|
Post by s l i k on Oct 20, 2011 6:44:53 GMT -5
So some sadistic, low-level being decided it was ok to walk up to animals -- that weren't posing a threat -- many of whom were laying on the ground because they were out of the comfort zone they were accustomed to and terrified -- and shoot them point blank in the head and kill them. That would be called premeditated murder as far as human lives are concerned. Yea because it is ok to have wild animals run around and more than likely harm/kill someone. The majority of these animals never left the farm they lived at. Nor did they threaten humans. Most of these creatures were put down by a pistol (not even a long-range weapon like a rifle). The nutjob who ran the place likely had food for the animals on the premises. The solution was easy. Call in the National Guard and several of the state's top zoologists. Offer the animals who've been raised in captivity and aren't skilled predators food. While they eat, tranquilize them and return them to their cages. It's ludicrous we criticize poachers and big game hunters and then take the first opportunity to kill endangered species ourselves. That's like saying everytime we go in the ocean we should hunt down and merc every shark we see...because it "could" eat us.
|
|
mrrotten
Don Corleone
The #1 Kaneinite
Posts: 2,066
|
Post by mrrotten on Oct 20, 2011 6:49:04 GMT -5
It's a pity they had to be put down. I agree with using tranquilizers. Though I hope nobody gets hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 20, 2011 7:10:53 GMT -5
So some sadistic, low-level being decided it was ok to walk up to animals -- that weren't posing a threat -- many of whom were laying on the ground because they were out of the comfort zone they were accustomed to and terrified -- and shoot them point blank in the head and kill them. That would be called premeditated murder as far as human lives are concerned.. I had an earlier question over quether or not tranquilizer equipment would even be available, but according to the story they had at least some. It doesn't say they had enough for 50 large animals, but it says they had some. It also says that the tiger they had tried shooting with it charged the person who did so and then ran off. So obviously it's not quite like the movies where the animal just falls down. According to the story some of the animals were already showing aggressive tendencies. In fact, according to the story, when they tried to use it against one of the tigers, the animal charged the person who shot it, and then tried to run away. The bear as well charged the sheriff when he approached it. If you have aggressive, carnivorous animals on the loose, do you really want to wait hours for the national guard and "top zoologists" to show up so that you might hope you can put an effective plan into action to capture them? It's not a movie, the "solution" isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Doing that could take not only hours (just to get everyone there), but maybe even days. And by that time, some of the animals are going to get out of dodge. And then, while you wait for all those pieces to be assembled and for the plan to be finished, you have a bunch of people scared s***less and cooped up in their homes because they're worried that a hungry lion is going to go back to it's instincts (it's not like they have a hunting school in the wild. These animals have natural instincts to hunt). Also, the guy who let the animals out had already been in trouble for animal neglect and cruelty, and had released them intentionally into the neighborhood. Who's to say he left an easy way to recapture them on his ranch? I don't think we really know enough about the situation to be condemning the Sheriff's department and assume they took all this like a big-game safari. In the moment, you don't always have every option that you can imagine from behind a keyboard. Also, for the last point, there's a lot we do with animals that would be considered incredibly heinous acts if they involved humans. Slavery and kidnapping for every pet owner, cannibalism for everyone who eats meat, murder for hire for anyone who's called an exterminator or left out poisons for animals, we could go on and on. That's not an argument I'm going to give any credence too.
|
|
JDviant
Unicron
XB1 username: lil giant robot
Posts: 3,103
|
Post by JDviant on Oct 20, 2011 7:25:42 GMT -5
Since animals aren't people I don't see the good of equating them to people. Although I look forward to be called out on attempted genocide because of those fire ants I took out.
The PEOPLE in charge of protecting PEOPLE took actions that guaranteeing that protection from ANIMALS.
