
Never say a man needs earplugs in his own home

Pathetic thing to say

..he didn't have to have them/he didn't 'need' them Arista because yes it is his own home...it's a choice he could have made to show understanding to others and improve his life quality of life rather than callously killing a dog...and maybe 'the others' didn't do anything about a non stop barking dog..(if that was the case...)...because they were caring for a severely disabled child and then grieving for her...and yes Arista, her disability is relevant because it showed were their priorities were and where their heads and hearts were which is understandable...oh this family is grieving for their daughter, their dog is barking because their struggling and maybe it misses Lauren as well and is showing it in the way it knows how to, let's kill it...that'll be a little bit easier for them...I'm sure that they would have addressed the issue in time when they were ready...just a little understanding of that..?...if everything in life was just law and black and white Arista..?..really we would all be a pretty crumby lot of people....without compassion, empathy and understanding, what would set us apart as being a 'higher species'...

..anyway, must go to work now so I will leave discussions to you, you have a great day...

[Jake.]

Yeah, as Purdy said it's a pity the heart attack didn't see him finished off. What a disgusting human being.

[arista]

[her disability is relevant because it showed were their priorities were and where their heads ]

But they got the wrong dog
it needed long walks.


This is about a Non Stop Barking Dog
which is illegal

Not about a Disabled child

[Kizzy]

If he was so distressed he could've gone down the right route and had the dog removed, no need to kill the poor little thing!

[arista]

"He said: 'She was only a small dog, it’s not like she was a big loud thing that was causing a lot of noise."

Small or Large Dog
doing nonstop barking is Illegal
FACT

[arista]

If he was so distressed he could've gone down the right route and had the dog removed, no need to kill the poor little thing!


Yes he could have done that
but at that time
he killed the dog
it was all to much , for him.

[Kizzy]

It's no justification for me sorry.

[Ammi]

[her disability is relevant because it showed were their priorities were and where their heads ]

But they got the wrong dog
it needed long walks.


This is about a Non Stop Barking Dog
which is illegal

Not about a Disabled child

...ahhh ok, he got stuck on the legal thing so he killed it which was completely legal and the solution and obviously in a moment of extreme distress which is why he tried to cover it all up and dispose of the pet...submerging an animal's face in a bucket of water while it struggles for breathe and then is lifeless takes no time at all/split seconds to think about what you're doing and the extreme and brutality of it...

[arista]

...ahhh ok, he got stuck on the legal thing so he killed it which was completely legal and the solution and obviously in a moment of extreme distress which is why he tried to cover it all up and dispose of the pet...submerging an animal's face in a bucket of water while it struggles for breathe and then is lifeless takes no time at all/split seconds to think about what you're doing and the extreme and brutality of it...


No Jail for that
he was stopping the Non Stop Barking


If anyone gets a Dog
Never let it Non Stop Bark
Fact

[arista]

It's no justification for me sorry.


Your not next door to it

[Kizzy]

Your not next door to it

Neither are you.

[kirklancaster]

This crime is just one more example of someone taking the law into their own hands just because he arrogantly feels justified in doing so.

Be it rioting in the streets, defacing War Monuments, slandering and libeling innocent celebrities who have not been arrested or charged, or any other example, the increasing trend is to sanction such vigilantism by actual support or by default due to passive silence.

This 'sentence' is just one more example of a Judicial system which is in total free fall from its once lofty position of equity and erudition, and indicts our Judiciary as being as far removed now from reality as can be.

There is NO mitigation for what this callous arrogant bastard did to a tiny defenseless animal - no more than there is for what child murderers do to to tiny defenseless children, what Jihadists do to bound and defenseless victims, what muggers do to old and frail OAP's, or any other examples of what is essentially bullying in its extreme and ultimate form.

If he was close to breaking point because the dog was doing what dog's do naturally - barking - then he had many alternatives to the action which he took.

And for those who try to justify his bestiality by claiming that he had some kind of breakdown, I say the fact that he covertly abducted the pet from over the fence, and the fact that he consciously tried to 'cover his tracks' by using a knife to cut open the carcass to remove a microchip, makes a nonsense of such claims.

The fact that he could not only drown a little dog but actually cut open the carcass speaks volumes at this bastard's psychopathic nature, and thank God it was NOT a persistently crying 2 year old baby who had 'got on his nerves'.

This sick fecko should be re-tried and given 10 years sharing a cell with the equally as sick fecko Magistrates who awarded him just a 12 week custodial sentence, suspended for two years at Corby Magistrates' Court.

They should be given 20 years.

[arista]

Neither are you.


Sure
But I understand a non stop barking Dog
is a major problem.

[Kazanne]

Bastard,I HATE people like that,no excuse for such cruelty,I hope that dogs barking haunts him for the rest of his life,the twunt.

[joeysteele]

Bastard,I HATE people like that,no excuse for such cruelty,I hope that dogs barking haunts him for the rest of his life,the twunt.

You took the words right out my mouth,excellently put.

How he escaped greater punishment for not only killing the dog but then trying to pervert the cause of justice by covering the deed up and also removing the microchip too,is completely beyond me.

I'd rather have a barking dog than the likes of him anywhere near me any day of the week.

[Kazanne]

You took the words right out my mouth,excellently put.

How he escaped greater punishment for not only killing the dog but then trying to pervert the cause of justice by covering the deed up and also removing the microchip too,is completely beyond me.

I'd rather have a barking dog than the likes of him anywhere near me any day of the week.

If he'de have done that to my dog Joey,I'de have been in jail,why do these judges give such light sentences for cruelty to animals ,it will never deter people ,I was angry just reading about that.

[smudgie]

For me, the bigger issue here is, how the hell can he be found fit to fly a plane again.
Firstly he has already had one heart attack, secondly he obviously can't cope with stress and thirdly he is barbaric enough to drown that poor dog and then cut it open.
Anybody going to form a queue for a free plane ride to hell?

Yes, barking dogs can drive you crackers, so you knock on the neighours door and ask them to do something about it, if it still barks all the time you then pick up the phone and call the authorities.
Oh, and a border terrier makes more noise than a big dog, much higher pitched and very persistant, never gives up. The owners are partly to blame, for the noise at least.

[Liam-]

And yet there are people going to prison for not paying bills.
If I was his neighbour and he killed my dog, he'd have to move or I'd happily make his life a living hell.

[Z]

I wonder how long he'd been living next door to them and if he knew the context of why they had the dog? The girl died in 2008 from reading the OP so I just wonder if he had only recently moved in next door and just couldn't handle the yapping dog and was unaware of the back story? Not that it's particularly relevant, if you're capable of drowning a dog and cutting it open to remove its microchip, you're hardly going to stop and think about it if there's a sob story behind why they have the dog, but still... he should be doing time for this and this is exactly the kind of state of mental health that shouldn't be allowed to fly a plane.

[Kazanne]

Sentences are far too lenient with regards to cruelty to animals , the law should come down on them hard as at the moment there is no deterrent , just a slap on the wrist . We have a family by us who leave their dog alone in the day and it makes hell of a row,we are not angry with the dog,just the owners!

[arista]

"The owners are partly to blame, for the noise at least. "

Bang On Right smudgie

[kirklancaster]

Sentences are far too lenient with regards to cruelty to animals , the law should come down on them hard as at the moment there is no deterrent , just a slap on the wrist . We have a family by us who leave their dog alone in the day and it makes hell of a row,we are not angry with the dog,just the owners!

Pigs keeping dogs. :shrug:

[joeysteele]

If he'de have done that to my dog Joey,I'de have been in jail,why do these judges give such light sentences for cruelty to animals ,it will never deter people ,I was angry just reading about that.

Maybe the Judge was a cat lover, that may sound ridiculous but it is amazing at times as to what mood Judge or even Magistrates are in on the day as to sentencing, despite the guidelines,and also their own preferences.

The killing of the dog was bad enough in itself, the after events make this a very calculated act and make the crime even more serious.
He would be away for me,just as he clearly would for you too.

He clearly tried to cover up the horrific act too.
For those things alone he should have had the book thrown at him.
Owners of dogs can now face prison if their dog attacks someone, the same should apply to anyone attacking and murdering someone's dog.
Especially in this case.

[Toy Soldier]

:shrug:

I love dogs but I have to be totally honest here and say that I think that people can be totally over the top with sentiment when it comes to pets. The man clearly has some sort of anger issues and snapped - and of course that shouldn't slide, it should be addressed - but I'm sorry, it doesn't make him a monster and it doesn't make his actions unfathomable. If the noise really was that incessant, and he was suffering from some other sort of stress at the time... People snap. They just do. And - to be blunt - a dog is not a human. It doesn't mean he would have or could have harmed a human. Most people are instinctively driven to not harm other humans for petty reasons like this but the same simply does not apply to an animal.

I'm not sure that I agree that he should be psychiatrically cleared so soon as like I said there is clearly some sort of control issue and he should be receiving mandatory treatment for that. But jail...? Not so sure it's appropriate.

Also - I'm going to come right out and say it - if the dog was Barking enough and for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners. There's no two ways about it. And there isn't really any excuse for it either. Their beloved dog that made them feel so connected to their late daughter that they left it distressed and barking for hours on end? Hmmmmm OK then.

[Benjamin]

There is nothing more annoying than a dog constantly barking, but that is still not a reason to kill it. But why was the dog constantly barking, clearly the owners were neglecting their "beloved" family pet to leave it outside to do that all day.

[Kazanne]

Maybe the Judge was a cat lover, that may sound ridiculous but it is amazing at times as to what mood Judge or even Magistrates are in on the day as to sentencing, despite the guidelines,and also their own preferences.

The killing of the dog was bad enough in itself, the after events make this a very calculated act and make the crime even more serious.
He would be away for me,just as he clearly would for you too.

He clearly tried to cover up the horrific act too.
For those things alone he should have had the book thrown at him.
Owners of dogs can now face prison if their dog attacks someone, the same should apply to anyone attacking and murdering someone's dog.
Especially in this case.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Kizzy]

:shrug:

I love dogs but I have to be totally honest here and say that I think that people can be totally over the top with sentiment when it comes to pets. The man clearly has some sort of anger issues and snapped - and of course that shouldn't slide, it should be addressed - but I'm sorry, it doesn't make him a monster and it doesn't make his actions unfathomable. If the noise really was that incessant, and he was suffering from some other sort of stress at the time... People snap. They just do. And - to be blunt - a dog is not a human. It doesn't mean he would have or could have harmed a human. Most people are instinctively driven to not harm other humans for petty reasons like this but the same simply does not apply to an animal.

I'm not sure that I agree that he should be psychiatrically cleared so soon as like I said there is clearly some sort of control issue and he should be receiving mandatory treatment for that. But jail...? Not so sure it's appropriate.

Also - I'm going to come right out and say it - if the dog was Barking enough and for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners. There's no two ways about it. And there isn't really any excuse for it either. Their beloved dog that made them feel so connected to their late daughter that they left it distressed and barking for hours on end? Hmmmmm OK then.

I disagree I believe behaviour like this could be a precursor to more unpredictable violent behaviour. Being a pilot I wouldn't say this bodes well, if the guy is oversensitive and irrational.

[kirklancaster]

I disagree I believe behaviour like this could be a precursor to more unpredictable violent behaviour. Being a pilot I wouldn't say this bodes well, if the guy is oversensitive and irrational.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: I couldn't put it better.

[Toy Soldier]

I disagree I believe behaviour like this could be a precursor to more unpredictable violent behaviour. Being a pilot I wouldn't say this bodes well, if the guy is oversensitive and irrational.
It could be which is exactly why the correct course of action is to have him being assessed psychologically on an ongoing basis, and not plonked amongst violent criminals in prison.

If he isn't on the way to more unpredictable violent behaviour then prison is the wrong course of action. If he IS potentially on the way to becoming a violent criminal, then the surest way of turning him into one immediately is to put him in prison.

Let's be realistic. He was never going to be locked away forever for this. A few years at an ABSOLUTE maximum. And then what? Then you have someone with violent anger problems who has spent the last couple of years living amongst hardened criminals. It's just... A really bad idea.

[Lostie!]

Ammi
Never say a man needs earplugs in his own home

Pathetic thing to say

Not half as much as trying to justify drowning a dog.

Sentences are far too lenient with regards to cruelty to animals , the law should come down on them hard as at the moment there is no deterrent , just a slap on the wrist . We have a family by us who leave their dog alone in the day and it makes hell of a row,we are not angry with the dog,just the owners!

:clap1:

[Kizzy]

It could be which is exactly why the correct course of action is to have him being assessed psychologically on an ongoing basis, and not plonked amongst violent criminals in prison.

If he isn't on the way to more unpredictable violent behaviour then prison is the wrong course of action. If he IS potentially on the way to becoming a violent criminal, then the surest way of turning him into one immediately is to put him in prison.

Let's be realistic. He was never going to be locked away forever for this. A few years at an ABSOLUTE maximum. And then what? Then you have someone with violent anger problems who has spent the last couple of years living amongst hardened criminals. It's just... A really bad idea.

When did I say I wanted him to go to prison? I don't however think he's fit for work.

[Toy Soldier]

There is nothing more annoying than a dog constantly barking, but that is still not a reason to kill it. But why was the dog constantly barking, clearly the owners were neglecting their "beloved" family pet to leave it outside to do that all day.
Exactly. A dog left barking it's head off outside for long enough to drive someone to the point of snapping is a neglected dog, simple as that. My theory would be that the dog got sidelined when their daughter died, which is perhaps understandable, but it's also a part of the story that shouldn't really be overlooked.

So, whilstI feel awful for them for the loss of their daughter, I have limited sympathy for them when it comes to the loss of the dog. They didn't care for it properly and now it's gone. I do feel bad for the dog which really did nothing wrong. And tbh I feel sorry for the guy who momentarily (or otherwise) lost his mind. It's a sorry situation all round.

However. As much as I do love pets, it is just a dog and I maintain that people go over the top. People have more compassion for a drowned dog in a bucket than a thousand drowned human beings in the Mediterranean. Which is frankly ****ing terrifying.

[Toy Soldier]

When did I say I wanted him to go to prison? I don't however think he's fit for work.
I agree but I already said as much as part of my first post on this :nono:


I'm not sure that I agree that he should be psychiatrically cleared so soon as like I said there is clearly some sort of control issue and he should be receiving mandatory treatment for that. But jail...? Not so sure it's appropriate.

[MTVN]

Do agree with a lot of what TS is saying (particularly in how people can get more emotional over a pet than a fellow human), but I do think it takes a certain sort of person to physically hold a dog's dead under water until it drowns and then make concerted efforts going to great lengths to cover his tracks. That takes it beyond a mere moment of madness imo. I'm not sure prison would be that inappropriate, he probably wouldn't be surrounded by violent criminals in a maximum security unit for something like this. But a few months in an open prison would be a fair sentence and might even do him some good.

[Dollface]

I can't believe there are actually people making excuses for this disgusting man's actions, there is no excuse for taking a life, NO excuse.

Let me put it this way; if he was next door to a loud family who played music really loud all the time, would it be OK if he snapped and killed them?

