[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

Originally Posted by Tøm

You're a psycho. A deluded psycho.

Am I, doctor? Oh dear.

I take this to mean that you ARE a vegetarian?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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...