Cat killed in microwave

[jolinar of malkshor]

Four teens who recently broke into a Camrose home put a cat in a microwave and cooked it to death, Camrose police said yesterday.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...54174-sun.html


Unfriggen believable. These kids are seriously ****ed. They need to be monitored for life.

[Eastern Girl]

That is pretty sick. I heard some really horrific stories of animal cruelty when I did a story on it when I was still in school. What was probably worse than hearing the stories themselves was hearing how light some of the sentences were...

[Kipru]

Well, i have heard about some people who cook lobster while they are still alive ( I mean not by putting them into boiling water, cooking them in a pan). Both situations are equally insane.

Well, i myself am a hunter and i really don't know which is more painful, running with 10 g of lead inside you or getting cooked in a microwave. Only difference is that this cat wasn't used for anything meaningful. The point is, the animal being tortured doesn't know if you are going to eat it or not, it just feels terrible pain for few minutes.

Still a crazy and awful thing what those guys did, but monitored for life? People kill other people and molest children and still aren't monitored for life. They should be, though. Or maybe be shut down for life.

Edit: (I was a hunter. Thinking these kind of stuff made me leave the killing for professional butchers)

[Devils'Advocate]

Of course there are light sentences. Should the government rewrite the animal cruelty laws, livestock farmers will be outraged.

As I understand it, property laws are the only way to go on this subject. Boys A, B and C destroyed an object belonging to family X. But a cat is worth about $5... sometimes less since there are a lot of strays out on the street, so good luck with that.

These kids will get a slap on the wrist as will the next kids and the next kids after that.

[CaptainCrunch]

If I was a judge I would give them a incredibly light sentence. Five minutes in a sound proof room with the members of the family that they harmed. Followed by 8 minutes in the same room with 1000 insane militant animal rights organizers.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Of course there are light sentences. Should the government rewrite the animal cruelty laws, livestock farmers will be outraged.

Because farmers put cows and pigs into the microwave alive.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Kipru

Well, i myself am a hunter and i really don't know which is more painful, running with 10 g of lead inside you or getting cooked in a microwave.

You are telling me you don't know which would be more painful?

Still a crazy and awful thing what those guys did, but monitored for life? People kill other people and molest children and still aren't monitored for life. They should be, though. Or maybe be shut down for life.

They need to be monitored because if they can do this to an animal, they can do it to a person.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Putting a dishrag in the microwave for 30 seconds will kill 99% of the bacteria on it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Four teens who recently broke into a Camrose home put a cat in a microwave and cooked it to death, Camrose police said yesterday.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...54174-sun.html


Unfriggen believable. These kids are seriously ed. They need to be monitored for life.

There was a case a few years ago of a blue-haired little old lady trying to dry her newly shampooed Shih Tzu off in the microwave, to disasterous results.

That's just sheer stupidity.

What these kids did in Camrose is sheer malevolence, ala the Didsbury Dog Dragger case, as they likely knew what would happen before they closed the door.

They should be found and suffer the same legal ramifications and public ostricization as those Didsbury kids did . . . . .

Cowperson

[Kipru]

[QUOTE=jolinar of malkshor;1133112]You are telling me you don't know which would be more painful?

I really don't. I would not like to know. I have seen mooses with their guts hanging out running for miles, and i bet that must have hurt like hell.

(Believe it or not) I have never cooked anything alive on a microwave so i really don't know how long it takes until there's no pain at all. I bet it must have hurt like hell.

I have never been shot with a machinegun or pistol either, but I bet that must hurt like hell also. I have heard some folks do it just for the sake of liberty within 10 000 km from their borders.

Hunters and butchers can do it for animals, how can't they do it for persons?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Kipru

Hunters and butchers can do it for animals, how can't they do it for persons?

There is a BIG difference in hunting and animal over putting a live one in a microwave for entertainment. Most hunters shoot to kill with the first shot. Doesn't always happen but the intent is not to make the animal suffer. Butchers kill the animal instantly. They do not prolong the suffering.

[urban1]

Hunting and eating meat can be debated in another thread.

Something needs to be seriously wrong with a persons brain if they think its OK to do this to an animal.

These kids will get little or no time. Under 18, means theyll get an extra light sentence and then not even have a record at 18.

