Re: Retardation On Other Forums

[Anonymous]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

Oh fuck, don't tell me you believe that sick attention whore? He's a piece of shit. acc_devil

[Renee]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

The fact that he took it out and shot it is willful cruelty. don't you get it?



You cannot ensure a clean pain free death by shooting and animal especially when the the shooter is half in the bag like Mel usually is. It is not like taking the cat to a vet and having it euthanized in a clinical environment. That being the case the fact that he shot it is wilfull cruelty. It was ignorance on his part and ignorance is not an excuse, nor is drunkenness or a depressed state of mind.

[RW]

When I say this, I reply with the reported circumstance for debate purposes.

[RW]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

The fact that he took it out and shot it is willful cruelty. don't you get it?



You cannot ensure a clean pain free death by shooting and animal especially when the the shooter is half in the bag like Mel usually is. It is not like taking the cat to a vet and having it euthanized in a clinical environment. That being the case the fact that he shot it is wilfull cruelty. It was ignorance on his part and ignorance is not an excuse, nor is drunkenness or a depressed state of mind.

No, it's not considered cruelty.  Read the damn case law woman!

[Renee]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

Oh fuck, don't tell me you believe that sick attention whore? He's a piece of shit. acc_devil

No RW can never admit that she is wrong. She has taken the side that this wasn't a willful act of cruelty and will not back down no matter how wrong she is.



Nothing new here.

[RW]

Only I'm not wrong.  You are applying your own emotional standard to the legal definition of cruelty.



Again, read the fucking case law.

[Anonymous]

When I say this, I reply with the reported circumstance for debate purposes.

Fair enough, but I am asking YOU personally if you believe that fucking attention whoring scumbag discharged a firearm(several times) on his cat within city limits? This has got to be more of his "look at me, I'm an asshole" BS.

[Renee]

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

The fact that he took it out and shot it is willful cruelty. don't you get it?



You cannot ensure a clean pain free death by shooting and animal especially when the the shooter is half in the bag like Mel usually is. It is not like taking the cat to a vet and having it euthanized in a clinical environment. That being the case the fact that he shot it is wilfull cruelty. It was ignorance on his part and ignorance is not an excuse, nor is drunkenness or a depressed state of mind.

No, it's not considered cruelty.  Read the damn case law woman!

I did, it is you that needs to read it again.



In the eyes of the court an alcoholic slob like Mel who shoots his pet for no apparent reason instead of taking it to a shelter or a vet to be put down is animal cruelty. He has the right to dispose of his pet but he can be subject to prosecution over the manner in which he does it.

[RW]

When I say this, I reply with the reported circumstance for debate purposes.

Fair enough, but I am asking YOU personally if you believe that fucking attention whoring scumbag discharged a firearm(several times) on his cat within city limits? This is just more of his "look at me, I'm an asshole" BS.

I don't want to believe he is disgusting enough to have done that.  I think it would be difficult to discharge a firearm within city limits without raising some attention, nevermind more than once.  I think using this as a means of attention whoring is fucking sick.



No matter how you slice it, he comes out as a huge piece of shit.

[Anonymous]

First of all shooting a pet and fucking the job up inflects suffering. The level of suffering enough to attach criminal intent is very low and is at a minimum of physical discomfort. According to Mel he had to shoot the poor thing multiple times.



If that is true he is indeed guilty of criminal animal cruelty regardless if he is the owner or not. The way the animal was disposed of makes all the difference. He is not protected simply because he is the owner.

He didn't "willfully" inflict suffering upon the animal.  He fucked up the shot and had to shoot it more than once.  There was no intent to torture or inflict cruelty.

The fact that he took it out and shot it is willful cruelty. don't you get it?



You cannot ensure a clean pain free death by shooting and animal especially when the the shooter is half in the bag like Mel usually is. It is not like taking the cat to a vet and having it euthanized in a clinical environment. That being the case the fact that he shot it is wilfull cruelty. It was ignorance on his part and ignorance is not an excuse, nor is drunkenness or a depressed state of mind.

It doesn't matter Renee because it NEVER fucking happened. Dickhead is having a laugh that he pissed off some people. A total waste of fucking skin. acc_angry

[Renee]

Only I'm not wrong.  You are applying your own emotional standard to the legal definition of cruelty.



Again, read the fucking case law.

No I am applying the definition of "suffering". As I said about 50 fucking times already the level of suffering required to bring criminal charges is extremely low and subject to interpretation by the court.

[RW]

The fact that he took it out and shot it is willful cruelty. don't you get it?



You cannot ensure a clean pain free death by shooting and animal especially when the the shooter is half in the bag like Mel usually is. It is not like taking the cat to a vet and having it euthanized in a clinical environment. That being the case the fact that he shot it is wilfull cruelty. It was ignorance on his part and ignorance is not an excuse, nor is drunkenness or a depressed state of mind.

No, it's not considered cruelty.  Read the damn case law woman!

I did, it is you that needs to read it again.



In the eyes of the court an alcoholic slob like Mel who shoots his pet for no apparent reason instead of taking it to a shelter or a vet to be put down is animal cruelty. He has the right to dispose of his pet but he can be subject to prosecution over the manner in which he does it.

No, in the eyes of Canadian courts it isn't.  If you read what I provided, a man took a hammer to a bunch of puppies and got off with nothing for that act.

[RW]

Only I'm not wrong.  You are applying your own emotional standard to the legal definition of cruelty.



Again, read the fucking case law.

No I am applying the definition of "suffering". As I said about 50 fucking times already the level of suffering required to bring criminal charges is extremely low and subject to interpretation by the court.

The courts wouldn't touch it Renee.  He didn't willingly cause his animal to suffer.

[Renee]

When I say this, I reply with the reported circumstance for debate purposes.

Fair enough, but I am asking YOU personally if you believe that fucking attention whoring scumbag discharged a firearm(several times) on his cat? This is just more of his "look at me, I'm an asshole" BS.

I don't want to believe he is disgusting enough to have done that.  I think it would be difficult to discharge a firearm within city limits without raising some attention, nevermind more than once.  I think using this as a means of attention whoring is fucking sick.



No matter how you slice it, he comes out as a huge piece of shit.

You don't want to believe????????



Well you have a lot more faith in the piece of shit than I do. As far as I'm concerned the best thing for him to do is to eat that load of double O, skip any kind of government provided treatment and save a few cents on your fucking "bottom Line".

[RW]

What can I say other than I find it to be fucking sick.