[mizzy25]

I really didn't want to read this having 6 dogs of my own. I haven't read it properly. What I do know is that if and I say IF it was barking 24/7 then surely other people would hear it. Nothing but a horrid mad and I cant believe his pitiful sentence!!!!!
I had a letter once saying my dogs barked continuously throughout the day!! What a load of bull, today ive not been too well so Ive been in bed since 1.30pm and you wouldn't even know I had dogs not once single bark!!!!

[Dollface]

:shrug:

I love dogs but I have to be totally honest here and say that I think that people can be totally over the top with sentiment when it comes to pets. The man clearly has some sort of anger issues and snapped - and of course that shouldn't slide, it should be addressed - but I'm sorry, it doesn't make him a monster and it doesn't make his actions unfathomable. If the noise really was that incessant, and he was suffering from some other sort of stress at the time... People snap. They just do. And - to be blunt - a dog is not a human. It doesn't mean he would have or could have harmed a human. Most people are instinctively driven to not harm other humans for petty reasons like this but the same simply does not apply to an animal.

I'm not sure that I agree that he should be psychiatrically cleared so soon as like I said there is clearly some sort of control issue and he should be receiving mandatory treatment for that. But jail...? Not so sure it's appropriate.

Also - I'm going to come right out and say it - if the dog was Barking enough and for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners. There's no two ways about it. And there isn't really any excuse for it either. Their beloved dog that made them feel so connected to their late daughter that they left it distressed and barking for hours on end? Hmmmmm OK then.

If you really feel that it's his actions weren't unfathomable then you don't "love dogs". A dog's life is just as important as a humans life, to me anyway.

I think i'm gonna have to stay away from this thread lol because it's actually pissing me off.

[arista]

"for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners."

Bang On Right TS

something Ammi ignored

[Kazanne]

He should NOT be flying,WHO in their right mind would do such a terrible thing? what if there was to be a constantly crying baby on one of his flights? I'm sick of the "It's only a dog" attitude,a dog can be part of your family and does not understand some humans don't like them barking! bet he wouldn't have done it to a sturdy Rottweiler,bastard.

[Dollface]

"for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners."

Bang On Right TS

something Ammi ignored

Neglected or not, the dog was murdered and for some reason you think that's OK just because she apparently made a lot of noise. Disgusting.

[Tom4784]

He should have gotten a much longer sentence, it was obviously a well thought out killing and not an act of desperation given that he knew to cut out the micro chip. He sounds like a very disturbed individual and I hope he never flies again since if he'll butcher a small dog like it was nothing, what else is he capable of?

[Kazanne]

"for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners."

Bang On Right TS

something Ammi ignored

arista,there were other options,C'mon,really? I agree about the owners,but,to DROWN it and the cut it open to get the microchip out? that's somebody bloody calculated not stressed.

[Dollface]

He should NOT be flying,WHO in their right mind would do such a terrible thing? what if there was to be a constantly crying baby on one of his flights? I'm sick of the "It's only a dog" attitude,a dog can be part of your family and does not understand some humans don't like them barking! bet he wouldn't have done it to a sturdy Rottweiler,bastard.

This.

[Lostie!]

:shrug:

I love dogs but I have to be totally honest here and say that I think that people can be totally over the top with sentiment when it comes to pets. The man clearly has some sort of anger issues and snapped - and of course that shouldn't slide, it should be addressed - but I'm sorry, it doesn't make him a monster and it doesn't make his actions unfathomable. If the noise really was that incessant, and he was suffering from some other sort of stress at the time... People snap. They just do. And - to be blunt - a dog is not a human. It doesn't mean he would have or could have harmed a human. Most people are instinctively driven to not harm other humans for petty reasons like this but the same simply does not apply to an animal.

I'm not sure that I agree that he should be psychiatrically cleared so soon as like I said there is clearly some sort of control issue and he should be receiving mandatory treatment for that. But jail...? Not so sure it's appropriate.

Also - I'm going to come right out and say it - if the dog was Barking enough and for such a prolonged period of time that it drove someone to drown it, then it was being neglected by its owners. There's no two ways about it. And there isn't really any excuse for it either. Their beloved dog that made them feel so connected to their late daughter that they left it distressed and barking for hours on end? Hmmmmm OK then.

Some people (myself being one of them) are just very fond of and feel very affectionate towards animals, it's not really fair to brand that "over the top" just because you happen to not feel that way.

As for "a dog is not human", we're all very aware. How that makes drowning it any less reprehensible is beyond me.

[Toy Soldier]

Do agree with a lot of what TS is saying (particularly in how people can get more emotional over a pet than a fellow human), but I do think it takes a certain sort of person to physically hold a dog's dead under water until it drowns and then make concerted efforts going to great lengths to cover his tracks. That takes it beyond a mere moment of madness imo. I'm not sure prison would be that inappropriate, he probably wouldn't be surrounded by violent criminals in a maximum security unit for something like this. But a few months in an open prison would be a fair sentence and might even do him some good.

Acute transient psychotic episodes (colloquially, "rage blackouts") are actually more common than you would think under certain conditions and can be triggered specifically by things like repeated irritating noise, because the noise repeatedly interrupts normal thought process and doesn't give the mind time to rationalise. It's often compounded by things like drawn out periods of stress / lack of sleep, etc.

Not so common for them to result in something so drastically violent but it doesn't necessarily say anything at all about the "sort of person" involved.

As for the cover-up, I would call that entirely natural and actually psychologically positive. It means that in all likelihood he instantly realised what he had done and how awful it was, so set about covering it up. The truth is, the vast majority of people would do just that if they realised they had done something shameful like that. A lot of people would do it even if what had happened was an accident like hitting a pet with a car, even people who would insist before the fact "Oh I definitely wouldn't I would find the owners and tell them!". Guilt is a strange and unpredictable motivator.

It would be much MORE worrying if he had started bellowing over the fence at the house about what he had done, or simply left the dog there and gone on about his day. That would, for me, demonstrate that he didn't understand at all the gravity of his actions. He didn't do a very good job of covering it up at all, which suggests a panic after it was already done rather than any premeditated action.

I guess it sounds like I'm trying to make excuses... I'm not, I think he definitely needs help on some level. I just, as always, don't believe in "folks who are just plain evil" and think it's important to understand why things like this happen in the first place rather than simply wringing hands in the aftermath.

[Kizzy]

I agree but I already said as much as part of my first post on this :nono:

I never said you didn't...I just wondered why you focused on the effects of prison when replying to my quote :/

[Toy Soldier]

If you really feel that it's his actions weren't unfathomable then you don't "love dogs". A dog's life is just as important as a humans life, to me anyway.

I think i'm gonna have to stay away from this thread lol because it's actually pissing me off.


If you in all absolute seriousness would, in a hypothetical situation, trade the life of a human child (even on that you don't personally know) for your own dog, then you are either a liar or a sociopath.

[Toy Soldier]

arista,there were other options,C'mon,really? I agree about the owners,but,to DROWN it and the cut it open to get the microchip out? that's somebody bloody calculated not stressed.

If it was calculated they wouldn't have found it in his house. They would have never found it at all.

[Lostie!]

If you in all absolute seriousness would, in a hypothetical situation, trade the life of a human child (even on that you don't personally know) for your own dog, then you are either a liar or a sociopath.

Where did she say anything of the sort? :conf:

She said a dog's life is just as important to her as a human's. Where is this nonsense about trading a human child for a dog coming from? Maybe stick to what people are actually saying instead of utterly twisting their words.

[Dollface]

If you in all absolute seriousness would, in a hypothetical situation, trade the life of a human child (even on that you don't personally know) for your own dog, then you are either a liar or a sociopath.

A child? I honestly couldn't answer that. Don't think I could live with myself if i was the reason a child lost it's life, but equally i couldn't live with myself if i'd let my dog die.

I'd trade the life of a human adult (that i don't personally know) though. I'm certainly not a liar so if that makes me a sociopath then i'd happily take that label :hee:

Upon reflection, said human adult could be a mother or a father, don't think i could do that to someones family. I don't really know where your question came from but i can't give a proper answer because i've never been in a situation where i've had to choose (nor do i ever want to be), so i don't know what i'd do, i'd probably kill myself so i didn't have to make the decision.

[arista]

arista,there were other options,C'mon,really? I agree about the owners,but,to DROWN it and the cut it open to get the microchip out? that's somebody bloody calculated not stressed.


Of Course


But a non stop barking dog
left to bark
made the next door man Snap.



Ammi
just told me it was for a Disabled Girl
as if that makes any change
to the dogs non stop barking

[Dollface]

Where did she say anything of the sort? :conf:

She said a dog's life is just as important to her as a human's. Where is this nonsense about trading a human child for a dog coming from? Maybe stick to what people are actually saying instead of utterly twisting their words.

I didn't even notice that, where the hell did that question even come from lmao.

I'll happily answer it though, i don't care if i look like a "sociopath". My dogs are my family.

[Lostie!]

A child? I honestly couldn't answer that. Don't think I could live with myself if i was the reason a child lost it's life, but equally i couldn't live with myself if i'd let my dog die.

I'd trade the life of a human adult (that i don't personally know) though. I'm certainly not a liar so if that makes me a sociopath then i'd happily take that label :hee:

Drowning a dog is more likely to be sociopathic than loving one, let's be honest here.

And hypothetically prioritising a pet you love and care for over an adult human stranger isn't strange at all, I'd wager that the majority of pet owners would say the same. Well, the ones who truly care for their pets and class them as family, anyway.

[arista]

A child? I honestly couldn't answer that. Don't think I could live with myself if i was the reason a child lost it's life, but equally i couldn't live with myself if i'd let my dog die.

I'd trade the life of a human adult (that i don't personally know) though. I'm certainly not a liar so if that makes me a sociopath then i'd happily take that label :hee:


What happens when is does die as
normal life of the dog?

[Lostie!]

I didn't even notice that, where the hell did that question even come from lmao.

I'll happily answer it though, i don't care if i look like a "sociopath". My dogs are my family.

It happens quite frequently in animal debates, people like to pluck non-existent quotes out of mid-air and suggest that animal lovers have no regard for human life at all, despite nothing of the sort being suggested. :shrug:

[Dollface]

What happens when is does die as
normal life of the dog?

I will grieve the loss of my dog?

[Dollface]

It happens quite frequently in animal debates, people like to pluck non-existent quotes out of mid-air and suggest that animal lovers have no regard for human life at all, despite nothing of the sort being suggested. :shrug:

Yeah, it's ridiculous though because that type of question can't really be answered.
I don't know what i'd do in that situation so tbh it's all just guessing.

[bots]

Sadly, killing pets, particularly dogs is a pretty common occurrence both here and abroad. The usual method is poisoning, something that happened to one of my dogs once, and she didn't bark at all. I think there are just some very cruel and nasty people around.

[Toy Soldier]

Where did she say anything of the sort? :conf:

She said a dog's life is just as important to her as a human's. Where is this nonsense about trading a human child for a dog coming from? Maybe stick to what people are actually saying instead of utterly twisting their words.

A dog's life is not "just as important" as a human life and no one would realistically trade a dog's life for a human's. Someone might - if they were being massively selfish - trade an unknown human life for their own beloved pet but no one, literally no one, in their right mind would see an unknown dog and an unknown human about to die and choose to save the dog. Because a dog's life is less important. People don't like admitting that because they are sentimental. People are more upset by stories about dogs in the press than stories about people for the same reason.

And likewise, apparently, people would like to paint someone who killed a dog in a moment of rage out to be evil and unthinkable beasts because. That's why it's relevant. People's ideas about what the appropiate response in this case is are wildly distorted.

No one gives a **** when an exterminator sets traps to kill rats that have "invaded their home", because in their bubble "rats are a pest" and what do you do with pests? Kill 'em! Not a second thought. Rats are just as intelligent as dogs. Are their lives worth less than a dog's? Why is it OK to kill a rat that's annoying you but not a dog that's annoying you? And then why not a human that's annoying you? Becaaauuuse....

Some lives are worth more than others. There's no other explanation.

[Dollface]

Drowning a dog is more likely to be sociopathic than loving one, let's be honest here.

And hypothetically prioritising a pet you love and care for over an adult human stranger isn't strange at all, I'd wager that the majority of pet owners would say the same. Well, the ones who truly care for their pets and class them as family, anyway.

Oh no apparently the man just snapped :whistle:

[Dollface]

A dog's life is not "just as important" as a human life and no one would realistically trade a dog's life for a human's. Someone might - if they were being massively selfish - trade an unknown human life for their own beloved pet but no one, literally no one, in their right mind would see an unknown dog and an unknown human about to die and choose to save the dog. Because a dog's life is less important. People don't like admitting that because they are sentimental. People are more upset by stories about dogs in the press than stories about people for the same reason.

And likewise, apparently, people would like to paint someone who killed a dog in a moment of rage out to be evil and unthinkable beasts because. That's why it's relevant. People's ideas about what the appropiate response in this case is are wildly distorted.

No one gives a **** when an exterminator sets traps to kill rats that have "invaded their home", because in their bubble "rats are a pest" and what do you do with pests? Kill 'em! Not a second thought. Rats are just as intelligent as dogs. Are their lives worth less than a dog's? Why is it OK to kill a rat that's annoying you but not a dog that's annoying you? And then why not a human that's annoying you? Becaaauuuse....

Some lives are worth more than others. There's no other explanation.

Funny you bring up rats because I have 2 (about to be 3) of them. I hate the fact people kill them because they are "pests", it is not ok.

Yep some lives are worth more than others. My innocent, loving dogs and rats lives are worth a lot more than some humans lives. A good example would be this here man that killed Meg the dog, his life is worth no where near as much as my dogs and rats lives are worth.

[Kizzy]

What's with all the bizarre hypotheticals? :/

This was just some bloke who as he stated in a moment of madness snapped and killed a dog then dug about in it's flesh for a chip so he could dispose of it without detection.

How anyone here feels about their pets is entirely irrelevant.

[Dollface]

What's with all the bizarre hypotheticals? :/

This was just some bloke who as he stated in a moment of madness snapped and killed a dog then dug about in it's flesh for a chip so he could dispose of it without detection.

How anyone here feels about their pets is entirely irrelevant.

While i agree that the bizarre hypotheticals are unnecessary; the pets thing isn't entirely irrelevant, stories like this make people think about their pets.

[Toy Soldier]

Drowning a dog is more likely to be sociopathic than loving one, let's be honest here.

Yes it is. It is however, not more sociopathic than killing a human to save your dog.

And hypothetically prioritising a pet you love and care for over an adult human stranger isn't strange at all, I'd wager that the majority of pet owners would say the same. Well, the ones who truly care for their pets and class them as family, anyway.

The majority of pet owners would probably dramatically declare that they would choose the pet. If actually faced with a situation where it was a genuine choice, the majority wouldn't actually do it.


Here's another scenario, although I'm not sure they're all that helpful:

You're driving through your town. Little bobby, your pet dog who has somehow escaped from home, runs out into the road. In a split second, you realise that if you brake, it'll be too late and you'll still hit the dog. If you swerve, however, you'll hit a pedestrian. Do you brake or swerve? NO ONE would realistically swerve! Anyone who would shouldn't be on the bloody road...

[Lostie!]

