19-Year Old Sentenced To 18 Months In Jail For Killing A Puppy

[sandinista! 1,816]

I don't see the point of your post. Are you saying if the dog (in this case puppy) was barking incessantly you would understand the crime? What other point is there to post this? Dogs aren't the only animals out there that are a nuisance

REPORT them for a noise disturbance. This is why the "noise pollution" law is there (among other reasons of course). Dogs do not need to remain "inside", though my personal choice is to have them do so. How about all you cat owners chain your cats up or keep them locked inside rather than just letting them roam the neighbourhood?

This is about some loser deciding it's okay to stab and kick a defenceless puppy, not ranting about how bad one animal is compared to the other. Wasn't like he was attacked by a Rottweiler and acted in self-defence. This was a callous attack and I'm glad he got locked up but he needs harsher punishment.

which part of "I don't condone violence in general, never to helpless animals." is ambiguous? the part about barking dogs was an aside comment, and this poster has said nothing to make it sound as though they "understand the crime" for barking or any other reason. yr getting offended for the sake of getting offended, not because of what was actually said here.

[john & jean 37]

No Paul, it really doesn't. Presumably this is just another of your 'joke' comments?

no, not a joke! all they have done is prolong the inevitable

[john & jean 37]

Maybe the dog bit him or something. Give the poor kid a break.

OK, how about both arms, and legs?

[john & jean 37]

come on to my property and kill one of my dogs, you won't walk away....

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I don't condone violence in general, never to helpless animals. But some of you dog owners need to shut your puppy. I can't take another night of barking dogs keeping me up. If you ain't gonna take care of your dog and keep it inside, don't get a dog.

which part of "I don't condone violence in general, never to helpless animals." is ambiguous? the part about barking dogs was an aside comment, and this poster has said nothing to make it sound as though they "understand the crime" for barking or any other reason. yr getting offended for the sake of getting offended, not because of what was actually said here.

The term "but" is used to clarify a previous statement, or if you want a proper definition: "Merely, only; Except (for), excluding". In this case they wrote "never to helpless animals. But some of you dog owners need to shut your puppy.[/b]" [emphasis added] therefore their statement implies that they don't consider a barking dog a "helpless animal" and that violence in this instance would be understandable.

As for being offended for the sake of being offended... they implied a barking dog was an understandable reason for violence, whilst not in so many words it was there in black type for everyone to read.