Feel free to second guess or to hate those people or claim that they're monsters, they had a job to do which was protecting the public, were put in a very strange and special case, and in the end no US citizens were hurt.
|
|
TCA
Don Corleone
Always on my mind
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by TCA on Oct 20, 2011 7:41:59 GMT -5
This whole report makes me so mad and upset. I hate the asshole that did this, but he is dead so *sigh* what's the point. He shouldn't have been allowed to have all those rare, endangered animals in the first place. Also I am sure there could have been a better solution then going out shooting the animals dead, like others have said tranquilisers, and maybe put up barricades, attract them to a certain area with food, nets; anything but just going up and shooting them. PETA can shut the **** up, they put down more animals they "rescue" then adopt out themselves. PETA has to euthanize some animals, either they're too sick (mentally or physically) or they just can't find homes as overpopulation is a huge issue, that unfortunately sometimes requires euthanasia.
|
|
|
Post by walsh7637 on Oct 20, 2011 7:48:31 GMT -5
Yea because it is ok to have wild animals run around and more than likely harm/kill someone. The majority of these animals never left the farm they lived at. Nor did they threaten humans. Most of these creatures were put down by a pistol (not even a long-range weapon like a rifle). The nutjob who ran the place likely had food for the animals on the premises. The solution was easy. Call in the National Guard and several of the state's top zoologists. Offer the animals who've been raised in captivity and aren't skilled predators food. While they eat, tranquilize them and return them to their cages. It's ludicrous we criticize poachers and big game hunters and then take the first opportunity to kill endangered species ourselves. That's like saying everytime we go in the ocean we should hunt down and merc every shark we see...because it "could" eat us. Your argument kinda seems all over the place here, s l i k.... 1) Animals are not people. Please don't be applying human laws to animals - some of which would kill or harm without any thought of those laws. 2) The people who criticize poachers and game hunters are probably criticizing this too. Sure there are hypocrites out there, but there are also those who vehemently think killing animals in ANY case is wrong and should be outlawed. 3) Killing sharks in the ocean is not even close to applicable to this case, is it? In this case, animals that could kill - or were dangerous in some manner (there was a monkey with either Hep C or herpes, just imagine the entirely possible danger of coming into contact with that animal) - were entering OUR realm of space. Sharks can't kill people unless we enter their realm of space - and like you say, it's not even 100% certain that all sharks would kill people in that case. Two more bits to add to the overall discussion: ....when Jack Hanna (who KINDA knows stuff about animals) says that the police and authorities had no choice but to kill these animals, doesn't that cripple the morality arguments? ....and if a pack of people were let out of jail in a similar - some potentially dangerous, some EXTREMELY dangerous, and some no threat at all - would we be talking about tranquilizing them in order to ensure the public is safe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2011 8:05:04 GMT -5
I don't get why people are so getting bent out of shape about it.
If you were charged with protecting people and the # of carnivores (who will kill humans if they feel threatened - like being released into foreign environment) probably outnumber the cops, I think anyone would react the same way in the moment.
If you say otherwise, you'd probably be in the stomach of a lion right now.
rawr.
|
|
TCA
Don Corleone
Always on my mind
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by TCA on Oct 20, 2011 8:30:11 GMT -5
Your argument kinda seems all over the place here, s l i k.... 1) Animals are not people. Please don't be applying human laws to animals - some of which would kill or harm without any thought of those laws. Some humans kill or harm others as well with no regard to laws. Also it fits comparing these animals to humans as they all are sentient creatures. They feel pain and suffer, just like we do.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 20, 2011 8:30:52 GMT -5
This whole report makes me so mad and upset. I hate the asshole that did this, but he is dead so *sigh* what's the point. He shouldn't have been allowed to have all those rare, endangered animals in the first place. Also I am sure there could have been a better solution then going out shooting the animals dead, like others have said tranquilisers, and maybe put up barricades, attract them to a certain area with food, nets; anything but just going up and shooting them. They tried tranquilizers on at least one of the animals, it charged the person who shot it. That's the problem with them, anesthesia requires years of schooling to know how to use properly, and even if they do have tranquilizers, they're not always effective in a time frame that would prevent it from mauling a person or getting away. The same tranquilizer that'd be effective on a baboon would do nothing to a bear, and if you amp up for bears, you'd probably kill the wolf or baboon. What sorts of barricades could you use? Almost all of these animals can jump higher than humans. Some were already out, and it's not like you have an infinitely spawning bag of barricades back in the patrol car. By the time you get up any, the animals can either get past them or just go around. Are you going to barricade the entire town in a half hour? Would any barricades that could actually achieve this have any hope of being effective? Even if you dropped a dead gazelle in the middle of the street to attract a lion, you're assuming that the lions are where you're dropping it. As much as you don't have a big bag of barricades lying around, you also probably don't have a surplus on nets large enough to trap a bear. Would it be ideal if they could stop the animals without killing them? Absolutely. But they weren't in an ideal situation. That's the problem with a lot of the outrage against this, it makes assumptions about what they could and couldn't do as though sitting behind a keyboard is the same thing as having a crazy, abusive preserve owner unleashing packs of wild beasts on you in the middle of the night. It's a bad situation that the Sheriff's department had dropped on them. The real issue is that there needs to be a lot stricter laws and regulations on these things. One person should not be able to have all these creatures unfettered like he did.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Ventura on Oct 20, 2011 8:40:30 GMT -5
Tranquilizers could've and should've done the trick. Never like hearing animals like that dying.
