Man Bites Dog?

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I just couldn't resist this one. ;D

Florida dog shoots man



Paw caught in trigger ; man charged with animal cruelty

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) â ” A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger.

Jerry Allen Bradford, 37, was charged with felony animal cruelty, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday. He was being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to his wrist.

Bradford said he decided to shoot the three-month-old shepherd-mix dogs in the head because he couldn't find them a home, according to the sheriff's office.

On Monday, Bradford was holding two puppies â ” one in his arms and another in his left hand â ” when the dog in his hand wiggled and put its paw on the trigger of the .38-calibre revolver. The gun then discharged, the sheriff's report said.

Deputies found three of the puppies in a shallow grave outside Bradford's home, said Sgt. Ted Roy.

The four others appeared to be in good health and were taken by Escambia County Animal Control, which planned to make them available for adoption.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1094814064586&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037

 

[Lexi]

PUPPY POWER!  ;D
Really, the guy deserves a shot in the wrist.
They were just puppies.. cute.. cuddly.. adorable.. puppy-eyed..
How does anyone have the concience to kill a puppy.. or kitty for that matter?
Oh well. The four that did survive will go to good homes now.

Cheers,
Lex

 

[Franko]

Maybe he needed a nice hat 


.......brie of poodle on my noodle.....

.....see these loafers?.....made from gophers....   ;D

 

[ackland]

... Grizzly bear underwear..... :gunner:

 

[brin11]

Rock on dogs! 

 

[Scratch_043]

...Evening wear, Vampire bat...

 

[Gunnar]

Felony animal cruelty?  For shooting a dog in the head?

Are we going to charge beef farmers now too?

Sometimes, it is kinder to terminate an animal than to let it continue to exist.  This is something the shelter will likely do should these dogs not be adopted.  Will we charge the people that work there?

The lesson here is clear:  humane action is the sole province of a government agency, i.e., The State.  The fact that he OWNED these puppies is now considered irrelevant.  You are required to do what you're told by the government.

It's not like he was shooting them in the legs, butt, chest and ears just to hear them scream.  But people are so far removed from the concept of life and death today they don't understand the difference.

 

[brin11]

On Monday, Bradford was holding two puppies â ” one in his arms and another in his left hand â ” when the dog in his hand wiggled and put its paw on the trigger of the .38-calibre revolver. The gun then discharged, the sheriff's report said.

This leads me to believe that he's probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer.   Now, I could be wrong but I think if I was going to shoot wiggly puppies I would probably do it one at a time if I was holding a loaded weapon.  

I work in the animal health industry and I agree that euthanasia is sometimes the kindest thing to do.   I see it every day.   Unfortunately, what he was doing may not have been.   Euthanasia should be used to end the life of a creature that is suffering from a terminal disease, in pain that they will not recover from, or so old that they have no quality of life.   There is no mention that these puppies were suffering, just unwanted.   People need to take some responsibility for their actions (having a litter of unwanted puppies) and have them destroyed humanely by injection as the last possible resort.

Gunnar, I agree that many people are unknowledgable about life/death/where their food comes from, etc.   I could easily make this post into a rant on the state of veterinary medicine and ethics but I don't think its very appropriate for army.ca.   Suffice to say, if you were to ask most vets if this was a humane way to dispose of young puppies, most would say no.   There is too much possibility for error and the the most humane method would be death through intravenous injection.   All this man had to do was drop the pups off in a box at the nearest human society and say he was going to shoot them in the head if they didn't take them.   They would have been in the door pretty fast.

Humane action is the province of every one of us.   It was deemed that his method was not humane, therefore, the STATE (as you put it, Gunnar) needs to intervene.   Just because you OWN an animal does not give you the right to make it suffer or dispose of it inhumanely.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Thank you Brin11, must more eloquent than I could have put it.

Gunnar, could you please explain to me what this is supposed to mean?
QUOTE:
But people are so far removed from the concept of life and death today they don't understand the difference.

