Wal-Mart Employees Charged With Shooting Cat On Manager's Orders

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Waitone, Dec 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stevekl

    stevekl Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    394
    Hicks.

    Edit- I like how the moderators are deleting/editing all the posts that don't agree with the "hyuck i'll shoot your cat if it's on my property hyuck" point of view.

    Well I hope you like making children cry. Yeah that's real 'manly'.
     
  2. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Difficult to believe

    "Second, a cat is just a cat, not a human being. That's what i was told by animal control and the local sheriff's dept. after many complaints were lodged about the way she took care of her animals. If they would have been horses or livestock it may have been a different story. But they were just cats."

    The idea that the laws against animal cruelty exclude felines strains credulity.

    It would seem that:

    1. Your state has unusual and inadequate animal cruelty laws; or

    2. The people at the departments you spoke to did not know the laws
    they purport to enforce; or

    3. They, like a recent above poster, don't mind being cruel to some animals,
    so long as it is not theirs. :barf:
     
  3. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    WARNING: Thread drift ahead

    I must risk to differ. I spend the prior evening enjoying libations with friends old and new and listening in horror of a group of dogs who attacked not one, but two people without provication, and my long time friend debate with himself about not shooting the mangy currs dead when he had the chance at the scene of the first attack, which occured just a few doors from his home. Details below:

    --------Begin Paste---
    Two massive dogs have nowhere to go


    Rebecca Waddingham, [email protected]
    December 17, 2004

    Two dogs will likely be euthanized early next year if their owner can't come up with the money to keep them alive.

    In an emotional case, a Weld County Court judge said Thursday he can't legally order the dogs to be put down -- at least not yet.

    The dogs are part of a group of three massive mixed-breed dogs that mauled a Firestone woman in early September and were taken to Coal Ridge Animal Hospital in Longmont.

    When their owner went to visit, the dogs mauled caretaker Adam Stutzman, 18. Photographs show him on an operating table with deep wounds on his neck and face.

    The dogs were then moved to another building, which also didn't want them, so they wound up at the Humane Society of Weld County in Greeley, where they remain.

    The problem is, the Humane Society doesn't want them anymore.

    "I'd like to get rid of them if I could," said Roger Messick, executive director of the Humane Society. "They've been a real pain ... the staff is concerned for their own safety."

    Messick said the dogs' owners insist they are a German shepherd-boxer mix. But Messick said they are mastiff mixes because the dogs are so huge.

    He said caregivers have to tranquilize the largest male dog every day just to get him out of a cage.

    "But even then, his behavior is not good," Messick said.

    Nothing can be done, however, at least until the dogs' bond payments run out. They are to be kept alive, on $1,800 bond, until Jan. 7, when the bond expires. After that date, whoever has the dogs -- whether it's the Humane Society of Weld County or another shelter -- can decide what to do with them, including euthanizing.

    But at least one dog, the only female, is going to the Colorado Dog Academy, where she can be salvaged with plenty of training. Nobody would agree to take the two male dogs off the Humane Society's hands.

    David Riley, 37, of Firestone, the dogs' owner, faces trial in February on three counts of harboring a dangerous animal, a misdemeanor. That charge stems from the September attack on Firestone resident Rosa Storm, 41. But Riley can't be charged for the mauling of Stutzman, because a new Colorado law exempts pet caretakers from the right to press charges if they are attacked.

    Riley and his mother, Jackie Riley, were adamant in court that their dogs be spared. David Riley tried to interrupt his own lawyer and Judge Marcelo Kopcow to insist he would fight for his dogs.

    And tensions flared in the hallway after the proceedings, with Jackie Riley getting into an accusatory shouting match with Stutzman's co-workers and friends.

    "Three normal dogs would never do what they did to him," said Susan Burke Rose, who said she is an expert on dog behavior and who evaluated the three dogs.

    But Jackie Riley contends that Stutzman shouldn't have been in a pen with the dogs, and the animals attacked because they felt threatened.

    "The lies are not on my side," she said.

    Burke Rose insisted the Rileys should acknowledge their dogs' wrongdoing.

    "A normal, responsible owner would be horrified at what their dogs did," she said. "They took (Stutzman) down with intent to kill him."

    An attorney for Stutzman's insurance company said there's a high likelihood of Stutzman pursuing civil action against the Rileys.

    Stutzman said he hopes the dogs are destroyed -- to protect other humans.

    "I love animals and I don't like to see animals put down," he said. "But sometimes it needs to be done."

    David Riley's trial begins Feb. 23.

    ----end paste--

    Source:http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041217/NEWS/112170037

    I've yet to hear of a domestic cat, or a group there of, behaive in such a fashion. Cats generally just want to be left alone unless you're small enought to be seen as dinner. :neener:

    No slight on those who love dogs and have them in their home. I like dogs, get along great with most, and if I did not think the resident cats would turn one into a shreaded, cowering whimp I'd have one or more myself.
     
  4. spawnbag

    spawnbag Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    da U.P.
    I believe animal cruelty laws are pretty much the same in every state.

    They know the law very well. But if smoething isn't out in plain sight and there are no children involved the police cant kick your door down for having too many cats. Especially relating to cats since they come and go as they please and they're harder then hell to see let alone get close to. The only reason i knew she had so many cats is by her own admission. Also, cops are notoriously lazy when it comes to paperwork, and something like that would have buried them in paperwork and red tape.


    To assume that somebody approves of being cruel to animals because they put human rights above animal rights is as unjustified as calling me a liar. :p
     
  5. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,760
    stevekl ~

    The only posts that have been either deleted or edited are those which violate Rule Four of Thr's Code of Conduct. Specifically, the part which reads, "...personal attacks are prohibited."

    If you have any other questions or comments about moderator activity, please take it to PM.

    Thread closed, particularly in view of the many veiled and not-so-veiled insults infesting it.

    pax
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice