[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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?