 

[Gunnar]

I was pointing out that death is part of life, and that sometimes, people kill animals.  Sometimes, people kill people too....Today's generation has been raised to believe that all death, everywhere, of any type is necessarily bad.  This leads them into Star Trek type arguments of "do we have the right to kill" in cases where it is patently obvious that we do.

However, every life has a certain intrinsic value, so you don't torture animals just for the fun of it.  This guy was shooting his animals because he was unable to care for them, not for kicks.  It was a necessary evil, if you will.  This is the difference of which I spoke:  necessity vs. amusement.  I think I need to put all the relevant clauses in the same sentence.  ;-)

I might be tempted to agree that if he did so incompetently, he caused unnecessary pain and suffering - but so far we can only tell that he caused unnecessary pain and suffering to himself, cuz he got shot.  This is why I think that the charges are bullshit.  If I were to dispose of myself, I can't think of a more humane way to do it than with a bullet.  Why should it be any less humane for the animal?  In any case, I digress, I still believe he had the right to do it.

While Brin11's comments are well received about taking responsibility, etc., the fact remains that the puppies were only animals.  This puts them on the same moral level as food, and I would expect them to be treated the same.  Plus, they were property, which means that it is none of the State's business how he disposed of them, unless he caused unnecessary pain and suffering, a fact that has yet rear its head.

 

[brin11]

This puts them on the same moral level as food, and I would expect them to be treated the same.  Plus, they were property, which means that it is none of the State's business how he disposed of them, unless he caused unnecessary pain and suffering, a fact that has yet rear its head.

Gunnar, I will have to agree to disagree with your statement above as I probably will not change your mind nor will you change mine.  There are many people who agree with you and many people, most of the clients in the clinic where I work, that would strongly disagree with you, including me.  If you had a pet that needed surgery for some reason (intestinal obstruction, broken leg, etc.) would you put a bullet in its head or would you go ahead with the surgery if you had the financial means?  If you would do the surgery this puts the animal on a higher level than food I would think. 

As I stated before, a shot to the head can be an acceptable means of euthanasia/animal disposal except that many people are not competent to do so.  Even beef cattle are not shot per se but receive a bullet from a tool that is put directly up against the head and then the bullet is released rather than a conventional firearm.  I still believe that death by injection of thiopental overdose is a more humane method to dispose of puppies.

Actually, we don't know if he was unable to care for the animals or if he was too lazy or cheap to do so.  I speak to people often that don't have the financial means to care for their animals and sometimes opt for disposal.  On the other hand, I speak to people even more often that can't be bothered to care for their animals because they feel that it is "only an animal" and they can just get another.  While this is legal and true, it doesn't make it ethically right.  Why do people obtain animals that they are unwilling to care for, whether through health care or on a day to day basis with basic needs?  If anyone has the answer I would like to hear it as I've not heard one yet that is valid.

There is nothing wrong with asking yourself "if we have the right to kill".  That is called understanding your own beliefs and morals.  If you come up with the idea that "yes, it is", fair enough.  At least you thought about it.  There are lots of individuals (humans and animals alike) that should be disposed of for many different reasons.

Anyway, my two cents again.  As you can see this is a subject that I take a very great interest in and spend alot of time dealing with personally.

 

[Gunnar]

I think you and I could live with eachother's viewpoints here, as long as I'm not killing puppies every few months.  There are options, usually, and I don't agree that a bullet to the head needs to be done by special tools or professionals....but, there's room for you in my world view. 

"If I had the financial means...."...yes, I would choose the gentler option.  I had a cat who had sever UT blockage, and the choice was $1000 for x-rays (with the possibility they would show nothing new), or $75 for an injection.  Cat was a stray, already lived a much better life than if I hadn't brought him inside....and I didn't have the means.  You do the math.

I don't have much use for the people who have pets as a hobby, rather than as companion animals.  Usually they have far too many, don't take care of them properly, and don't give a damn one way or another.  You get to work with them.  Lucky you!

 

[shootergurl]

You guys seriously crack me up  -  I need that right now. :-*

I should visit more often

Private Bignuts

 

[skura]

"These white slippers are albino African endangered rhino"