View Full Version : NYC is now safe for hamsters.
I am pretty sure that NYC still has serious crime issues which deserve attention, but...
NYC teen arrested in death of sibling's hamster
NEW YORK – A New York City teenager has been arrested on a felony charge in the death of a younger sibling's hamster.
Joseph Pentangelo (pehn-TAN'-jeh-loh) of the ASPCA says the creature, which belonged to a 9-year-old, died during a domestic dispute in June.
...
If convicted, [the teenager] could face up to two years in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_re_us/us_hamster_death_arrest_1
Well I'm the guy who will shoot you if you shoot my dog but will also trap and kill mice because they are a nuisance. So I think we need to draw the line somewhere between "these are all just creatures God said it was ok to kill" and "spraying raid on ants is murder."
But I'm not sure felony charges for a dead hamster is where I'd draw that line.
hmm.. what's the bigger crime- choking a hamster, or prosecuting somebody for choking a hamster?
i brutally murdered a mouse once, when i was about 9. it's a long story, but suffice it to say, i did not enjoy my gruesome task, and i'm not a psychopath today.. but i guess i should have been locked up.
variablebinary
03-09-11, 18:45
I shoot jack rabbits. It's fun. What I don't do is smash in the head of someone's pet rabbit out of anger. That is a sign that something isn't right up top.
Gutshot John
03-09-11, 19:50
I've murdered raccoons, prairie dogs and groundhogs in cold blood and I would do it again. :D
Maybe I'm the only one who sees killing anything somebody cares about out of anger is pretty scary. Even if it is a mouse.
Kid sounds like a future abusive husband at best, with the self control he demonstrates.
ETA: Did anyone read the actual article, pretty ****ing sick individual.
Maybe I'm the only one who sees killing anything somebody cares about out of anger is pretty scary. Even if it is a mouse.
Kid sounds like a future abusive husband at best, with the self control he demonstrates.
ETA: Did anyone read the actual article, pretty ****ing sick individual.
i read it.. and SHE sounds like a bitch- but prosecution?
I shoot jack rabbits. It's fun. What I don't do is smash in the head of someone's pet rabbit out of anger. That is a sign that something isn't right up top.
And then there's that.
Honestly, I didn't read the actual article.
But a felony? Really??? I understand that we have to deal with problems that result form having a society, but stripping someone of their constitutional rights because they made a mistake as a child is a very big deal. Such actions need to be held under a microscope and taken very seriously. The state of NY is way to willing to hand out felonies.
The state of NY is way to willing to hand out felonies.
if everyone's a felon, they don't have to worry about bruising peoples' piddly little rights.
because somewhere along the line, somehow, it was determined that if you've had one of these "felonies," you no longer have rights.
woodandsteel
03-10-11, 08:52
hmm.. what's the bigger crime- choking a hamster, or prosecuting somebody for choking a hamster?
i brutally murdered a mouse once, when i was about 9. it's a long story, but suffice it to say, i did not enjoy my gruesome task, and i'm not a psychopath today.. but i guess i should have been locked up.
The difference is that you were 9 not 19. And did you do it to prove a point to someone who was younger and in your care?
Maybe I'm the only one who sees killing anything somebody cares about out of anger is pretty scary. Even if it is a mouse.
Kid sounds like a future abusive husband at best, with the self control he demonstrates.
ETA: Did anyone read the actual article, pretty ****ing sick individual.
I read the article. And I agree with you. Except, it was a she, not a he. But definitely a screwed up individual.
This was done to hurt or terrorize another person. In this case a nine year old. To some it may have just been a rodent, but to the nine year old it was a pet. No different than killing someone's cat or dog to prove your point, in my opinion.
ETA: Did anyone read the actual article, pretty ****ing sick individual.
Did YOU? Obviously not, because the person was a girl, not a man. So much for your "abusive husband" rant.
The teen girl who killed the hamster sounds like the typical ghetto beyotch to me. Is she whacked? Probably. Are most ghetto residents prone to violence and whacked in some regard? In my experience, yes. Will 1/2 of them end up in prison with felony records? Statistics say yes.
Now the question is what to do about it.
Perhaps the prosecutor recognized that this person is going to be a violent felon down the line, so might as well get her into the system now where she hopefully will do less damage. Or maybe the prosecutor is over reaching with this prosecution. In most cases, I think a misdemeanor cruelty to animals charge / citation would be enough. It is a mouse, after all.
Maybe I'm the only one who sees killing anything somebody cares about out of anger is pretty scary. Even if it is a mouse.
Kid sounds like a future abusive husband at best, with the self control he demonstrates.