|
|
TCA
Don Corleone
Always on my mind
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by TCA on Oct 20, 2011 8:47:27 GMT -5
This whole report makes me so mad and upset. I hate the asshole that did this, but he is dead so *sigh* what's the point. He shouldn't have been allowed to have all those rare, endangered animals in the first place. Also I am sure there could have been a better solution then going out shooting the animals dead, like others have said tranquilisers, and maybe put up barricades, attract them to a certain area with food, nets; anything but just going up and shooting them. They tried tranquilizers on at least one of the animals, it charged the person who shot it. That's the problem with them, anesthesia requires years of schooling to know how to use properly, and even if they do have tranquilizers, they're not always effective in a time frame that would prevent it from mauling a person or getting away. What sorts of barricades could you use? Almost all of these animals can jump higher than humans. Some were already out, and it's not like you have an infinitely spawning bag of barricades back in the patrol car. By the time you get up any, the animals can either get past them or just go around. Are you going to barricade the entire town in a half hour? Would any barricades that could actually achieve this have any hope of being effective? Even if you dropped a dead gazelle in the middle of the street to attract a lion, you're assuming that the lions are where you're dropping it. As much as you don't have a big bag of barricades lying around, you also probably don't have a surplus on nets large enough to trap a bear. Would it be ideal if they could stop the animals without killing them? Absolutely. But they weren't in an ideal situation. That's the problem with a lot of the outrage against this, it makes assumptions about what they could and couldn't do as though sitting behind a keyboard is the same thing as having a crazy, abusive preserve owner unleashing packs of wild beasts on you in the middle of the night. It's a bad situation that the Sheriff's department had dropped on them. The real issue is that there needs to be a lot stricter laws and regulations on these things. One person should not be able to have all these creatures unfettered like he did. Some good points Red Impact. Your right it is easy to sit here and speculate cos we weren't there. What's done is done, but it does break my heart a bit. I hope that Ohio brings in some massive changes so something like this can never happen again.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Oct 20, 2011 8:50:08 GMT -5
This is just a shitty situation all around.
The animals didn't deserve to be killed, but I don't blame the police. I'm pretty sure they were just following orders, and honestly it may have been the better alternative since those are some pretty dangerous animals. I just wish they could have contained them without using deadly force.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Oct 20, 2011 8:55:01 GMT -5
This is just a crappy situation for all involved. What has seemingly been overlooked is how careless this animal owner was. He probably thought his last act was to grant his pets freedom, and instead he doomed them to an unnecessary early death. I hope he is rotting in hell.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Oct 20, 2011 8:56:03 GMT -5
This whole report makes me so mad and upset. I hate the asshole that did this, but he is dead so *sigh* what's the point. He shouldn't have been allowed to have all those rare, endangered animals in the first place. Also I am sure there could have been a better solution then going out shooting the animals dead, like others have said tranquilisers, and maybe put up barricades, attract them to a certain area with food, nets; anything but just going up and shooting them. PETA can shut the **** up, they put down more animals they "rescue" then adopt out themselves. PETA has to euthanize some animals, either they're too sick (mentally or physically) or they just can't find homes as overpopulation is a huge issue, that unfortunately sometimes requires euthanasia. According to all the information I've ever read, PETA kills far more animals than they adopt out. For instance, in 2010, they received 2,345 animals...they killed 2,200. That's more than just some, that's 93.8% of them. www.petakillsanimals.com/ That site has statistics for every year since 1998, they're all pretty damn consistent. Feel free to look for an alternate source of information though. Please do, I would love to know that this site is inaccuarate. I really would.