A dog's life is not "just as important" as a human life and no one would realistically trade a dog's life for a human's. Someone might - if they were being massively selfish - trade an unknown human life for their own beloved pet but no one, literally no one, in their right mind would see an unknown dog and an unknown human about to die and choose to save the dog. Because a dog's life is less important. People don't like admitting that because they are sentimental. People are more upset by stories about dogs in the press than stories about people for the same reason.

And likewise, apparently, people would like to paint someone who killed a dog in a moment of rage out to be evil and unthinkable beasts because. That's why it's relevant. People's ideas about what the appropiate response in this case is are wildly distorted.

Couldn't disagree with every word more. That's all that needs to be said, we're never going to agree here. :)

No one gives a **** when an exterminator sets traps to kill rats that have "invaded their home", because in their bubble "rats are a pest" and what do you do with pests? Kill 'em! Not a second thought. Rats are just as intelligent as dogs. Are their lives worth less than a dog's? Why is it OK to kill a rat that's annoying you but not a dog that's annoying you? And then why not a human that's annoying you? Becaaauuuse....

How bizarre, you seem to be wildly making assumptions with zero basis and running with them now. No, I'm not okay with killing rats.

Here's a tip, get the facts before running your mouth and never think you have the authority to speak for me, because you absolutely don't. :)

Some lives are worth more than others. There's no other explanation.

So, a human who isn't a good person is worth more than a valued, cherished pet automatically because they're a human? How happy I am that I don't share this mindset.

[Toy Soldier]

What's with all the bizarre hypotheticals? :/

This was just some bloke who as he stated in a moment of madness snapped and killed a dog then dug about in it's flesh for a chip so he could dispose of it without detection.

How anyone here feels about their pets is entirely irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant when people are discussing what the appropriate action to be taken is. People are inflating the severity of the crime because they feel warm and fluffy about puppies.

[Dollface]

Couldn't disagree with every word more. That's all that needs to be said, we're never going to agree here. :)

How bizarre, you seem to be wildly making assumptions with zero basis and running with them now. No, I'm not okay with killing rats.

Here's a tip, get the facts before running your mouth and never think you have the authority to speak for me, because you absolutely don't. :)

So, a human who isn't a good person is worth more than a valued, cherished pet automatically because they're a human? How happy I am that I don't share this mindset.

I couldn't agree more if I tried lmao :clap1:

TS, arista, etc. I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree.

[Kizzy]

While i agree that the bizarre hypotheticals are unnecessary; the pets thing isn't entirely irrelevant, stories like this make people think about their pets.

Yes it makes me think of mine, but there's no reason to start comparing x and y to z is it?...
What he did was, not could not and will not ever be acceptable.

[Toy Soldier]

How bizarre, you seem to be wildly making assumptions with zero basis and running with them now. No, I'm not okay with killing rats.

I'm talking about people in general, a sort of public mindset. Not you personally.


Here's a tip, get the facts before running your mouth and never think you have the authority to speak for me, because you absolutely don't. :)


:joker: Sir yes sir! So commanding. And the passive aggressive smilie face for a peppering of sass :smug:. Loving it.


So, a human who isn't a good person is worth more than a valued, cherished pet automatically because they're a human? How happy I am that I don't share this mindset.

No some people are essentially worthless and I probably wouldn't risk slipping a disc trying to pull them out of a fire, let alone sacrifice any other life for them, but that's not really relevant "in general". If it's a "random dog" and a "random person" (you know nothing about either of them), you're going to save the person. Because in general, people's lives are worth more than dog's lives. I don't know what's so hard to accept about that.

[Kizzy]

It's entirely relevant when people are discussing what the appropriate action to be taken is. People are inflating the severity of the crime because they feel warm and fluffy about puppies.

No, your psycho babble about pets and stranger or strange pets and kids isn't relevant.
Of course people are going to react to this in an emotive way it's human nature.

[Toy Soldier]

No, your psycho babble about pets and stranger or strange pets and kids isn't relevant.
Of course people are going to react to this in an emotive way it's human nature.

Yes just like the human and emotive way that people reacted to thousands of immigrants drowning in the med, or young students accidentally killing themselves with medication bought online or... oh no wait people are more upset about the dog.

Obviously.

We should probably just hang the guy who did it I guess. C'mon Dave, hurry up with that death legislation! Don't you realise that a puppy has been brutally murdered???


...meh. I can appreciate that I've been a bit all over the place in this thread, I guess, but I'm finding people's lack of any rational perspective quite bewildering. I always do when it comes to "poor puppy" cases.

[Lostie!]

I'm talking about people in general, a sort of public mindset. Not you personally.

Oh, okay. I believe you.

:joker: Sir yes sir! So commanding. And the passive aggressive smilie face for a peppering of sass :smug:. Loving it.

Absolutely! I happen to feel passionate about my right to speak for myself, probably because I have at least a modicum of self respect. :thumbs:

No some people are essentially worthless and I probably wouldn't risk slipping a disc trying to pull them out of a fire, let alone sacrifice any other life for them, but that's not really relevant "in general". If it's a "random dog" and a "random person" (you know nothing about either of them), you're going to save the person. Because in general, people's lives are worth more than dog's lives. I don't know what's so hard to accept about that.

A random dog? My question specifically asked if you automatically put a human life over a "valued, cherished pet" simply because they're human.

But, let's play with your scenario. My honest response is I don't know what I would do (and there are hypothetical situations for all of us where our only answer would be "I don't know"), because I value animals too much to simply abandon one to death simply because it's an animal, and at the same time I wouldn't be able to leave a human life to die either.

I very much doubt I'll ever be in this situation, which is fortunate because, unlike yourself, I don't have such a trivial attitude towards animal life. If it's less important to you, fair enough, but it's not to me.

I think that's all we have to say on the issue. I care very much about animals, you don't as much. I think any continuation of this will consist entirely of running around in circles. :shrug:

[Toy Soldier]

Also... "psycho-babble", Kizzy? Really? You'll be declaring your support for UKIP next :p

[Kazanne]

I didn't even notice that, where the hell did that question even come from lmao.

I'll happily answer it though, i don't care if i look like a "sociopath". My dogs are my family.

:clap1::clap1:

[AnnieK]

Acute transient psychotic episodes (colloquially, "rage blackouts") are actually more common than you would think under certain conditions and can be triggered specifically by things like repeated irritating noise, because the noise repeatedly interrupts normal thought process and doesn't give the mind time to rationalise. It's often compounded by things like drawn out periods of stress / lack of sleep, etc.

Not so common for them to result in something so drastically violent but it doesn't necessarily say anything at all about the "sort of person" involved.

As for the cover-up, I would call that entirely natural and actually psychologically positive. It means that in all likelihood he instantly realised what he had done and how awful it was, so set about covering it up. The truth is, the vast majority of people would do just that if they realised they had done something shameful like that. A lot of people would do it even if what had happened was an accident like hitting a pet with a car, even people who would insist before the fact "Oh I definitely wouldn't I would find the owners and tell them!". Guilt is a strange and unpredictable motivator.

It would be much MORE worrying if he had started bellowing over the fence at the house about what he had done, or simply left the dog there and gone on about his day. That would, for me, demonstrate that he didn't understand at all the gravity of his actions. He didn't do a very good job of covering it up at all, which suggests a panic after it was already done rather than any premeditated action.

I guess it sounds like I'm trying to make excuses... I'm not, I think he definitely needs help on some level. I just, as always, don't believe in "folks who are just plain evil" and think it's important to understand why things like this happen in the first place rather than simply wringing hands in the aftermath.

I get what you are saying TS and as much as I don't agree, it makes some sense. However, I massively disagree with the sentiment that most people would have done the cover up part. Some MAY have put the body somwhere or hidden it etc but I cannot see MOST people digging around under the skin of a dog they have just killed to remove a microchip that may or may not have been there. The main reaction would surely be panic if the had a "black rage" and came to realising what they had done my be running to hide the body etc. His cover up is very calculated and as worrying as the act itself IMO

[MTVN]

I get what you are saying TS and as much as I don't agree, it makes some sense. However, I massively disagree with the sentiment that most people would have done the cover up part. Some MAY have put the body somwhere or hidden it etc but I cannot see MOST people digging around under the skin of a dog they have just killed to remove a microchip that may or may not have been there. The main reaction would surely be panic if the had a "black rage" and came to realising what they had done my be running to hide the body etc. His cover up is very calculated and as worrying as the act itself IMO

I agree, it seems far from 'psychologically positive' to me

[Suze]

I live next door to a someone who moved in nearly two years ago now, their dog barked and whined practically non stop all day when she was out, she doesn't appear to have the dog now, just two new dogs that she leaves alone to bark, it is irritating, however, never once did I ever think of taking the law into my own hands and killing the poor thing/s, rather the owners than the poor dog/s.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for that evil bloke's excuse for killing that dog, no matter what way you look at it or any legalities he thought he might have. He is just an evil, callous, sod who saw an excuse for torturing and killing that dog, fact shown by the way he felt the need to dispose of the microchip from it. I hope Karma hits him big time.

[Kazanne]

He tried to hide that dog twice,thinking about where to dispose of it,even thinking of the side of the road!! he denied he had seen the dog when he was asked and seems he was only caught as fur was seen on his boots,so it seems pretty well planned out,plus he would have had a bucket of water ready.I cannot believe he is allowed to fly again.

[Kazanne]

I live next door to a someone who moved in nearly two years ago now, their dog barked and whined practically non stop all day when she was out, she doesn't appear to have the dog now, just two new dogs that she leaves alone to bark, it is irritating, however, never once did I ever think of taking the law into my own hands and killing the poor thing/s, rather the owners than the poor dog/s.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for that evil bloke's excuse for killing that dog, no matter what way you look at it or any legalities he thought he might have. He is just an evil, callous, sod who saw an excuse for torturing and killing that dog, fact shown by the way he felt the need to dispose of the microchip from it. I hope Karma hits him big time.

Well said Suze:wavey:

[Kizzy]

Yes just like the human and emotive way that people reacted to thousands of immigrants drowning in the med, or young students accidentally killing themselves with medication bought online or... oh no wait people are more upset about the dog.

Obviously.

We should probably just hang the guy who did it I guess. C'mon Dave, hurry up with that death legislation! Don't you realise that a puppy has been brutally murdered???


...meh. I can appreciate that I've been a bit all over the place in this thread, I guess, but I'm finding people's lack of any rational perspective quite bewildering. I always do when it comes to "poor puppy" cases.

Oh come on... now your bringing up drowning refugees and deceased teens? :/
That really is lurching from the sublime to the ridiculous, I wouldn't say the measure of reactions could, would or should be comparable.

[T*]

https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/yD_NnvXkQCM2DDVQnplVTg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-05-21/74285240-ff9f-11e4-a624-51d8c7c3fdc4_dog-killer.jpg
The Killer

and the (Now Dead) Dog

my dog looks exactly like this :bawling:
I hope the ****er gets what he did to the dog done to him

[T*]

I'm digusted at some comments in here
Toy Soldier, you should be ashamed with yourself; needless to say i wouldn't have a dog around you ever.
i'm just so speechless about that mentality...

[Mystic Mock]

Animal cruelty let off as usual by the law.

[Ammi]

..there are lots of these hypothetical/potential dilemmas about and it's sometimes said that people would save their pets in certain situations..a much loved family pet over a stranger etc...it may not be my thought process to do so but I think it's completely understandable as well because it's relating something of how totally devastated they know that they would feel if they lost their own pet and yes it's an animal and not a human but they can still directly relate how heart breaking it would be to lose that pet..whereas with a stranger..I don't think the thought process is that they would be of less 'value' than an animal but just that it would be much more difficult to relate and imagine the 'loss of them'...and it's just a 'hypothetical' anyway so it's just what the mind would 'imagine' the reaction to be...and I don't think those kind of associations and relating of emotions would have any sociopath indications at all...

[Toy Soldier]

Oh come on... now your bringing up drowning refugees and deceased teens? :/
That really is lurching from the sublime to the ridiculous, I wouldn't say the measure of reactions could, would or should be comparable.

No, they shouldn't, the reaction to the death of an animal should be far less than the reaction to the loss of human life, but it's completely the other way around. The world is arse-backwards.

[Toy Soldier]

Agreed. I usually try and understand that everybody has different opinions on certain topics etc. etc. but i'm utterly shocked at some of the comments in this thread, trying to make excuses for a murderer on the basis of it not being a human loss of life, it's disgusting and they really should be ashamed of themselves (arista, Toy soldier, and anyone else who shares their opinion).

I'm not "making excuses", or saying that it isn't a crime, or saying that it isn't a horrible thing to have happened... I'm just saying that it being a dog makes it a far less serious crime. Because it (rightly, and legally) does. And a "murderer"? ...Really? Really, though? Lock me up and throw away the key! I had a bacon sandwich earlier, I'm clearly a cannibal.

[Toy Soldier]

I openly say that I care more about animals than humans, what's your point exactly?

See above;

the reaction to the death of an animal should be far less than the reaction to the loss of human life, but it's completely the other way around. The world is arse-backwards.

[Kizzy]

No, they shouldn't, the reaction to the death of an animal should be far less than the reaction to the loss of human life, but it's completely the other way around. The world is arse-backwards.

It's not backwards, you can't expect those who have pets to not imagine that was their furry friends killed and express their shock and empathy, I just can't get why you struggle with the concept of compassion for this innocent animal.

[Dollface]

I'm not "making excuses", or saying that it isn't a crime, or saying that it isn't a horrible thing to have happened... I'm just saying that it being a dog makes it a far less serious crime. Because it (rightly, and legally) does. And a "murderer"? ...Really? Really, though? Lock me up and throw away the key! I had a bacon sandwich earlier, I'm clearly a cannibal.

murderer
ˈməːd(ə)rə(r)/Submit
noun
a person who commits murder.

[Toy Soldier]

It's not backwards, you can't expect those who have pets to not imagine that was their furry friends killed and express their shock and empathy, I just can't get why you struggle with the concept of compassion for this innocent animal.

I don't struggle with people having compassion for an animal, I struggle with people having more time to express their compassion for an animal than they do to express compassion for fellow human beings. I struggle with this being a major news story, when you take a second to look at the things that are happening everywhere, every day, that are so much more horrendous that it's almost ludicrous. Because this is what sells. This is what people will bother about. This is what has lured people out of Chat 'n' Games to express their horror and disbelief. A bloody dog. It's depressing. It's depressing that the guy killed it, it's depressing that the owners had it locked in a garden bored and barking it's head off, but it's mostly depressing that people simply ARE - and admittedly - sadder and more upset about this than the countless horrors that are affecting people every minute of every day. I don't know. Maybe people just don't like to think about it too much? Poor puppy.

[Toy Soldier]

murderer
ˈməːd(ə)rə(r)/Submit
noun
a person who commits murder.

murder
ˈməːdə/
noun

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

[Dollface]

murder
ˈməːdə/
noun

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So if he's not a murderer, what is he, a killer? To me murderer/killer = the same thing, someone who takes lives.

[Toy Soldier]

So if he's not a murderer, what is he, a killer? To me murderer/killer = the same thing, someone who takes lives.
Thankfully, the law disagrees.

