Well it didn't to a judge who stated "I have heard no evidence that the drowning of a puppy is inhumane."
My answer to that is what the hell is wrong with some people? That is one of the most asnine comments I have ever run across.
RSPCA officers responding to a tip went to his home and spoke to him, he admitted killing the pups and they charged him with animal cruelty.
A John Woolighan of Woodhouse, Cumbria freely admits to putting the seven Staffordshire bull terrier puppies that were only ten days old into a plastic box. Then he placed the box into his bathtub turned on the spigot and just as a precaution to keep them from escaping he placed another box over the top.
Why did he do this?
The pups were yapping and getting on my nerves.
His nerves! If he didn't want to end up with puppies he should have taken care of his dog well enough and gotten her fixed. According to him the momma dog was rejecting the puppies and he
didn't think he could look after seven of them.
Open and shut case you say? You would be assuming wrong in this case.
Why you ask? Well according to the chair of the bench, Lorraine Jackson, the RSPCA failed to prove that the puppies actually suffered any more than they would have if they had been put down by a vet.
Chair of the bench, Lorraine Jackson, said the puppies underwent some suffering but it was not proved beyond doubt that it was unreasonable pain.
Just what is this
unreasonable pain bs?
And just how would someone go about proving to her that drowning while awake versus going to a vet and having them put down while sleeping is more human? And my main thought in all this was why did they have to die Why not seek a new home or say... someone that could care for them? Oh I forgot because they
got on his nerves
. (Extreme sarcasm here.)
Let someone hold their heads underwater a few moments and they might just change that tune.
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
facebook
newsvine
reddit
stumbleupon
technorati