|
|
|
Post by Chuckie Finster on Oct 20, 2011 8:56:57 GMT -5
Tranquilizers could've and should've done the trick. Never like hearing animals like that dying. It's not that simple. Unless you know the weight and metabolism of an animal, you can't know how much to use. If you use too much, you dehydrate the animal and make it more dangerous or even kill it.
|
|
TCA
Don Corleone
Always on my mind
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by TCA on Oct 20, 2011 9:08:03 GMT -5
This whole report makes me so mad and upset. I hate the asshole that did this, but he is dead so *sigh* what's the point. He shouldn't have been allowed to have all those rare, endangered animals in the first place. Also I am sure there could have been a better solution then going out shooting the animals dead, like others have said tranquilisers, and maybe put up barricades, attract them to a certain area with food, nets; anything but just going up and shooting them. PETA has to euthanize some animals, either they're too sick (mentally or physically) or they just can't find homes as overpopulation is a huge issue, that unfortunately sometimes requires euthanasia. According to all the information I've ever read, PETA kills far more animals than they adopt out. For instance, in 2010, they received 2,345 animals...they killed 2,200. That's more than just some, that's 93.8% of them. www.petakillsanimals.com/ That site has statistics for every year since 1998, they're all pretty damn consistent. Feel free to look for an alternate source of information though. Please do, I would love to know that this site is inaccuarate. I really would. Ok, but did you know PETA is treated as the last resort for animals. When someone doesn't want a normal healthy animal they usually take it to their local pet shelter, NOT PETA. Most animals that PETA receives are ones that have not had a normal life, usually they have been abused. Thus they are usually too far gone to be put back out into adoption. PETA is not doing anything wrong, if they were why would they willingly submit these stats to be publicised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2011 9:17:27 GMT -5
This whole report makes me so mad and upset. I hate the asshole that did this, but he is dead so *sigh* what's the point. He shouldn't have been allowed to have all those rare, endangered animals in the first place. Also I am sure there could have been a better solution then going out shooting the animals dead, like others have said tranquilisers, and maybe put up barricades, attract them to a certain area with food, nets; anything but just going up and shooting them. The real issue is that there needs to be a lot stricter laws and regulations on these things. One person should not be able to have all these creatures unfettered like he did. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2011 9:55:33 GMT -5
So, any word on that diseased Snow Monkey of Doom?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 20, 2011 10:41:07 GMT -5
Tranquilizers could've and should've done the trick. Never like hearing animals like that dying. They didn't when they tried to use them on one of the tigers. The animal still charged the person who shot it and tried to run away. Tranquilizers aren't magic, a lot of science and medical know how is required for tranquilizers to actually work the way we want them to work. Some good points Red Impact. Your right it is easy to sit here and speculate cos we weren't there. What's done is done, but it does break my heart a bit. I hope that Ohio brings in some massive changes so something like this can never happen again. It does me too, this situation is screwed up, and the guy to blame is dead. There needs to be stricter laws about owning exotic pets. What I would hope is that the animals that are dead could be donated to a university for biology students to study. As opposed to just disposing the bodies, you could at least try to make use of the situation and use it to teach future animal biologists. Unfortunately, due to the situation, I'm pretty sure they'd just destroy the bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Oct 20, 2011 11:00:02 GMT -5
Yea because it is ok to have wild animals run around and more than likely harm/kill someone. The majority of these animals never left the farm they lived at. Nor did they threaten humans. Most of these creatures were put down by a pistol (not even a long-range weapon like a rifle). The nutjob who ran the place likely had food for the animals on the premises. The solution was easy. Call in the National Guard and several of the state's top zoologists. Offer the animals who've been raised in captivity and aren't skilled predators food. While they eat, tranquilize them and return them to their cages. It's ludicrous we criticize poachers and big game hunters and then take the first opportunity to kill endangered species ourselves. That's like saying everytime we go in the ocean we should hunt down and merc every shark we see...because it "could" eat us. Real life doesn't work the same as movies do. that's all I'm going to say.
|
|