[Kizzy]

I don't struggle with people having compassion for an animal, I struggle with people having more time to express their compassion for an animal than they do to express compassion for fellow human beings. I struggle with this being a major news story, when you take a second to look at the things that are happening everywhere, every day, that are so much more horrendous that it's almost ludicrous. Because this is what sells. This is what people will bother about. This is what has lured people out of Chat 'n' Games to express their horror and disbelief. A bloody dog. It's depressing. It's depressing that the guy killed it, it's depressing that the owners had it locked in a garden bored and barking it's head off, but it's mostly depressing that people simply ARE - and admittedly - sadder and more upset about this than the countless horrors that are affecting people every minute of every day. I don't know. Maybe people just don't like to think about it too much? Poor puppy.

I think you're reading too much into this TS, there is a lot of horrible things going on in the world but it doesn't mean there's no room to be sad about a little doggie too.

[Toy Soldier]

I think you're reading too much into this TS, there is a lot of horrible things going on in the world but it doesn't mean there's no room to be sad about a little doggie too.

There is room to be sad, it is sad, the whole situation is sad for everyone involved... but I still maintain that it's not even in the same ballpark as a human death and I still find it weird that people are quicker to react to it. And also, this idea that a dog's life is comparable to pretty much any human life is total madness. Unless we're talking about a truly horrendous human being, it just isn't.

[Kizzy]

Just for you TS :)

'THE Scottish SPCA is appealing for information after two Scottish holidaymakers found a dog at the summit of England’s highest mountain, and took him home to Ayrshire.

The dog, a male Collie cross aged between five and eight, is in the care of staff at the charity’s rescue and rehoming centre in Glasgow, and has been named Scafell after the Lake District mountain.'

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/sspca-caring-for-dog-found-by-scots-on-scafell-pike-1-3780647

[Marsh.]

I don't struggle with people having compassion for an animal, I struggle with people having more time to express their compassion for an animal than they do to express compassion for fellow human beings. I struggle with this being a major news story, when you take a second to look at the things that are happening everywhere, every day, that are so much more horrendous that it's almost ludicrous. Because this is what sells. This is what people will bother about. This is what has lured people out of Chat 'n' Games to express their horror and disbelief. A bloody dog. It's depressing. It's depressing that the guy killed it, it's depressing that the owners had it locked in a garden bored and barking it's head off, but it's mostly depressing that people simply ARE - and admittedly - sadder and more upset about this than the countless horrors that are affecting people every minute of every day. I don't know. Maybe people just don't like to think about it too much? Poor puppy.

Animals are superior to us humans. Humans are horrid creatures.

[Kazanne]

Animals are superior to us humans. Humans are horrid creatures.

:clap1::clap1:

[joeysteele]

Animals are superior to us humans. Humans are horrid creatures.

There really are, some absolutely rotten individuals who don't warrant being classed as humans.

I find this whole case beyond any understanding, even if the dog was barking continuously.

[Black Dagger]

This story has literally upset me so much. What a repulsive ****. They can be such harmless creatures. I want to give my Alfie a big hug.

[joeysteele]

This story has literally upset me so much. What a repulsive ****. They can be such harmless creatures. I want to give my Alfie a big hug.

I felt the same as to the story and,thinking of my dog.
It brings it home to you that there are some intolerant and crazy nutters out there and you need to keep your dog/s safe.

[bots]

Some of the points that TS makes are valid, although, I personally may have expressed them differently.

I remember during the first gulf war, there were many human casualties, and the world was knitting woolly jumpers to protect the birds from oil spills. Sometimes perspective is skewed

[Ammi]

..it's sad that this thread got so off topic..not with the hypotheticals/analogies etc that may or may not have been relevant to this particular story...but more personal judgements of members...rather than think it a positive that some members who don't usually 'venture' into Serious Debates so much would feel passionate enough about something to want to, that something engages them in this section..?...and maybe holding on to that passion to see if they can be engaged more..they're being judged for not engaging in other things and other topics ...I mean really, that's such a negative view...also TS it's a 'dumbing down'..it's deciding and judging for them 'what is more important'..it's not encouraging young people to express themselves at all...and I don't think it's so much about not caring about things but just one possible indication why there is less venturing out of chat and games because so often members are judged for their opinions, rather than a countering of views when that opinion is not agreed with and an acceptance that we all don't have the same perspectives in our lives and trying to understand each others perspectives...is that not a large part of debate...

[arista]

..it's sad that this thread got so off topic..not with the hypotheticals/analogies etc that may or may not have been relevant to this particular story...but more personal judgements of members...rather than think it a positive that some members who don't usually 'venture' into Serious Debates so much would feel passionate enough about something to want to, that something engages them in this section..?...they're being judged for not engaging in other things and other topics ...I mean really, that's such a negative view...also TS it's a 'dumbing down'..it's deciding and judging for them 'what is more important'..it's not encouraging young people to express themselves at all...and I don't think it's so much about not caring about things but just one possible indication why there is less venturing out of chat and games because so often members are judged for their opinions, rather than a countering of views when that opinion is not agreed with and an acceptance that we all don't have the same perspectives...


Its very Normal
you have all ages talking.

Some youngers
emotional etc.



If only that household
stopped the dog from barking.

A true dog lover
Never leaves a Dog Barking
Fact

[Ammi]

Its very Normal
you have all ages talking.

Some youngers
emotional etc.



If only that household
stopped the dog from barking.

I true dog lover
Never leaves a Dog Barking
Fact

..that's not a fact Arista...some dogs do bark a lot/as puppies and yeah the thing is discipline or 'puppy classes' to discourage that..but at the time that she was got as a puppy and their daughter was alive but severely disabled..as much as that should maybe have happened..?..that probably wasn't their priority or just something that they may have thought she would grow out of...but that doesn't mean that they are not dog lovers...and then when these things are not instilled with dogs from the off, it becomes much harder to change behaviour patterns, much the same as in humans...

[arista]

..that's not a fact Arista...some dogs do bark a lot/as puppies and yeah the thing is discipline or 'puppy classes' to discourage that..but at the time that she was got as a puppy and their daughter was alive but severely disabled..as much as that should maybe have happened..?..that probably wasn't their priority or just something that they may have thought she would grow out of...but that doesn't mean that they are not dog lovers...and then when these things are not instilled with dogs from the off, it becomes much harder to change behaviour patterns, much the same as in humans...


Its is

I am talking about Dogs

Not Puppies


This case was neglect of that Dog
it was Doomed when they bought it, sadly

[Ammi]

Its is

I am talking about Dogs

Not Puppies


This case was neglect of that Dog
it was Doomed when they bought it, sadly

..the discipline with puppies and their behaviour/barking etc is very relevant to the dogs they are when they are older and in much the same way as humans..so maybe it wasn't there/we don't know..?..but that doesn't automatically translate to neglect either because it's very difficult to instil these things when behaviour patterns are set and as dogs are older... but in any case, I can see many things/priorities that may have meant it didn't happen and caused a very struggling family...and if we're to have understanding of the frustrations of the man who killed the dog/of the noise levels etc then it's having understanding of that as well..I mean if you're going to build up 'a picture'/scenario..then it has to be a complete picture ...anyway the whole noise level thing and his frustration are quite conflicted anyway with some reports saying he'd made complaints in the past and others saying that that him killing the dog was the first indication of there being any problem so we don't even know the truth of that...whatever though, I do not believe that the drowning of a dog, the time it takes to do that and see it's struggling for breathe and then the calculation of trying to cover it up is a split second of 'losing it'....

[kirklancaster]

There is room to be sad, it is sad, the whole situation is sad for everyone involved... but I still maintain that it's not even in the same ballpark as a human death and I still find it weird that people are quicker to react to it. And also, this idea that a dog's life is comparable to pretty much any human life is total madness. Unless we're talking about a truly horrendous human being, it just isn't.

There seems to be so much confusion in yours - and certain other members - abstract thought processing T.S.

On other threads - notably concerning ISIS or CHRISTIANITY - when usually countering my views:

A) You DENY God and Creationism and condemn religion.
B) You ADVOCATE Darwinism and the secular accident of Evolution.

Therefore - by your own often expressed opinions - HUMANS are nothing more than just another species of ANIMAL.

We may be 'prima inter pares' - 'first among equals', 'top of the food chain' - but by your definition we are mere animals nonetheless.

Now on THIS thread, you plead the UNIQUENESS of humans above ALL animals?

Without GOD just WHY then do you propose that we are unique?

Dogs, cats, corvids, cetaceans, primates, and a host of other animals display moral, cognitive and conscious behaviour. Even the humble Flatworm has qualities we humans lack. So Humans are no more 'Special' than any other animals - in fact; the word “special” is merely the adjectival form of “species”.

So being on an 'Equal Footing' with any other animal, is one human's LOVE and FONDNESS for his/her DOG any LESS VALID than another human's LOVE and FONDNESS for another human?

NO.

As humans we form attachments/relationships to satisfy our social needs - be they with other humans, with pets, or both, but INVARIABLY, a human-pet relationship is simpler and safer than human-human relationships, as equally rewarding, and involves less risk.

Pets - especially DOGS - can be accepting, openly affectionate, honest, loyal and consistent; all qualities that satisfy a person‟s basic need to be loved and feel self-worthy.

Unlike humans, Dogs will rarely 'Bite-The-Hand-That-Feeds-Them', and a dog's love is often more genuine, intrinsic, and instinctive.

So I will come to your statement that:

"And also, this idea that a dog's life is comparable to pretty much any human life is total madness"

And say; No - it is NOT madness and you are wrong.

The day I see a dog abduct a child from its mother, take it onto bleak moorland, torture it, then murder it.

The day I see a dog behead a cowering innocent human.

The day I see a dog set fire to a terrified innocent schoolteacher and burn her alive.

and the day I see a dog mercilessly beat an 84 year old pensioner to death after he has already surrounded his life-savings

is the day when I will agree with you and apologise to you.

[kirklancaster]

So if he's not a murderer, what is he, a killer? To me murderer/killer = the same thing, someone who takes lives.

He is far more than a 'killer' Dollface. He is a dangerous and evil psychopath.

If I punch a man in a fight and he dies from that action - I am a killer.

I am a 'killer' as distinct from a 'MURDERER' because it was not my intent to kill him and his death was accidental.

If a tiny innocent and trusting 3 year old child was playing in her OWN garden and I entice her to the fence, pick her up, spirit her away to an already prepared place of EXECUTION replete with bucket of water and sharp knives, then drown her and disembowel her, then go to well thought out lengths to hide - both her remains AND my crime ---- then I am a COLD, CALCULATING, SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS PSYCHOPATH.

There may be a difference between a little CHILD and a little DOG but that is THE ONLY DIFFERENCE - everything else is constant.

This bastard is a sick psychopath, His crime is abhorrent, and he SHOULD have been locked away - both as PUNISHMENT and PREVENTATIVE DETENTION.

[Nedusa]

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.

Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs

[Ammi]

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.

Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs

..while I do have sympathy with his frustration/reduced quality of life with the noise...(if indeed it was to the extent that it was constant and persistent etc...he was not forced to the extreme that he took, it was totally his choice and ownership of...and if it had been a neighbour's baby crying night after night and day after day or just general noise from a child...people don't just naturally and generally 'snap' to the extreme that he apparently did, that takes a particular kind of psyche to do that/to be capable of actually doing what he did...

[Jake.]

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.

Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs

He wasn't 'forced' into anything, had he reacted like a normal person none of this would have happened

The fact people are actually glad he escaped jail :umm2: It's sick.

[joeysteele]

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.

Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs

May I please ask do you have any pets Nedusa,if you have had or do, how would you feel yourself if someone, as to any reason, killed your pet, cut it open and then tried to cover the deed too.

If anyone owns a dog that killed someone,thereby afterwards being termed a 'killer dog',in law now, that owner could be imprisoned for a time.
I see little difference myself for doing so to 'dog killers' too.

A dog barking is not out of control, it requires some training admittedly and perhaps more attention too,which is what it could be likely asking for by barking anyway.

A dog out of control is a dog that attacks others and cannot be stopped.
It doesn't bother me but I am woken a few times often by Cats in the street or garden where I live,fighting with each other or when they get a bird.
I certainly wouldn't go out and drown them,cut them open then try to hide the fact I did so.

How you can term this man a poor man, is sorry,for me, unbelievable.

[T*]

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.



Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs


oh my ****ing god
pathetic

[Kizzy]

I can pinpoint the exact moment I fell out of love with my ex partner. He was describing a previous relationship where he and his ex partner had shared a flat, a friends dog had had puppies and they asked to have one. After caring for this puppy for around 6 to 8 months they became 'bored' of the dog, so they drove somewhere many miles away and left it there.
Our relationship continued for a while as we had a child but he was no longer the man I thought he was due to this.

[Toy Soldier]

If you have sympathy with that waste of a man then I actually think you something wrong with you, there is no way, it's disgusting that people on here have that mentality.
Shame on you.

Anyone can suffer from a temporary psychotic break. Anyone. I know that this is difficult for people to accept or believe; "No one who isn't evil could ever do anything like that" etc. etc. but that's actually quite a dangerous mindset. Fleeting psychotic episodes are a very real thing and you have no idea if it could happen to you. It is absolutely right to feel sympathy for someone in this situation, if they feel remorse.

To address what some people were saying earlier, also: no, it actually doesn't follow that it's "a good thing it wasn't a screaming baby!". People have a strong instinctive bias to not harm human infants. During a psychotic (or "rage") episode, those instinctive and subconscious controls are still very much in place. There are no such instinctive controls when it comes to non-human animals, our connection and love for animals is conscious and sentimental. People not wanting to believe that does not change the facts.

There is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on here. He MUST be an evil pre-meditated dog murderer because;

1) He sneakily lured it over to carry out the plan

(Well no, it's equally plausible that it was barking at the fence and he was leaning over telling it to shut up and then eventually snapped and grabbed it)

2) He must have had the bucket of water sitting ready

(This one is actually daft. Would you really plan to kill a dog by drowning it? It seems needlessly complicated and it's far more likely that there simply happened to be a bucket in his garden nearby that had filled with water)

3) He cut the dog to pieces and pulled its guts out to remove the microchip

(Surely some willful ignorance going on here? Microchips are on the back of the neck just under the skin, you can feel where they are, especially on a small animal, and it would take little more than a tiny cut to then remove it. This is sensationalism.)

4) He covered up the "murder" afterwards.

(So his blind rage passes, he reaslises he has done something morally abhorrent [and it is! No one is saying that it isn't ffs, not even the guy who did it!], and his first reastion is amazingly NOT to run around telling everyone what he's done and hand himself in to the police. He tries to hide his shame. I maintain that this is 100% normal and that the vast majority of people who have done something terrible and inexplicable would panic and try to figure out how to hide it.


These things happen to people. Normal people. I understand that that's scary, and that there's a good reason that people want to reject it as "unthinkable", "couldn't possibly happen to them or anyone else who isn't a monster for that matter", but hiding under the bed with your fingers in your ears is quite unlikely to change facts. Abnormal psychology is scary and can affect anyone. Deal with it.