ETA: Did anyone read the actual article, pretty ****ing sick individual.
Right, but a felony, seriously? Not the answer
Here's law:
These New York statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. "Animal" includes every living creature except a human being. A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both. Exclusions include properly conducted scientific tests, experiments or investigations, involving the use of living animals approved by the state commissioner of health. A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty. "Aggravated cruelty" shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner. Aggravated cruelty to animals is a felony which may not exceed two years. Other prohibitions include animal fighting, leaving a dog outside without appropriate shelter, selling dyed baby chicks, abandoning animals, the giving away of live animals as prizes, cruel conveyance of animals, poisoning, dog ear cropping when not performed by a veterinarian, horse tail docking, and the sale of dog or cat pelts. The section also provides seizure and procedural laws related to cruelty violations and proper euthanasia methods.
My problem with it is that it goes from a simple misdemeanor to a felony is the crime is "depraved" or "sadistic," which are subjective to whoever interprets the law.
if everyone's a felon, they don't have to worry about bruising peoples' piddly little rights.
because somewhere along the line, somehow, it was determined that if you've had one of these "felonies," you no longer have rights.
That is exactly what I see going on in this country.
Did YOU? Obviously not, because the person was a girl, not a man. So much for your "abusive husband" rant.
**** me, Skyyr. Abusive wife, piece of shit human being who has some major coping issues, is that better?
I'm usually up late & It's called GD so I don't have to be mother f'n laser on the spot every time. I'll try to be more professional for you and make sure I don't mix shit up.
And I still don't see a problem with the charges brought, chances are she'll get a gross misdemeanor out of it all not the felony they're charging her with.
This is an adult taking a small child's pet and crushing in front of them, that's one twisted piece of shit.
QuickStrike
03-10-11, 15:56
Humm....
From the title of this thread, I thought Richard Gere was banned from entering NY. :D
And I still don't see a problem with the charges brought, chances are she'll get a gross misdemeanor out of it all not the felony they're charging her with.
So you're willing to potentially let her life be permanently ruined, all because she killed a rodent? Since when was a human life worth that of an animal? Is it because she caused the animal suffering? Oh boo hoo. The only thing that hamster felt was pressure until it died. It didn't have a knowledge of what was going to happen, it was quite literally a stupid creature. Yet, there you sit, judging someone else while you ignore the fact that you, along with everyone else here, has at one time put somebody through emotional distress that far surpasses whatever that stupid mouse felt.
Was what that girl did cruel? Yeah, but so is making fun of fat people or mocking the elderly because you can't relate to them. Funny, because there's no law against the latter while that the four-ounce rodent has the backing of the NYPD.
What a perverse, backwards attitude. Support for cases like this are the reason that people join the WBC and proclaim impending doom on America. You want to charge someone with a felony for killing a freaking HAMSTER. And you call yourself an American, one who values human life above all else? Hah.
I don't agree with the punishment but will everyone please stop with the "child" "little girl" bullshit?
This was a 19 year old WOMAN.
the fact that you, along with everyone else here, has at one time put somebody through emotional distress that far surpasses whatever that stupid mouse felt.
We're not talking about a ****ing hamster, we're talking about an adult who lacks any sort of self control, it's evident in the fact that she killed a child's pet simply to cause distress for the said child. Would you trust this person? I sure as hell wouldn't. If it was an 11 year old kid I might be less judging but it's a 19 year old adult, no ****ing sympathy from me, by that age if you act with such malice you're scum.
I don't agree with the punishment but will everyone please stop with the "child" "little girl" bullshit?
This was a 19 year old WOMAN.
woman, by arbitrary legal definition. she's still got another decade before she possesses a mature pre-frontal cortex, and is capable of making rational decisions.
if ever... she is, afterall, female.
personally, i think the age of emancipation should be closer to 25. the only reason it's currently 18 is because of the need for a standing army. enlistment rates would absolutely plummet if boys couldn't sign up until their mid-twenties.
bkb,
I agree with you for the most part, but I try to stay consistent.
If this was an 18 year old gang banger being called a child, I hope all of us here would be pissed. I see this as no different.
Note: I am not comparing killing a hamster to being a gang banger.
bkb,
I agree with you for the most part, but I try to stay consistent.
If this was an 18 year old gang banger being called a child, I hope all of us here would be pissed. I see this as no different.
Note: I am not comparing killing a hamster to being a gang banger.
i feel you. PERSONALLY, i don't consider 18 year old gang-bangers adults either. but that's just me.