Id love to see the parents of these kids held accountable.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Four teens who recently broke into a Camrose home put a cat in a microwave and cooked it to death, Camrose police said yesterday.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...54174-sun.html


Unfriggen believable. These kids are seriously ****ed. They need to be monitored for life.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think anyone who does something like this has to be mentally disturbed and should be legally labelled as such to protect the public.

[metallicat]

For some reason, animal abuse like this just gets to me. I was sick to my stomach when I heard about this.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think anyone who does something like this has to be mentally disturbed and should be legally labelled as such to protect the public.

Or microwaved themselves.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by urban1

Hunting and eating meat can be debated in another thread.

Why does it have to be in a separate thread? It's the exact same thing. Whether you are hunting, slaughtering animals for meat, or throwing a cat in a microwave it is the same thing. Some animal is getting killed.

Some have tried to show the differences.
"Nutritional sustenance" vs "Entertainment"
If you think that act X should be legal, but not if done for entertainment purposes, you would need a pretty good reason for limiting that freedom.

"Suffering over quickly" vs "Suffering over longer period of time"
Explain that one to the deer that gets shot, but manages to run off and escape into the woods to die slowly and painfully of an infection from the wound.

-=-=-=-=-=-
Animal rights don't exist. But property rights do. These kids broke into someones home and destroyed a piece of their property. While the property damaged does not have a huge monetary value, they can sue for emotional damage in a civil case.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-

It really confuses me how people who eat veal get riled up over cases like this.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Whether you are hunting, slaughtering animals for meat, or throwing a cat in a microwave it is the same thing.

No it isn't.

If you think that act X should be legal, but not if done for entertainment purposes, you would need a pretty good reason for limiting that freedom.

What are you talking about? Since when do we have the freedom to torture animals?

"Suffering over quickly" vs "Suffering over longer period of time"
Explain that one to the deer that gets shot, but manages to run off and escape into the woods to die slowly and painfully of an infection from the wound.

There is an element called intent which most laws are based on.

-=-=-=-=-=-
Animal rights don't exist. But property rights do. These kids broke into someones home and destroyed a piece of their property. While the property damaged does not have a huge monetary value, they can sue for emotional damage in a civil case.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Oh they don't?

Disturbance, etc., of wildlife habitation Wild life act
36(1) A person shall not wilfully molest, disturb or destroy a house, nest or den of prescribed wildlife or a beaver dam in prescribed areas and at prescribed times.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a molestation, disturbance or destruction that is specifically authorized
(a) by or under the Agricultural Pests Act or the Water Act,
(b) by or under a licence authorizing the control of wildlife depredation or the collection of wildlife, or
(c) by regulations under section 103(1)(w) or a written authorization of the Minister.

Criminal Code 446. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed;
(c) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it;
(d) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;
(e) wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(f) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(g) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part thereof to be used for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (f).

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.





Just to name a few.

It really confuses me how people who eat veal get riled up over cases like this.

Are you for real? How can you compare nuking a live animal to the consumption of commercialized meat where the death of the animal is instant

[J pold]

The cost of having to monitor these kids for life would be better served hiring more police, if the safety of the public is your concern

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by J pold

The cost of having to monitor these kids for life would be better served hiring more police, if the safety of the public is your concern

I would disagree. Hire more police, sure. That isn't going to stop or prevent a future action from these kids against another person. That is the one of the problems with our Justice system. It is more reactive than proactive.

[Daradon]

I think the overall suffering and pain of the animal DOES have to be part of the debate. As well as they point of use vs. non use.

For the first part, there are more penalties applied to someone who has tortured a human (whether it be physical and mental) then killed them as opposed to someone just killing someone.

Everyone and everything thing on the planet eventually dies. But when you cause something unneccessary pain, well that's a different story. Not saying that makes it right to kill a person or an animal, but there are a whole range of reasons one might kill that go from self defense to outright cruelty. Governments sanction the killing of other governments citizens, and if you say no you can get in trouble yourself, it's called war.

Killing happens all the time, and the answers to stopping it aren't easy to figure out. Cruelty doesn't have to happen, and should be punished to the fullest extent.

Certainly the reasons behind the killing and the pain the human or animal suffered HAVE to enter into the equation.

Nuking a cat for fun is not the same as eating an animal for food.

The veal argument might be closer because of the way the calves are killed, and I don't personally approve of it, but it's still not the same.