There's far too much black and white reasoning going on in this thread, what has happened here has a massive grey area. Do I think it's nice that a dog was killed and was probably distressed during? Of course not, it's a horrible thing to happen. But no, I certainly don't think that this man deserves for his life to be over because he suffered a clear, brief and - sentiment aside - relatively minor break in his mental health brought on by - reading between the lines - the incessant noise of a bored and neglected dog that was left yapping in its garden for hours on end. I VERY MUCH doubt this dog had only been barking for a few minutes, and it clearly wasn't supervised... so it had been barking, outside, on its own, for a prolonged period of time. A lot of people who claim to be "dog lovers" seem to be very quick to overlook the fact that this is NOT caring for a dog well.

[Kizzy]

You speak as though you were there TS. :/
It's all supposition, you don't know the circumstances or what occurred pre or post attack, nor are you privvy to the mind of the man then or now so your summation is irrelevant.

[Kazanne]

There seems to be so much confusion in yours - and certain other members - abstract thought processing T.S.

On other threads - notably concerning ISIS or CHRISTIANITY - when usually countering my views:

A) You DENY God and Creationism and condemn religion.
B) You ADVOCATE Darwinism and the secular accident of Evolution.

Therefore - by your own often expressed opinions - HUMANS are nothing more than just another species of ANIMAL.

We may be 'prima inter pares' - 'first among equals', 'top of the food chain' - but by your definition we are mere animals nonetheless.

Now on THIS thread, you plead the UNIQUENESS of humans above ALL animals?

Without GOD just WHY then do you propose that we are unique?

Dogs, cats, corvids, cetaceans, primates, and a host of other animals display moral, cognitive and conscious behaviour. Even the humble Flatworm has qualities we humans lack. So Humans are no more 'Special' than any other animals - in fact; the word “special” is merely the adjectival form of “species”.

So being on an 'Equal Footing' with any other animal, is one human's LOVE and FONDNESS for his/her DOG any LESS VALID than another human's LOVE and FONDNESS for another human?

NO.

As humans we form attachments/relationships to satisfy our social needs - be they with other humans, with pets, or both, but INVARIABLY, a human-pet relationship is simpler and safer than human-human relationships, as equally rewarding, and involves less risk.

Pets - especially DOGS - can be accepting, openly affectionate, honest, loyal and consistent; all qualities that satisfy a person‟s basic need to be loved and feel self-worthy.

Unlike humans, Dogs will rarely 'Bite-The-Hand-That-Feeds-Them', and a dog's love is often more genuine, intrinsic, and instinctive.

So I will come to your statement that:

"And also, this idea that a dog's life is comparable to pretty much any human life is total madness"

And say; No - it is NOT madness and you are wrong.

The day I see a dog abduct a child from its mother, take it onto bleak moorland, torture it, then murder it.

The day I see a dog behead a cowering innocent human.

The day I see a dog set fire to a terrified innocent schoolteacher and burn her alive.

and the day I see a dog mercilessly beat an 84 year old pensioner to death after he has already surrounded his life-savings

is the day when I will agree with you and apologise to you.

:clap1::clap1::worship:

[Toy Soldier]

You speak as though you were there TS. :/
It's all supposition, you don't know the circumstances or what occurred pre or post attack, nor are you privvy to the mind of the man then or now so your summation is irrelevant.

No more or less relevant than anyone else making suppositions (that it was planned, calculated, that he is clearly evil), surely, and therefore by your reasoning, the entire thread is irrelevant unless entirely neutral.

[Kizzy]

No more or less relevant than anyone else making suppositions (that it was planned, calculated, that he is clearly evil), surely, and therefore by your reasoning, the entire thread is irrelevant unless entirely neutral.

It is what it is, a base act committed by someone who became unhinged.
That's all we do and can know.
You made connections where there were none based on the opinions of some, that is entirely unjustified.
You can't preempt from one scenario how anyone would react to another.

[Toy Soldier]

It is what it is, a base act committed by someone who became unhinged.
That's all we do and can know.
Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that.

And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

[arista]

"very struggling family.."

Yes Big Error getting a Dog , Ammi.

[arista]

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.

Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs


Bang On Right

[T*]

Bang On Right


Seriously?

[kirklancaster]

Anyone can suffer from a temporary psychotic break. Anyone. I know that this is difficult for people to accept or believe; "No one who isn't evil could ever do anything like that" etc. etc. but that's actually quite a dangerous mindset. Fleeting psychotic episodes are a very real thing and you have no idea if it could happen to you. It is absolutely right to feel sympathy for someone in this situation, if they feel remorse.

To address what some people were saying earlier, also: no, it actually doesn't follow that it's "a good thing it wasn't a screaming baby!". People have a strong instinctive bias to not harm human infants. During a psychotic (or "rage") episode, those instinctive and subconscious controls are still very much in place. There are no such instinctive controls when it comes to non-human animals, our connection and love for animals is conscious and sentimental. People not wanting to believe that does not change the facts.

There is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on here. He MUST be an evil pre-meditated dog murderer because;

1) He sneakily lured it over to carry out the plan

(Well no, it's equally plausible that it was barking at the fence and he was leaning over telling it to shut up and then eventually snapped and grabbed it)

2) He must have had the bucket of water sitting ready

(This one is actually daft. Would you really plan to kill a dog by drowning it? It seems needlessly complicated and it's far more likely that there simply happened to be a bucket in his garden nearby that had filled with water)

3) He cut the dog to pieces and pulled its guts out to remove the microchip

(Surely some willful ignorance going on here? Microchips are on the back of the neck just under the skin, you can feel where they are, especially on a small animal, and it would take little more than a tiny cut to then remove it. This is sensationalism.)

4) He covered up the "murder" afterwards.

(So his blind rage passes, he reaslises he has done something morally abhorrent [and it is! No one is saying that it isn't ffs, not even the guy who did it!], and his first reastion is amazingly NOT to run around telling everyone what he's done and hand himself in to the police. He tries to hide his shame. I maintain that this is 100% normal and that the vast majority of people who have done something terrible and inexplicable would panic and try to figure out how to hide it.


These things happen to people. Normal people. I understand that that's scary, and that there's a good reason that people want to reject it as "unthinkable", "couldn't possibly happen to them or anyone else who isn't a monster for that matter", but hiding under the bed with your fingers in your ears is quite unlikely to change facts. Abnormal psychology is scary and can affect anyone. Deal with it.


There's far too much black and white reasoning going on in this thread, what has happened here has a massive grey area. Do I think it's nice that a dog was killed and was probably distressed during? Of course not, it's a horrible thing to happen. But no, I certainly don't think that this man deserves for his life to be over because he suffered a clear, brief and - sentiment aside - relatively minor break in his mental health brought on by - reading between the lines - the incessant noise of a bored and neglected dog that was left yapping in its garden for hours on end. I VERY MUCH doubt this dog had only been barking for a few minutes, and it clearly wasn't supervised... so it had been barking, outside, on its own, for a prolonged period of time. A lot of people who claim to be "dog lovers" seem to be very quick to overlook the fact that this is NOT caring for a dog well.

Does he LOOK REMORSEFUL T.S - He's STARING DEFIANTLY and a TAD SMIRKY/SMUGLY STRAIGHT INTO THE CAMERAS.

The sick bastard should be hiding his head UNDER A RAINCOAT or BLANKET.

Remorseful my Arse.
https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/yD_NnvXkQCM2DDVQnplVTg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-05-21/74285240-ff9f-11e4-a624-51d8c7c3fdc4_dog-killer.jpg

https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rctWGret5qBMXA.LfvNTDg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-05-21/f39293b0-ff9f-11e4-a624-51d8c7c3fdc4_NTI_DOG_KILLER_01.jpg

[Ross.]

Bang On Right

erm

[Toy Soldier]

Does he LOOK REMORSEFUL T.S - He's STARING DEFIANTLY and a TAD SMIRKY/SMUGLY STRAIGHT INTO THE CAMERAS.

The sick bastard should be hiding his head UNDER A RAINCOAT or BLANKET.

Remorseful my Arse.
https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/yD_NnvXkQCM2DDVQnplVTg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-05-21/74285240-ff9f-11e4-a624-51d8c7c3fdc4_dog-killer.jpg

https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/rctWGret5qBMXA.LfvNTDg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-05-21/f39293b0-ff9f-11e4-a624-51d8c7c3fdc4_NTI_DOG_KILLER_01.jpg
It is literally impossible to tell from one or two still images, kirk. I could take a video of someone in extreme distress and selectively pause it to make it look like they're laughing.

[Kizzy]

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that.

And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

It may be less serious to you and the law yet the moral and psychological juries are out, while the act of killing a pet to a person is not comparable legally they are no more shocking and unacceptable in a spiritual sense.

[Kizzy]

I've seen that scruffy bloated lawyer on telly somewhere.

[kirklancaster]

I've seen that scruffy bloated lawyer on telly somewhere.

:laugh: Jeremy Kyle?

[Ammi]

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that. And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.


..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing which is based on emotion, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go isn't it, outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life back on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...




"very struggling family.."

Yes Big Error getting a Dog , Ammi.

..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

[T*]

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go, isn't it outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...













..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...


:clap1:

[Toy Soldier]

It may be less serious to you and the law yet the moral and psychological juries are out

The moral jury on everything is always out, such is the subjective nature of morality. I can assure you though, the psychological jury is not out. Killing animals can be indicative of psychological problems but on the scale of abnormal psychology, it's absolutely nowhere near murder. Murder being used in the proper sense of the word of course; killing another human being.


while the act of killing a pet to a person is not comparable legally they are no more shocking and unacceptable in a spiritual sense.

To you. See above, re: the subjective nature of morality.


You're a psycho. A deluded psycho.

Am I, doctor? Oh dear.

I take this to mean that you ARE a vegetarian?

[Ross.]

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing which is based on emotion, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go isn't it, outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life back on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...






..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

Ammi :worship: :worship:

[Liam-]

What has being a vegetarian got to do with being disgusted by a person slaughtering a dog because it barked?

[Toy Soldier]

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...

an already prepared place of EXECUTION replete with bucket of water and sharp knives, then drown her and disembowel her

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

[Toy Soldier]

What has being a vegetarian got to do with being disgusted by a person slaughtering a dog because it barked?

Nothing. It has everything to do with being called "a psycho" for stating that it's "just a dog", though, because anyone who would state such and still eat meat is being a bit of a hypocrite. Either they eat meat and think "it's just a pig" / "it's just a cow" and are fine with it, OR they feel the same way about pigs and cows as they do about dogs but eat them anyway, which would be barbaric.

The actual explanation is that people are sentimental about dogs but are not sentimental about other animals in the same way, even though there is no objective difference between a dog and a pig.

Actually, maybe it's just "pets"? People would probably be horrified if someone came along and stole someones pet piggy from their garden and ate it on some nice white bread with ketchup. They don't give a **** about eating bacon from the supermarket. The conclusion there, then, is that it actually has nothing AT ALL to do with the animal itself and it's purely down to the prescribed attachment and humanisation of the individual animal.

All of the above in summary: People are emotionally inconsistent and live in a fantasy world where pets become people.

[Kizzy]

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

I said digging around in the flesh, if it really was so easy to remove why then not just remove it and as my ex did drive the dog away in his car..... why kill it?
I'm not sure why you've chosen to defend this man in his decision when rattled to snuff out the object of his ire, or condemn anyone who challenges his actions as being less sympathetic to the ills affecting the human race.

[Kizzy]

Nothing. It has everything to do with being called "a psycho" for stating that it's "just a dog", though, because anyone who would state such and still eat meat is being a bit of a hypocrite. Either they eat meat and think "it's just a pig" / "it's just a cow" and are fine with it, OR they feel the same way about pigs and cows as they do about dogs but eat them anyway, which would be barbaric.

The actual explanation is that people are sentimental about dogs but are not sentimental about other animals in the same way, even though there is no objective difference between a dog and a pig.

Actually, maybe it's just "pets"? People would probably be horrified if someone came along and stole someones pet piggy from their garden and ate it on some nice white bread with ketchup. They don't give a **** about eating bacon from the supermarket. The conclusion there, then, is that it actually has nothing AT ALL to do with the animal itself and it's purely down to the prescribed attachment and humanisation of the individual animal.

All of the above in summary: People are emotionally inconsistent and live in a fantasy world where pets become people.

There you go again trying to attach some pseudo psychology to the scenario.
Man does a have a different relationship with dogs than pigs that's been well documented over time, I've never heard 'a pig is a mans best friend'. :/

[Toy Soldier]

I said digging around in the flesh, if it really was so easy to remove why then not just remove it and as my ex did drive the dog away in his car..... why kill it?

Not to make presumptions about the sequence of events again Kizzy but I would guess the chip was removed after the dog was drowned in a rage. I will conceed: If he cut out the chip and THEN drowned the dog, that is cold and calculating. He cut it out afterwards to hide the evidence.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to defend this man in his decision when rattled to snuff out the object of his ire

I'm trying to counter complete myths and misconceptions about human psychology more than this, to be honest.

or condemn anyone who challenges his actions as being less sympathetic to the ills affecting the human race.

No. Not "anyone". There are plenty of people condemning it who I am sure (in fact, know) are also equally empathic when it comes to human ills, and that's fine. I am condemning (and even then, not really condemning, just mildly despairing) at the fact that there are people - not just people on this thread or forum but countless people - who will barely look up from their cornflakes for a humanitarian crisis but fly into a snot-fuelled tirade when they hear that a dead dog is involved. This isn't new information; this stuff sells. You will sell more papers by posting a picture of a sad looking puppy abandonned at a railway station than you will with pictures of starving children. It's ****ing mental.

At the opposite end of the scale: there are people upset by the death of this dog who proudly proclaim "lolz, Darwin awardz" for dead teenagers.

Just... what. What is that?

[Ammi]

The moral jury on everything is always out, such is the subjective nature of morality. I can assure you though, the psychological jury is not out. Killing animals can be indicative of psychological problems but on the scale of abnormal psychology,

..I agree that there can be psychology attached to these things TS but that doesn't mean that any are true of this particular case either and you (appear) to be saying your (analysis) as more fact or at least that you are judging anyone/analysing them and why you think they are not of the same mindset... in this thread who disagrees with that analogy or doesn't except it as an excuse/reason etc for this story...and whether you mean to or not, that's what you're doing...lessening and dumbing down of those who disagree as there being another 'motive' or reason for their opinion, like being vegetarian..why can't they see what you see and how you see it all to be...so you are really analysing all posters in this thread as well....everything you say could be true but there is not always a psychology to everything either, some people are just pretty rubbish in their character...(something my family try to tell me..)...

..anyway in this case, there is no 'evidence' to any of his defence or excuses etc...he had a heart attack, I would presume that is true but no medical diagnosis of a barking dog being a contributory factor and not even any evidence of how much the dog barked because apparently he complained to the Council but no confirmation of his reports from them...he didn't say anything to his neighbours about his stress with their dog or try to talk to them..(they said that and he hasn't denied it so I'll presume that's true..)..he lost his job with this incident and act of his/lost the trust and respect of his fellow workers and had probably spent much time off work anyway with his heart issues..so fairly much all in all a very stressful time and over a long period of time and maybe enough to 'snap' as you say..?..but that doesn't mean/none of that means a dog being a contributory factor..none of that means that a dog was being neglected...none of that means that the dog indeed incessantly barked...the psychology..?...in his mind it did, the dog was responsible in some way but only in his mind because there is no evidence/facts atm to say otherwise...