We're not talking about a ****ing hamster, we're talking about an adult who lacks any sort of self control, it's evident in the fact that she killed a child's pet simply to cause distress for the said child. Would you trust this person? I sure as hell wouldn't. If it was an 11 year old kid I might be less judging but it's a 19 year old adult, no ****ing sympathy from me, by that age if you act with such malice you're scum.
The law that they are charging her under, written and supported by pro-animal-rights progressives, was designed to protect the rights of animals, NOT to "catch" people who might have mental disorders. In spite of that, here you are trying to put her into a "deranged killer" category when that isn't even legally in question.
This is why liberalism and the "rights laws" that stem from it are outright failure - it's PEOPLE control under the guise of somebody's or something's rights. You want her rights taken away because she "lacks self control," not because she killed a hamster. Your reasons for her being charged are entirely YOUR opinion. Take away your opinion and all you're left with is a ridiculous law.
She did not harm another human and, as far as we know, she doesn't have a record, yet you want to put her in the same category conviction category as a murderer or rapist... all for the sake of a stupid, mindless animal that you can buy in bulk for snake food at any local pet store. Wake up, man. You're being trying to brand someone as a felon because of your opinion, not because of the morality (or lack of) of the law. It's a human life vs a insignificant rodent.
It's a human life vs a insignificant rodent.
I agree that the charge is ridiculous, so don't take this as baiting for an argument. But, what laws (if any) do you think should be on the books for things like this?
If someone kills my dog, property laws can most likely take care of it, if I choose to pursue it. But what if some guy wants to breed chimps do he can strangle one a day, or if I choose to heat my home by shoveling live kittens/puppies into a potbelly stove? Should they just be able to, since it's not a person?
I know that's taking it to the extreme, but if you are going to have animal cruelty laws it's hard to draw a line. It could just come with a maximum/minimum and let the Judge decide, but that's scary in itself.
I agree that the charge is ridiculous, so don't take this as baiting for an argument. But, what laws (if any) do you think should be on the books for things like this?
Simple: tort law. What wrong done? Yes. Was it criminal? No, not in any way whatsoever, unless the hamster's value were to cause unusual hardship.
Simple: tort law. What wrong done? Yes. Was it criminal? No, not in any way whatsoever, unless the hamster's value were to cause unusual hardship.
In this case, but would it cover my two examples? I'm not a lawyer or even close, but doesn't a tort only cover harming another person in some sense? Should I be allowed to mutilate/torture dogs all day for YouTube videos, so long as they are my dogs?
ETA: I know the meat that I buy at the grocery store probably went through a great deal of unpleasantness, so I guess this is a little bit of whiney hippie shit. I'm still a little torn though.
if everyone's a felon, they don't have to worry about bruising peoples' piddly little rights.
Bingo.
Also makes it hard to get a job and they make it easy to get your voting rights back so once you are broke you can vote Democrat for the handouts.
Should I be allowed to mutilate/torture dogs all day for YouTube videos, so long as they are my dogs?
Of course you should be allowed to, with out any type of repercussion what so ever. You should also be allowed to take a pillowcase of puppies some one owns and bash them against a wall because you dislike the owner of the puppies, and simple reimbursement of fair value is all you should owe the owner.
I'm being a jackass by the way, because I know Skyyr want's to scream liberal dip shit laws, but if some one took his dog and cut its throat in front of his children even if they showed zero malice towards his children he wouldn't be preaching the same shit. Just because he sees a hamster as having less value. Some people see their pet rats as valuable as other see their childhood dog. It's an emotional attachment, not a monetary one.
Black & white law doesn't exist, it has grey areas for a reason, is it always perfect no. And I'm certainly not going to defend the piece of shit we're discussing.
there's a big difference between killing your own property and killing somebody else's. i should absolutely be free to kill my own dogs, but prohibited from killing someone else's unless i have just cause. your property is yours, and in a "free country," you can do whatever you want with your own property.
in this case, since children have no right of ownership, the 19 year old, technically emancipated, owes the parents compensation for the loss of their property. if the 19 year old doesn't want to pay up, then they can bring suit.
if i'm responsible for the damage or destruction of your property, i owe you for replacement value- but it's NOT my fault YOU have some emotional attachment to it. it's unfortunate, but it doesn't give it any more market value, and it doesn't somehow make me criminally liable in a civil matter.
Of course you should be allowed to, with out any type of repercussion what so ever. You should also be allowed to take a pillowcase of puppies some one owns and bash them against a wall because you dislike the owner of the puppies, and simple reimbursement of fair value is all you should owe the owner.
I'm being a jackass by the way, because I know Skyyr want's to scream liberal dip shit laws, but if some one took his dog and cut its throat in front of his children even if they showed zero malice towards his children he wouldn't be preaching the same shit. Just because he sees a hamster as having less value. Some people see their pet rats as valuable as other see their childhood dog. It's an emotional attachment, not a monetary one.
Black & white law doesn't exist, it has grey areas for a reason, is it always perfect no. And I'm certainly not going to defend the piece of shit we're discussing.
I get what he's saying though, and it's made me think. In the case you're stating above the dog is someone's property, and the law provides for that. What if the animal is not anyone's property? Where do we draw the line?
I've made bad shots before while hunting and regretfully have caused animals a lot of agony and stress. Those sticky traps for mice sure don't look pleasant, and is honestly why I use a good old fashion neck snapper if I need to trap a mouse.
I agree that the woman in this story has some issue to be doing this at her age, but what should really have been the punishment?
there's a big difference between killing your own property and killing somebody else's. i should absolutely be free to kill my own dogs, but prohibited from killing someone else's unless i have just cause. your property is yours, and in a "free country," you can do whatever you want with your own property.
.
I really do agree with you, but I'll be honest and say that emotion is getting in the way. I see a big difference in raising and slaughtering my own chickens, and just leaving a dog tied up out back to starve to death. I'm also sure some people wouldn't appreciate me spraying a roach with poison and leaving it to choke to death for hours.
It's a hard subject not to impose my own beliefs/feelings on, but I do understand that we lose a lot of our liberty/freedom when laws are based on those things.
I get what he's saying though, and it's made me think. In the case you're stating above the dog is someone's property, and the law provides for that. What if the animal is not anyone's property? Where do we draw the line?
I've made bad shots before while hunting and regretfully have caused animals a lot of agony and stress. Those sticky traps for mice sure don't look pleasant, and is honestly why I use a good old fashion neck snapper if I need to trap a mouse.
I agree that the woman in this story has some issue to be doing this at her age, but what should really have been the punishment?
Here's the thing, I am not arguing for the hamster. I'm of the opinion that the woman caused the child a great deal of mental distress. Not sure about anyone else but at that age I would have been pretty worked up if some one killed my pet like that. It's really no different than torturing a child with out physical harm. It's simply wrong, and any one who thinks the bitch should get a slap on the wrist has some searching to do inside of themselves.
...I'm of the opinion...
And that's the entire problem. You want someone labeled as a felon because you think the pet owner might be mentally (read: unquantifiable) distressed. You want your opinion of someone made as law so that you can control actions that you don't like.
NO one can measure the harm or lack of that was caused, no one even knows if the child is lying, yet you want them branded as a felon over a brainless cheese muncher.
This isn't about taking a shot at liberals, its about pointing out the hypocritical laws that are based on subjective emotion and the hypocrisy of putting an animal higher than a human life. It's perverse.
Want to actually save the animals? Then make a law that's clear cut, not some stupid "if it's deemed as sadistic" - who writes that crap anyway? Who actually defines "sadistic"? Do you seriously want to give carte blanche control of your life to the opinion of someone else? Who gets to define "sadistic," or "cruel," or any of those subjective, non-specific terms? Sticky paper could be construed as sadistic, so could snapping a mouse's neck with a mouse trap - it's all OPINION, which is why this very discussion is so very stupid. You want her charged as a felon because of YOUR OPINION.
And further, if you're going to act like you actually care about the law, then quit trying to bring up "mental distress" and the like - that's tort law, not criminal law and the law in question does not address it whatsoever, nor does it encompass it.
ION.
And further, if you're going to act like you actually care about the law, then quit trying to bring up "mental distress" and the like - that's tort law, not criminal law and the law in question does not address it whatsoever, nor does it encompass it.
Exceptions exist, would you call a grown man flashing children a matter for civil not criminal court? What has he done other than cause distress if even that, what if the children are to young to even recall what has happened? Has he than not committed a crime? Let's remove emotion out og charging people with crimes. Of course he's showing signs of being a risk to children, but if no true victims exist what should you charge him with, it's a victimless crime?
I'm well aware of what a tort claim of iied is.
No more arguing please.
Gerbil lover (http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f3/19715d1216816481-felching-gone-wrong-armageddon.mp3).
I think it's funny that people are comparing a rodent to a dog. Talk about apples and oranges comparison. Just because the rodent is owned as a pet does not make killing a rodent morally equivalent to killing a pet dog. Dogs are social meat eaters like us and we have millenia of history of them being part of our families, and our very actions of breeding them selectively has brought out traits in them that make them more like us in a social sense than even monkeys and chimpanzees (check out Dogs Decoded on Netflix if you have it, awesome documentary). As such they deserve more far consideration than a rodent.
Killing a pet rodent should probably not be a felony.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.