[Toy Soldier]

There you go again trying to attach some pseudo psychology to the scenario.
Man does a have a different relationship with dogs than pigs that's been well documented over time, I've never heard 'a pig is a mans best friend'. :/

The humanisation and projected emotions of people on animals isn't "pseudo" psychology at all. No, you've never heard "a pig is man's best friend" but a dog doesn't know that it's supposedly man's best friend any more than a pig does. It ALL comes from the people and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the animal. Dogs, cats and other pers do not "love people" any more than cows or pigs do. The distinction is human, not natural, therefore reading a newspaper in the morning and getting upset about a dead dog whilst munching on a bacon sandwich is complete selective bias.

[Ammi]

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

..I would say that holding the head of a struggling dog or any living thing under water while they are gasping to breathe is a fairly torturous thing...and the cutting of the dog's neck open..the back of her neck..?..I don't think was 'media effect' but what his own words were in his statement ...

[Ammi]

..also I think that I read in one of the articles what Annie said...digging around under the skin as using his words/part of his own description...

[Toy Soldier]

..I would say that holding the head of a struggling dog or any living thing under water while they are gasping to breathe is a fairly torturous thing...and the cutting of the dog's neck open..the back of her neck..?..I don't think was 'media effect' but what his own words were in his statement ...

The word torture implies an intent to cause suffering or pain rather than an intent to kill. I'm also far form convinced that people don't know that they're being deliberately emotive when they choose to say "cut the dog open" rather than "cut out the microchip".

I'll overlook that you didn't mention Kirk specifically stating "disembowelled" because, to be fair, his imagery of some sort of carefully prepared execution just deserves to be overlooked.

[Ammi]

The word torture implies an intent to cause suffering or pain rather than an intent to kill. I'm also far form convinced that people don't know that they're being deliberately emotive when they choose to say "cut the dog open" rather than "cut out the microchip".
I'll overlook that you didn't mention Kirk specifically stating "disembowelled" because, to be fair, his imagery of some sort of carefully prepared execution just deserves to be overlooked.

..well there again TS, you're analysing people as you have this man, which is fine we all do that to some extent with topics and news stories etc.. but then you (appear) to believe your analysis and psychology as 'fact' or something that you seem to get frustrated with if others don't agree with you...and that then causes analysis of them and why you think they don't agree...

..and as is sadly often the way, other members are 'named' as well which has no bearing on anything said directly to you, in response to any of your views..and just for me personally is part of what makes these threads so difficult to post in...I mean SD threads in general and maybe..?...could be why other members also feel that they don't want to 'venture out' off chat and games that much to post their views and then when they do on something, it's that they somehow have strange priorities...so I think for the moment anyway, I'll leave the thread and go and do what I was meant to be doing anyway this morning....

[Toy Soldier]

..well there again TS, you're analysing people as you have this man, which is fine we all do that to some extent with topics and news stories etc.. but then you (appear) to believe your analysis and psychology as 'fact' or something that you seem to get frustrated with if others don't agree with you...and that then causes analysis of them and why you think they don't agree...

I don't believe it to be fact but I am confident that it's accurate. There's a subtle difference. But I'm not someone who prefaces things with "I might be wrong but" or "in my opinion", because in my opinion ( :hehe: ), it's boring and weak. If other people are more comfortable doing so, that's their prerogative.

..and as is sadly often the way, other members are 'named' as well which has no bearing on anything said directly to you, in response to any of your views..and just for me personally is part of what makes these threads so difficult to post in...I mean SD threads in general and maybe..?...

Errrrrrrrrr this specifically did not happen until you said in response to me;

no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it

Sooo... yeah. It had a bearing on that, as examples of why I believed the above to be wrong.

[Tom4784]

I can't believe people have sympathy for this man, it wasn't a case of him just snapping one day, it was obviously premeditated. Would ANYONE have thought to remove the micro chip if they had just snapped? No, they wouldn't.

Instead of reporting the neighbours and letting the authorities decide whether they were mistreating the dog he went ahead and killed it callously. People have gone to prison for less and it's shocking and wrong that he avoided jail time.

[Kizzy]

Not to make presumptions about the sequence of events again Kizzy but I would guess the chip was removed after the dog was drowned in a rage. I will conceed: If he cut out the chip and THEN drowned the dog, that is cold and calculating. He cut it out afterwards to hide the evidence.

I'll file that under you don't know :hehe:.


I'm trying to counter complete myths and misconceptions about human psychology more than this, to be honest.

If we all had the same mindset then there would be no need for rules or laws would there, so the concept that we are all inherently alike is not true psychology isn't an exact science is it?



No. Not "anyone". There are plenty of people condemning it who I am sure (in fact, know) are also equally empathic when it comes to human ills, and that's fine. I am condemning (and even then, not really condemning, just mildly despairing) at the fact that there are people - not just people on this thread or forum but countless people - who will barely look up from their cornflakes for a humanitarian crisis but fly into a snot-fuelled tirade when they hear that a dead dog is involved. This isn't new information; this stuff sells. You will sell more papers by posting a picture of a sad looking puppy abandonned at a railway station than you will with pictures of starving children. It's ****ing mental.

At the opposite end of the scale: there are people upset by the death of this dog who proudly proclaim "lolz, Darwin awardz" for dead teenagers.

I get this to an extent it is upsetting when the plight of millions are reduced to boats full of 'cockroaches'. Yet it isn't a question of perspective from a position of ignorance towards inhumanity to other humans that needs to be questioned here, I can see the frustrating comparison you're making however.

It's the acceptance that when you want to address an issue you lash out in the most violent way possible, it was a dog... that's not the point, it gives the suggestion that level of force is acceptable.
Do I feel this dog was at fault for this mans actions? No, I believe he was a dangerously anxious quick tempered man who lashed out in a fit of rage.. There's nothing to suggest that behaviour couldn't or wouldn't be repeated either.


Just... what. What is that?

We are a nation of dog lovers, maybe we do care more for dogs than people overseas? I would like to think it was the actions of the man, but yes I can't help but think that we can care less for some humans is a valid point.


.

[Toy Soldier]

I can't believe people have sympathy for this man, it wasn't a case of him just snapping one day, it was obviously premeditated. Would ANYONE have thought to remove the micro chip if they had just snapped? No, they wouldn't.

How was it "obviously" premeditated? And again (again, and again) he removed the chip AFTER killing the dog not BEFORE so it has absolutely no relevance to whether or not he had snapped when he actually killed it. None at all. Disposing of the dog and covering up the act was planned, and carried out in a way that some might consider mercenary. That's a completely different discussion.

I'd say if it was "premeditated" he would have had a solid plan for disposing of the dog afterwards, rather than failing to do so twice and ultimately being found with it on his property. That strongly suggests that he hadn't thought it through at all.

[Tom4784]

How was it "obviously" premeditated? And again (again, and again) he removed the chip AFTER killing the dog not BEFORE so it has absolutely no relevance to whether or not he had snapped when he actually killed it. None at all. Disposing of the dog and covering up the act was planned, and carried out in a way that some might consider mercenary. That's a completely different discussion.

I'd say if it was "premeditated" he would have had a solid plan for disposing of the dog afterwards, rather than failing to do so twice and ultimately being found with it on his property. That strongly suggests that he hadn't thought it through at all.

It all seemed pretty premeditated to me, surely if he was in such a blind rage he wouldn't have thought to drown the dog? If he had snapped surely he would have just strangled it or kill it in a more direct (and quick) fashion? Filling up a bucket to drown a dog when you've 'snapped' doesn't sound right.

Just because he was incompetent when it came to the cover up doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. Everything about this case is cut and dry, there is no defending this man.

[kirklancaster]

I can't believe people have sympathy for this man, it wasn't a case of him just snapping one day, it was obviously premeditated. Would ANYONE have thought to remove the micro chip if they had just snapped? No, they wouldn't.

Instead of reporting the neighbours and letting the authorities decide whether they were mistreating the dog he went ahead and killed it callously. People have gone to prison for less and it's shocking and wrong that he avoided jail time.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Toy Soldier]

.

I definitely don't think it's acceptable, somewhere buried right at the start of the thread I did say that I feel bad for the dog, I genuinely DO like dogs (although I don't humanise them or their emotions) and I think the whole story is tragic. I actually had a border terrier when I was younger that looked just like that one, funnily enough. I like to think also that I could and would never harm a dog in any way, I really don't think I would, but I know enough about psychology to state that you CAN'T be sure. No one can. We like to think we can, but we just can't. It's like people reading or watching documentaries about dementia and turning to their partner who they love with all of their heart and saying, "I would never forget you!". They believe it with their entire soul but the truth is... if they get dementia, they're going to forget that person. If someone (anyone, the gentlest person you know) suffers an acute temporary psychotic break, they have the potential to turn violent. It's scary but it IS fact.

So I'm just not naive enough to think that I or anyone else is immune from mental breakdown. I, like anyone, like to believe that it's unthinkable that I could drown a dog. Maybe a cat, but never a dog. But people break. And when they do they need help, not punishment.

I just wish more people took the time to try to understand what has actually happened (in every situation) even though, as you say, getting an exact picture is impossible. No one 100% knows what happened apart from the man who did it, and even he might not.

[arista]

"yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista... "

But it failed - the yapping dog just went on yapping
Massive Error

[Toy Soldier]

It all seemed pretty premeditated to me, surely if he was in such a blind rage he wouldn't have thought to drown the dog? If he had snapped surely he would have just strangled it or kill it in a more direct (and quick) fashion? Filling up a bucket to drown a dog when you've 'snapped' doesn't sound right.

I don't actually know the answer to this because I haven't read much more than the initial articles but, is it stated anywhere that he filled a bucket? It seems quite plausible to me that there was a bucket already full in the garden.

[kirklancaster]

It all seemed pretty premeditated to me, surely if he was in such a blind rage he wouldn't have thought to drown the dog? If he had snapped surely he would have just strangled it or kill it in a more direct (and quick) fashion? Filling up a bucket to drown a dog when you've 'snapped' doesn't sound right.

Just because he was incompetent when it came to the cover up doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. Everything about this case is cut and dry, there is no defending this man.

Absolutely 1,000% correct.

True loss of reason, temper - call it what T.S will - would mean -- as you say -- that he battered/strangled/killed the poor defencless dog EXACTLY where it was --- over the garden fence.

No WAY would he have gone to all those coldly calculated lengths to covertly abduct it and carry it to his shed etc. sordid etc.

I admit that I have lost my temper in packed nightclubs when I was constantly hassled by dickheads wanting to fight me, but I did not coolly entice them outside in some dark alley where they were no CCTV cameras or witnesses - I let go there and then in an admitted rage.

Not 'pre-meditated' my arse.

[kirklancaster]

..well there again TS, you're analysing people as you have this man, which is fine we all do that to some extent with topics and news stories etc.. but then you (appear) to believe your analysis and psychology as 'fact' or something that you seem to get frustrated with if others don't agree with you...and that then causes analysis of them and why you think they don't agree...

..and as is sadly often the way, other members are 'named' as well which has no bearing on anything said directly to you, in response to any of your views..and just for me personally is part of what makes these threads so difficult to post in...I mean SD threads in general and maybe..?...could be why other members also feel that they don't want to 'venture out' off chat and games that much to post their views and then when they do on something, it's that they somehow have strange priorities...so I think for the moment anyway, I'll leave the thread and go and do what I was meant to be doing anyway this morning....

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[arista]

I can't believe people have sympathy for this man, it wasn't a case of him just snapping one day, it was obviously premeditated. Would ANYONE have thought to remove the micro chip if they had just snapped? No, they wouldn't.

Instead of reporting the neighbours and letting the authorities decide whether they were mistreating the dog he went ahead and killed it callously. People have gone to prison for less and it's shocking and wrong that he avoided jail time.

But Dezzy - Every Case is not the same.
so its not that shocking

[Kizzy]

I definitely don't think it's acceptable, somewhere buried right at the start of the thread I did say that I feel bad for the dog, I genuinely DO like dogs (although I don't humanise them or their emotions) and I think the whole story is tragic. I actually had a border terrier when I was younger that looked just like that one, funnily enough. I like to think also that I could and would never harm a dog in any way, I really don't think I would, but I know enough about psychology to state that you CAN'T be sure. No one can. We like to think we can, but we just can't. It's like people reading or watching documentaries about dementia and turning to their partner who they love with all of their heart and saying, "I would never forget you!". They believe it with their entire soul but the truth is... if they get dementia, they're going to forget that person. If someone (anyone, the gentlest person you know) suffers an acute temporary psychotic break, they have the potential to turn violent. It's scary but it IS fact.

So I'm just not naive enough to think that I or anyone else is immune from mental breakdown. I, like anyone, like to believe that it's unthinkable that I could drown a dog. Maybe a cat, but never a dog. But people break. And when they do they need help, not punishment.

I just wish more people took the time to try to understand what has actually happened (in every situation) even though, as you say, getting an exact picture is impossible. No one 100% knows what happened apart from the man who did it, and even he might not.

I made a mess of that last post... It looks like I replied to you with a dot :laugh:
The guy stressed himself out to such an extent his anxiety gave him a heart attack... this wasn't some usually calm rational man, it was a man with manifested internal and external rage.
You would have thought that following his attack he would seek to reduce his anxiety levels by more positive means such as meditation or yoga than killing small animals.

[joeysteele]

I can't believe people have sympathy for this man, it wasn't a case of him just snapping one day, it was obviously premeditated. Would ANYONE have thought to remove the micro chip if they had just snapped? No, they wouldn't.

Instead of reporting the neighbours and letting the authorities decide whether they were mistreating the dog he went ahead and killed it callously. People have gone to prison for less and it's shocking and wrong that he avoided jail time.

Absolutely spot on.

[Suze]

I can't believe people have sympathy for this man, it wasn't a case of him just snapping one day, it was obviously premeditated. Would ANYONE have thought to remove the micro chip if they had just snapped? No, they wouldn't.

Instead of reporting the neighbours and letting the authorities decide whether they were mistreating the dog he went ahead and killed it callously. People have gone to prison for less and it's shocking and wrong that he avoided jail time.

Perfect post Dezzy, you are spot on.

[AnnieK]

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

To clarify....I did say digging around under the skin because that is what he would have had to do. Dispite what you said in a post that you can feel microchips....I have had many animals (including a border ) who have been microchipped and my cats are presently. I have never been ble to feel them...and I've checked with the cats so to find their chips you would have to dig around under the skin.

[Ammi]

...I'll do a link to the DM article which had things in it that I hadn't known and obviously it's the words of the family but there were a few things that stood out for me, there is also a pic showing the two properties in relation to each other because the properties aren't actually next door as such but backing on to each other with a big paddock between them....


‘The worst part is, we don’t even know if he’s sorry for drowning Meg, because he’s never once apologised to us. What he did was shameful and I think he deserved a custodial sentence. I was praying for it.

‘My only consolation is that he has now been suspended from flying pending an investigation, although I think it’s appalling that he was still allowed to fly in the five months between his guilty plea and sentencing. If someone can snap over a barking dog, what about a crying baby on a flight?’




While most public support has gone to the Boddingtons, Woodhouse is not without a certain degree of sympathy. Many others have described the ordeal of living next door to barking dogs and owners who remain deaf to the endless yapping.

B ut Alan retorts: ‘I’m not saying Meg didn’t bark, but it’s not as if she was some big guard dog snarling at everyone. She was the most sweet-natured little dog and it wasn’t excessive.

‘If it bothered him so much, he should have said something to us and we would have done something about it. A couple of years before Meg died, we were chatting over the fence and he said, “She doesn’t half bark, that dog of yours”, but it was never mentioned again.’

Alison adds: ‘Other neighbours who live much closer to us have never once complained about Meg’s barking. We never left our dogs in the garden all day and if we felt they were being too noisy, we’d bring them in.’

Alison shows me a number of signed witness statements neighbours provided to the RSPCA stating their opinion that Meg was not a nuisance and did not bark excessively.

And although Woodhouse claimed he had complained to the council about her barking, no evidence of this was produced in court.

Alison shows me an aerial photograph of the two properties in Long Buckby. Far from living cheek-by-jowl, there’s a 120ft paddock separating the Boddingtons’ land from Woodhouse’s home and garden.

She says she could understand if they lived in adjoining terrace houses, but they don’t. As for noise, she claims the racket from Woodhouse’s ride-on lawnmower was just as annoying to them.




Soon a local team of volunteers had descended to help the Boddington’s search, responding to a plea made by Alexandra on a lost dogs website, and unaware that Meg was already dead.

‘That evening I noticed Steve tending their chickens in the paddock and I called him over to ask if they’d checked for Meg, but he seemed very reluctant to speak which I thought was odd,’ says Alison.



The hunt for Meg continued.

‘We were searching every day from dawn until 11.30pm. Then Alexandra would drive out to search again in the middle of the night without telling us because she couldn’t sleep, worrying about Meg,’ says Alison.

Alan adds: ‘Two days after Meg’s disappearance, I was sitting outside our local pub with a client when I saw Steve walking with his wife towards us. He looked very uncomfortable, as if he didn’t want to talk to me.

‘Then, reluctantly it seemed to me, he came over and said, “Any luck with finding Meg?” He was acting so strangely, and sounded so nervous, I thought maybe Alison was right after all.’




Their suspicions were confirmed when, later that day, Alison went to their neighbours’ house to speak to them again and, realising they were out, opened the unlocked boot of Woodhouse’s car — the one her husband had sold him — on a hunch.

‘There was no mistaking Meg’s fur in the boot of Steve’s car and I felt sick when I saw the knife and rope,’ says Alison. ‘I was in a terrible state and didn’t know what to do, so I called Alan and we decided to call the police.’

When police questioned Woodhouse, he denied all involvement, but eventually admitted he’d taken the dog because of her barking, dumping her a couple of miles away.

Thinking Meg was still alive, volunteers scoured the area he mentioned, but could find no trace. Five days later, after Alison had tearfully begged for the truth, Woodhouse finally called police and admitted what he’d done.



Alison says Meg’s body was handed over to police by her neighbour, but was so badly decomposed, the cause of death could not be determined. The court heard Woodhouse recovered the corpse from a hedgerow after Alison mentioned Meg’s microchip and — fearing it worked like a tracker device, tried to dig it out with a knife.

‘We were devastated. To lose a cherished pet is a huge blow, but to find out Meg had suffered and died in that horrific manner was unbearable,’ says Alison. ‘If I hadn’t discovered Meg’s fur in the boot of his car, we might never have found out what had happened to her.



..it feels strange that she only popped out for 15 minutes and then found Meg gone but the other family dog still there and feels more planned in possibly seeing her leave ...also that no other neighbours have confirmed the incessant barking and that there are no reports of the barking/unreasonable noise levels recorded to the Council, which he had said he had done...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093451/Can-feel-sympathy-neighbour-killed-dog-dead-pet-s-owners-tell-side.html

[kirklancaster]

...I'll do a link to the DM article which had things in it that I hadn't known and obviously it's the words of the family but there were a few things that stood out for me, there is also a pic showing the two properties in relation to each other because the properties aren't actually next door as such but backing on to each other with a big paddock between them....


‘The worst part is, we don’t even know if he’s sorry for drowning Meg, because he’s never once apologised to us. What he did was shameful and I think he deserved a custodial sentence. I was praying for it.

‘My only consolation is that he has now been suspended from flying pending an investigation, although I think it’s appalling that he was still allowed to fly in the five months between his guilty plea and sentencing. If someone can snap over a barking dog, what about a crying baby on a flight?’




While most public support has gone to the Boddingtons, Woodhouse is not without a certain degree of sympathy. Many others have described the ordeal of living next door to barking dogs and owners who remain deaf to the endless yapping.

B ut Alan retorts: ‘I’m not saying Meg didn’t bark, but it’s not as if she was some big guard dog snarling at everyone. She was the most sweet-natured little dog and it wasn’t excessive.

‘If it bothered him so much, he should have said something to us and we would have done something about it. A couple of years before Meg died, we were chatting over the fence and he said, “She doesn’t half bark, that dog of yours”, but it was never mentioned again.’

Alison adds: ‘Other neighbours who live much closer to us have never once complained about Meg’s barking. We never left our dogs in the garden all day and if we felt they were being too noisy, we’d bring them in.’

Alison shows me a number of signed witness statements neighbours provided to the RSPCA stating their opinion that Meg was not a nuisance and did not bark excessively.

And although Woodhouse claimed he had complained to the council about her barking, no evidence of this was produced in court.

Alison shows me an aerial photograph of the two properties in Long Buckby. Far from living cheek-by-jowl, there’s a 120ft paddock separating the Boddingtons’ land from Woodhouse’s home and garden.

She says she could understand if they lived in adjoining terrace houses, but they don’t. As for noise, she claims the racket from Woodhouse’s ride-on lawnmower was just as annoying to them.




Soon a local team of volunteers had descended to help the Boddington’s search, responding to a plea made by Alexandra on a lost dogs website, and unaware that Meg was already dead.

‘That evening I noticed Steve tending their chickens in the paddock and I called him over to ask if they’d checked for Meg, but he seemed very reluctant to speak which I thought was odd,’ says Alison.



The hunt for Meg continued.

‘We were searching every day from dawn until 11.30pm. Then Alexandra would drive out to search again in the middle of the night without telling us because she couldn’t sleep, worrying about Meg,’ says Alison.

Alan adds: ‘Two days after Meg’s disappearance, I was sitting outside our local pub with a client when I saw Steve walking with his wife towards us. He looked very uncomfortable, as if he didn’t want to talk to me.

‘Then, reluctantly it seemed to me, he came over and said, “Any luck with finding Meg?” He was acting so strangely, and sounded so nervous, I thought maybe Alison was right after all.’




Their suspicions were confirmed when, later that day, Alison went to their neighbours’ house to speak to them again and, realising they were out, opened the unlocked boot of Woodhouse’s car — the one her husband had sold him — on a hunch.

‘There was no mistaking Meg’s fur in the boot of Steve’s car and I felt sick when I saw the knife and rope,’ says Alison. ‘I was in a terrible state and didn’t know what to do, so I called Alan and we decided to call the police.’

When police questioned Woodhouse, he denied all involvement, but eventually admitted he’d taken the dog because of her barking, dumping her a couple of miles away.

Thinking Meg was still alive, volunteers scoured the area he mentioned, but could find no trace. Five days later, after Alison had tearfully begged for the truth, Woodhouse finally called police and admitted what he’d done.



Alison says Meg’s body was handed over to police by her neighbour, but was so badly decomposed, the cause of death could not be determined. The court heard Woodhouse recovered the corpse from a hedgerow after Alison mentioned Meg’s microchip and — fearing it worked like a tracker device, tried to dig it out with a knife.

‘We were devastated. To lose a cherished pet is a huge blow, but to find out Meg had suffered and died in that horrific manner was unbearable,’ says Alison. ‘If I hadn’t discovered Meg’s fur in the boot of his car, we might never have found out what had happened to her.



..it feels strange that she only popped out for 15 minutes and then found Meg gone but the other family dog still there and feels more planned in possibly seeing her leave ...also that no other neighbours have confirmed the incessant barking and that there are no reports of the barking/unreasonable noise levels recorded to the Council, which he had said he had done...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093451/Can-feel-sympathy-neighbour-killed-dog-dead-pet-s-owners-tell-side.html

Well, well, well, well, well - Thank you Ammi.

[kirklancaster]

To clarify....I did say digging around under the skin because that is what he would have had to do. Dispite what you said in a post that you can feel microchips....I have had many animals (including a border ) who have been microchipped and my cats are presently. I have never been ble to feel them...and I've checked with the cats so to find their chips you would have to dig around under the skin.

Looks like you were right to say 'digging around under the skin' Annie in light of Ammi's excellent update. Seems like the bastard re-visited the dog's corpse to frantically dig out the chip -ONLY after learning about it AFTER he'd dumped the dead body.

A slight, precise surgical incision my arse.

[Kazanne]

...I'll do a link to the DM article which had things in it that I hadn't known and obviously it's the words of the family but there were a few things that stood out for me, there is also a pic showing the two properties in relation to each other because the properties aren't actually next door as such but backing on to each other with a big paddock between them....


‘The worst part is, we don’t even know if he’s sorry for drowning Meg, because he’s never once apologised to us. What he did was shameful and I think he deserved a custodial sentence. I was praying for it.

‘My only consolation is that he has now been suspended from flying pending an investigation, although I think it’s appalling that he was still allowed to fly in the five months between his guilty plea and sentencing. If someone can snap over a barking dog, what about a crying baby on a flight?’




While most public support has gone to the Boddingtons, Woodhouse is not without a certain degree of sympathy. Many others have described the ordeal of living next door to barking dogs and owners who remain deaf to the endless yapping.

B ut Alan retorts: ‘I’m not saying Meg didn’t bark, but it’s not as if she was some big guard dog snarling at everyone. She was the most sweet-natured little dog and it wasn’t excessive.

‘If it bothered him so much, he should have said something to us and we would have done something about it. A couple of years before Meg died, we were chatting over the fence and he said, “She doesn’t half bark, that dog of yours”, but it was never mentioned again.’

Alison adds: ‘Other neighbours who live much closer to us have never once complained about Meg’s barking. We never left our dogs in the garden all day and if we felt they were being too noisy, we’d bring them in.’

Alison shows me a number of signed witness statements neighbours provided to the RSPCA stating their opinion that Meg was not a nuisance and did not bark excessively.

And although Woodhouse claimed he had complained to the council about her barking, no evidence of this was produced in court.

Alison shows me an aerial photograph of the two properties in Long Buckby. Far from living cheek-by-jowl, there’s a 120ft paddock separating the Boddingtons’ land from Woodhouse’s home and garden.

She says she could understand if they lived in adjoining terrace houses, but they don’t. As for noise, she claims the racket from Woodhouse’s ride-on lawnmower was just as annoying to them.




Soon a local team of volunteers had descended to help the Boddington’s search, responding to a plea made by Alexandra on a lost dogs website, and unaware that Meg was already dead.

‘That evening I noticed Steve tending their chickens in the paddock and I called him over to ask if they’d checked for Meg, but he seemed very reluctant to speak which I thought was odd,’ says Alison.



The hunt for Meg continued.

‘We were searching every day from dawn until 11.30pm. Then Alexandra would drive out to search again in the middle of the night without telling us because she couldn’t sleep, worrying about Meg,’ says Alison.

Alan adds: ‘Two days after Meg’s disappearance, I was sitting outside our local pub with a client when I saw Steve walking with his wife towards us. He looked very uncomfortable, as if he didn’t want to talk to me.

‘Then, reluctantly it seemed to me, he came over and said, “Any luck with finding Meg?” He was acting so strangely, and sounded so nervous, I thought maybe Alison was right after all.’




Their suspicions were confirmed when, later that day, Alison went to their neighbours’ house to speak to them again and, realising they were out, opened the unlocked boot of Woodhouse’s car — the one her husband had sold him — on a hunch.

‘There was no mistaking Meg’s fur in the boot of Steve’s car and I felt sick when I saw the knife and rope,’ says Alison. ‘I was in a terrible state and didn’t know what to do, so I called Alan and we decided to call the police.’

When police questioned Woodhouse, he denied all involvement, but eventually admitted he’d taken the dog because of her barking, dumping her a couple of miles away.

Thinking Meg was still alive, volunteers scoured the area he mentioned, but could find no trace. Five days later, after Alison had tearfully begged for the truth, Woodhouse finally called police and admitted what he’d done.



Alison says Meg’s body was handed over to police by her neighbour, but was so badly decomposed, the cause of death could not be determined. The court heard Woodhouse recovered the corpse from a hedgerow after Alison mentioned Meg’s microchip and — fearing it worked like a tracker device, tried to dig it out with a knife.

‘We were devastated. To lose a cherished pet is a huge blow, but to find out Meg had suffered and died in that horrific manner was unbearable,’ says Alison. ‘If I hadn’t discovered Meg’s fur in the boot of his car, we might never have found out what had happened to her.



..it feels strange that she only popped out for 15 minutes and then found Meg gone but the other family dog still there and feels more planned in possibly seeing her leave ...also that no other neighbours have confirmed the incessant barking and that there are no reports of the barking/unreasonable noise levels recorded to the Council, which he had said he had done...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093451/Can-feel-sympathy-neighbour-killed-dog-dead-pet-s-owners-tell-side.html

Well THAT is not the actions of someone who 'snapped' is it? seems he really is a heartless twat,that dog must have struggled so much and this cold ,calculated bastard just holds it's head under,there are no words for this pond life except maybe just 'die'.

[joeysteele]

To clarify....I did say digging around under the skin because that is what he would have had to do. Dispite what you said in a post that you can feel microchips....I have had many animals (including a border ) who have been microchipped and my cats are presently. I have never been ble to feel them...and I've checked with the cats so to find their chips you would have to dig around under the skin.

You are right,my Dog is microchipped and I cannot feel it, I know where it was put but still cannot find it just by feeling.
It can only be located accurately with a scanner.

[joeysteele]

Well THAT is not the actions of someone who 'snapped' is it? seems he really is a heartless twat,that dog must have struggled so much and this cold ,calculated bastard just holds it's head under,there are no words for this pond life except maybe just 'die'.

No other words at all as you say Kazanne, none that are able to be printed on here that is.

[Samuel.]

I almost agree entirely with Toy Soldier

However I think even beyond it being a dog, whether a human being or whatever life is taken, the general attitude we have to instinctively call someone a monster, or call for his life to be taken in response, is incredibly unconstructive and ignorant. We have to focus on what went wrong mentally with the individual to go to such lengths, which nobody in this thread knows. Right and wrong are contructions that forever have been told and built in to us for the benefit of society, and when there is a lapse the reaction is nearly always emotive and hateful with the offender instantly "othered".

It's not being an apoligist, or a sympathiser, words that really mean nothing other than used to disregard an opposing opinion. It's about taking away the instinctive emotions we have for anger and resentment, and objectively approaching situations, like this, with the goal of learning and mending rather than destroying and punishing.

I don't know if I'm being at all clear. I just don't think the way people approach stories like this is helpful to anyone.

[Toy Soldier]

There's literally no new information in that posted article other than an even more emotively biased account from the dog's owners, and the information that he went back to try to remove the chip later rather than doing at at the time which - I'm sorry - really only backs up the fact that it was an impulsive act in the first place. He grabbed it, killed it and dumped it and then realised that he had done something shameful and was panicking about being found out.

Again it isn't about making excuses or saying that it wasn't a terrible thing to happen or for him to do, or even saying that there should be no consequence for him. I agree that he shouldn't be flying, for example, at least for the forseeable future, and he should certainly be in mandatory psychiatric assessment and treatment.

It is however about trying to stay calm and take the time to reasonably and rationally assess human psychology instead of flying into a whirlwind of poor-puppy hysterics and comparing it to murdering another human being. Being quite blunt, it's important to understand that not everyone personifies and humanises pets or prescribe emotions and connections to them that are in fact pure human fantasy. The statement that "if he could do this to a dog, he could do it to a person" is only true if HE HIMSELF considers dogs and humans to be comparible. Not everyone does.

[Kizzy]

If he was acting so very irrationally and he momentarily snapped how does anyone know that he wouldn't snap at a person in the same manner?
Nobody could hand on heart say that isn't a possibility regardless of anyones relationship with dogs.

[Redway]

"He said: 'She was only a small dog, it’s not like she was a big loud thing that was causing a lot of noise."

Small or Large Dog
doing nonstop barking is Illegal
FACT
Whereas murdering animals in cold blood and perverting the course of justice is entirely legal? And since when do dogs have the capacity to understand the law? Mate...

[Toy Soldier]

If he was acting so very irrationally and he momentarily snapped how does anyone know that he wouldn't snap at a person in the same manner?
Nobody could hand on heart say that isn't a possibility regardless of anyones relationship with dogs.

No one knows that he wouldn't snap at a person, but no one knows that ANY person wouldn't snap and harm another. There are perhaps degrees of likelihood but the fact is, the gentlest of people can end up harming someone without warning.

Like I said before it really comes down to how he perceives dogs as to whether or not it's likely, doesn't it? If he humanises dogs and considers them comparible to humans and yet still did this, then it may be likely that he would also harm a human. If he doesn't think harming a dog is morally comparable to harming a human then it's relatively unlikely.

Then again, deliberately harming animals can be an early indicator of severe mental health issues, but A) that manifests as people actively seeking out animals to harm them rather than doing it for any reason (no matter how dubious that reason might be, i.e. barking) and B) it tends to manifest in childhood or adolescence.

[Kizzy]

No one knows that he wouldn't snap at a person, but no one knows that ANY person wouldn't snap and harm another. There are perhaps degrees of likelihood but the fact is, the gentlest of people can end up harming someone without warning.

Like I said before it really comes down to how he perceives dogs as to whether or not it's likely, doesn't it? If he humanises dogs and considers them comparible to humans and yet still did this, then it may be likely that he would also harm a human. If he doesn't think harming a dog is morally comparable to harming a human then it's relatively unlikely.

Then again, deliberately harming animals can be an early indicator of severe mental health issues, but A) that manifests as people actively seeking out animals to harm them rather than doing it for any reason (no matter how dubious that reason might be, i.e. barking) and B) it tends to manifest in childhood or adolescence.

It has nothing to do with his relationship with dogs it was just something that was annoying him... it could've been anything or anyone couldn't it? He was non compos mentis remember.

[Kazanne]

It has nothing to do with his relationship with dogs it was just something that was annoying him... it could've been anything or anyone couldn't it? He was non compos mentis remember.

:clap1::clap1: Well said kizzy

[Ammi]

I almost agree entirely with Toy Soldier

However I think even beyond it being a dog, whether a human being or whatever life is taken, the general attitude we have to instinctively call someone a monster, or call for his life to be taken in response, is incredibly unconstructive and ignorant. We have to focus on what went wrong mentally with the individual to go to such lengths, which nobody in this thread knows. Right and wrong are contructions that forever have been told and built in to us for the benefit of society, and when there is a lapse the reaction is nearly always emotive and hateful with the offender instantly "othered".

It's not being an apoligist, or a sympathiser, words that really mean nothing other than used to disregard an opposing opinion. It's about taking away the instinctive emotions we have for anger and resentment, and objectively approaching situations, like this, with the goal of learning and mending rather than destroying and punishing.

I don't know if I'm being at all clear. I just don't think the way people approach stories like this is helpful to anyone.





..you put it beautifully and are being perfectly clear Samuel...and I do agree with you in that I don’t believe humans are ‘monsters’, what some do/their actions may be extremely horrific and be hard to fathom and maybe described as 'monstrous'..?../impossible to get into the mind-set of with someone who has a ‘rational’ and healthy mind..it’s like these moral dilemma type things, what we think we would do, we’re thinking with a clear and unstressed mind and not one of chaos and panic but in reality, actually faced with something, some extraordinary situation etc we don’t really know what we would do and could do the exact opposite to what we think...obviously those are extreme situations/dilemmas but even in less extreme things you would have to know ‘a life’...the life of the person who did awful things and what would make them do them...and I think that even if someone hurt one of my family..(which has happened..)...my instinct would never be to want them to be hurt back because that wouldn’t change anything that had happened but just cause another mother/parent to experience the pain that I was feeling...and why would I want to do that, why would I want someone to go through the same pain that I was feeling, it's not something that I would wish on anyone because what could be gained from it/how would that 'heal my family'...?..and it wouldn't change anything that had happened.. but I do think though that yes, you're right and an instinct reaction and quite 'human' as well...especially with awful stuff that happens, people do have instinct feelings which may and do often change when more thought is given...

..I do think though also that there is not always a psychology to these things, that some people just do things out of meanness of spirit because they’re just generally not people of good character..maybe they just see someone in the street, decide they’re going to hit them or something and they just do it, no real reason...and that like in this story if something annoys/enrages them then they can become obsessed with it and be calculating in their actions...not really snapping, but just focusing huge anger and frustrations at something or someone..and that's why 'what went wrong' etc as you say would be something that quite often would come later..I mean I think that it would be too much and too unrealistic to expect an instant...hang on, let's think about this a bit first for every awful and shocking story...I tend to overthink things in general but I guess with awful stuff and people who harm others in any way it's to try to understand them because hurting someone or taking a life is a little beyond my understanding in some cases...I mean I understand an act of passion, why someone would do that or self defence or defence of others that maybe wasn't meant to end in someone losing their life but just did etc...but to deliberately harm someone I always have to try and gain and understanding....hmmm, I'm not putting this very well, I think that you're much better than I am at that....but I guess to always think..monster, monster, monster etc in every situation could be described as an extreme..?...(although I don't think it's literally meant but just a reaction thing to something unfathomable to that person..)...but to always try to gain an understanding and look at the psychology in every situation I also think is an extreme and no extremes are a good thing..whether positive or negative etc...it's a balance..and also I don't think that it always applies because nothing also always applies/always in itself would be an extreme..and there really are just people who 'mindlessly' do things, type thing..I mean maybe there is a 'reason'/their thought processes but that doesn't necessarily mean any 'damage' I don't think..because like there are really good people, there are also really crumby ones, just quite mean spirited people it's just that we don't have a tendency to analyse 'acts of kindness' etc, we just accept them for what they are...anyway it would be too exhausting to think deeply about everything in life and none of do that... I think with this story it's one where I don't really want to overthink or analyse to much other than I'm glad that he isn't flying anymore and I feel very sad for the family who have had to go through the loss of a child, a pain which is a parent's worst fear and a grief that may or may not have resulted in not having so much time for Meg because of things like depression etc and yeah, grief obviously ..I think that if any 'positive' was applied to this then that would be it...I'm sure that he was stressed, feeling low and not 'himself' etc...and somehow his focus became the dog who was the cause of it so he would 'rid' the cause because all that had happened to him had spiralled his life down...but was that ridding of it an 'instinct' reaction or more planned, which to me would indicate less of a 'troubled mind' and more a bitter 'blame seeking' one...a lack of acceptance of things in his own life that were no one's fault, they just were and they just happened, which is often the case..well I guess that we can only go on what we have been told of the story and from the perspective of the family and that he has not countered 'their story'....so to me the 'scenario' that I feel is more 'truth' atm is that it's more of a bitter mind and he's just really not a great person at all...

..what's interesting as well with psychology I think, is that whatever thought processes, there will still be a lack of empathy or a lack of 'seeing/understanding' somewhere so whether it's the 'assumption/instinct reaction' of a bad person because of what he did or the assumption/reaction etc of a neglectful dog owner because of apparent barking etc...there will never be a complete understanding of any situation, otherwise we would always drive ourselves crazy and spend our lives in mind conflict turmoil....


..anyway I think that I have completely gone off topic for the most part but you put your post beautifully Samuel....

[Kizzy]

'Alison shows me a number of signed witness statements neighbours provided to the RSPCA stating their opinion that Meg was not a nuisance and did not bark excessively.

And although Woodhouse claimed he had complained to the council about her barking, no evidence of this was produced in court.

Alison shows me an aerial photograph of the two properties in Long Buckby. Far from living cheek-by-jowl, there’s a 120ft paddock separating the Boddingtons’ land from Woodhouse’s home and garden.'

I have to say as much as it will be unpopular I think it was his position that save him from a prison sentence.

[Kazanne]

'Alison shows me a number of signed witness statements neighbours provided to the RSPCA stating their opinion that Meg was not a nuisance and did not bark excessively.

And although Woodhouse claimed he had complained to the council about her barking, no evidence of this was produced in court.

Alison shows me an aerial photograph of the two properties in Long Buckby. Far from living cheek-by-jowl, there’s a 120ft paddock separating the Boddingtons’ land from Woodhouse’s home and garden.'

I have to say as much as it will be unpopular I think it was his position that save him from a prison sentence.

I agree Kizzy,but he really should not, imo,be flying passengers,I do think the judges are far too easy on anyone who is cruel to animals though.

[arista]

Whereas murdering animals in cold blood and perverting the course of justice is entirely legal? And since when do dogs have the capacity to understand the law? Mate...


No that was wrong
and Extreme.


But He got off
That Is Our Law

The owners failed the dog
letting him non stop bark

[Kizzy]

Like psychology the law doesn't appear to be an exact science either. The owners did not fail their pet, someone removed it from their property and killed it.

[Samuel.]

..you put it beautifully and are being perfectly clear Samuel...and I do agree with you in that I don’t believe humans are ‘monsters’, what some do/their actions may be extremely horrific and be hard to fathom and maybe described as 'monstrous'..?../impossible to get into the mind-set of with someone who has a ‘rational’ and healthy mind..it’s like these moral dilemma type things, what we think we would do, we’re thinking with a clear and unstressed mind and not one of chaos and panic but in reality, actually faced with something, some extraordinary situation etc we don’t really know what we would do and could do the exact opposite to what we think...obviously those are extreme situations/dilemmas but even in less extreme things you would have to know ‘a life’...the life of the person who did awful things and what would make them do them...and I think that even if someone hurt one of my family..(which has happened..)...my instinct would never be to want them to be hurt back because that wouldn’t change anything that had happened but just cause another mother/parent to experience the pain that I was feeling...and why would I want to do that, why would I want someone to go through the same pain that I was feeling, it's not something that I would wish on anyone because what could be gained from it/how would that 'heal my family'...?..and it wouldn't change anything that had happened.. but I do think though that yes, you're right and an instinct reaction and quite 'human' as well...especially with awful stuff that happens, people do have instinct feelings which may and do often change when more thought is given...

..I do think though also that there is not always a psychology to these things, that some people just do things out of meanness of spirit because they’re just generally not people of good character..maybe they just see someone in the street, decide they’re going to hit them or something and they just do it, no real reason...and that like in this story if something annoys/enrages them then they can become obsessed with it and be calculating in their actions...not really snapping, but just focusing huge anger and frustrations at something or someone..and that's why 'what went wrong' etc as you say would be something that quite often would come later..I mean I think that it would be too much and too unrealistic to expect an instant...hang on, let's think about this a bit first for every awful and shocking story...I tend to overthink things in general but I guess with awful stuff and people who harm others in any way it's to try to understand them because hurting someone or taking a life is a little beyond my understanding in some cases...I mean I understand an act of passion, why someone would do that or self defence or defence of others that maybe wasn't meant to end in someone losing their life but just did etc...but to deliberately harm someone I always have to try and gain and understanding....hmmm, I'm not putting this very well, I think that you're much better than I am at that....but I guess to always think..monster, monster, monster etc in every situation could be described as an extreme..?...(although I don't think it's literally meant but just a reaction thing to something unfathomable to that person..)...but to always try to gain an understanding and look at the psychology in every situation I also think is an extreme and no extremes are a good thing..whether positive or negative etc...it's a balance..and also I don't think that it always applies because nothing also always applies/always in itself would be an extreme..and there really are just people who 'mindlessly' do things, type thing..I mean maybe there is a 'reason'/their thought processes but that doesn't necessarily mean any 'damage' I don't think..because like there are really good people, there are also really crumby ones, just quite mean spirited people it's just that we don't have a tendency to analyse 'acts of kindness' etc, we just accept them for what they are...anyway it would be too exhausting to think deeply about everything in life and none of do that... I think with this story it's one where I don't really want to overthink or analyse to much other than I'm glad that he isn't flying anymore and I feel very sad for the family who have had to go through the loss of a child, a pain which is a parent's worst fear and a grief that may or may not have resulted in not having so much time for Meg because of things like depression etc and yeah, grief obviously ..I think that if any 'positive' was applied to this then that would be it...I'm sure that he was stressed, feeling low and not 'himself' etc...and somehow his focus became the dog who was the cause of it so he would 'rid' the cause because all that had happened to him had spiralled his life down...but was that ridding of it an 'instinct' reaction or more planned, which to me would indicate less of a 'troubled mind' and more a bitter 'blame seeking' one...a lack of acceptance of things in his own life that were no one's fault, they just were and they just happened, which is often the case..well I guess that we can only go on what we have been told of the story and from the perspective of the family and that he has not countered 'their story'....so to me the 'scenario' that I feel is more 'truth' atm is that it's more of a bitter mind and he's just really not a great person at all...

..what's interesting as well with psychology I think, is that whatever thought processes, there will still be a lack of empathy or a lack of 'seeing/understanding' somewhere so whether it's the 'assumption/instinct reaction' of a bad person because of what he did or the assumption/reaction etc of a neglectful dog owner because of apparent barking etc...there will never be a complete understanding of any situation, otherwise we would always drive ourselves crazy and spend our lives in mind conflict turmoil....


..anyway I think that I have completely gone off topic for the most part but you put your post beautifully Samuel....

Great post, Ammi. As you say, we'll never completely understand the full story of anything like this, I think because there are so many variables in play, especially in the minds of those in question. Attempting to understand how someone is able to do something so harmful that you could never imagine doing yourself, it becomes a hard consideration to make, and I think it's only natural to then have purely negative responses to it yourself. I also think it's hard for people to accept that anybody is capable of doing things like this, they don't want a reality like that - it goes in the face of any faith they have in society, so it becomes easy to dismiss the action as something only a "monster" could do.