Man Charged In Dog's Abuse Wants Animal Back

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by optimusprime42, Jul 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. optimusprime42

    optimusprime42 Autobot Leader

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Posts:
    6,691
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Likes:
    +9
    here's the link http://www.wlwt.com/news/13672818/detail.html
    can't miss the dog video is on the right


    OXFORD, Ohio -- A man charged with chaining up his dog so tightly the chain had to be surgically removed from her flesh wants the animal back.

    Otis Clark pleaded no contest Thursday to charges related to the abuse of his 2-year-old dog, China, who is recovering from surgery it had in March.

    “We had 20 people who wanted to adopt her and weren't going to chain it up 24-7, (but) they couldn't do anything,” said Leland Gordon from Animal Friends Humane Society.Clark, of Summerville, had initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea before his scheduled hearing in Butler County Court.

    “This was a clear-cut case, and I was hoping with a guilty sentence it would send a message to people we're not going to take it anymore,” said dog lover Denise Harrington, who demonstrated outside the courthouse.

    China will remain with animal control until Clark’s next court hearing, scheduled for next month.

    “Justice has once again been postponed for this dog,” Gordon said.

    Clark declined comment Thursday afternoon.
     
  2. Evan Goldsborough

    Evan Goldsborough Freelance Negotiator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
    I have a pretty good idea of how this is going to go in court....

    Man: I want my dog back.
    Judge: No.
    Man: Damn.


    ....seriously, I see absolutely no chance of him actually getting it back after the chain thing...
     
  3. Cobalt Agent

    Cobalt Agent My dick kills dinosaurs

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Posts:
    3,669
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +10
    It's his property. Give it back.

    And why is this news?
     
  4. Spartan-117

    Spartan-117 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Posts:
    1,813
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    It isn't his property it's a living being that's had cruelty inflicted on it, he doesn't deserve the privilege of caring for an animal.
     
  5. EmineX

    EmineX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +1
    Whether he owns the animal or not is irrelevant. If he can't provide adequate care, he shouldn't be allowed to keep it.
     
  6. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Check.

    Animals aren't simply property. But even if you wanna claim that, the government still can take away your car if it sits on blocks in your driveway for months and levy fines against you for failing to keep up your yard or house. There's a precedent.
     
  7. Cobalt Agent

    Cobalt Agent My dick kills dinosaurs

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Posts:
    3,669
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +10
    If he bought it, it's his. It's not a person. It's not like he chained up a baby or kept his kids locked in a box.
     
  8. Zero Prime

    Zero Prime Windows user no more

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Posts:
    2,587
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    And this is why we have animal cruelity laws.
     
  9. Starscreamer17

    Starscreamer17 Starscream Lover

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Likes:
    +0
    The fuck is your problem? You think giving a dog who was chained up so tight the chain has to be removed thru surgery? Who gives a shit if he bought the dog? He treated it like shit, he doesn't deserve to have it.

    The guy who did this needs to get lynched, I have half the mind to drive to Oxford and kill this guy. Fucker don't need to live, that simple.
     
  10. Cobalt Agent

    Cobalt Agent My dick kills dinosaurs

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Posts:
    3,669
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +10
    Nothing.
    What's the question?
    I disagree. If I treat my car like shit by not giving it a new coat of paint when it desperately needed it, I shouldn't get it taken away from me. If it hurt another person, intruded on their rights, or killed them, yes they should step in.

    If the internet wasn't full of obvious fake threats, one might take that seriously. I can understand being upset, but nobody deserves to die because of this. That's taking it too far.
     
  11. Starscreamer17

    Starscreamer17 Starscream Lover

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Likes:
    +0
    A car isn't a living. A dog is.

    So, no one is going to take a car away from you if you treat it bad, because its not living, it can't feel pain, it doesn't have emotions. A Dog does.
     
  12. Cobalt Agent

    Cobalt Agent My dick kills dinosaurs

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Posts:
    3,669
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +10
    I don't see that as relevant.
     
  13. Starscreamer17

    Starscreamer17 Starscream Lover

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Likes:
    +0
    You fucking retarded then?
     
  14. Gigatron_2005

    Gigatron_2005 President of Calendars

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    7,871
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1
    Wow. Just wow. Thats a really fucked up way of thinking. He may have bought the dog, but he forfeits any and all rights to the animal when he abused it like he did. Simply disgusting.

    And I agree with the notion made earlier that people who treat animals like that need to have the living shit beaten out of them.
     
  15. Cobalt Agent

    Cobalt Agent My dick kills dinosaurs

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Posts:
    3,669
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +10
    No I'm not, but I appreciate your concern, friend. I don't believe that having emotion grants rights. Fish could have emotion too. I'm sure deer do too. I should still be allowed to fish or hunt. I value self-awareness, conciousness, sapience, and sentience together, as well as the capacity for it. Again, if this were a person, I'd have him jailed to fit the crime.

    Now I like dogs. They help the blind. The sniff out drugs. They help the cops track other criminals. They even serve on the battlefield during our wars. They're also loyal companions. But I would not grant them rights. I'd only take a dog from an owner if it's a danger to the rights of others, is a hazard to anothers health, or is banned from said living quarters by the owner of an apartment or something.
     
  16. Starscreamer17

    Starscreamer17 Starscream Lover

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Likes:
    +0
    So you are retarted. K, thanks.
     
  17. Trenner Dios

    Trenner Dios Humility > Huge Ego

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Posts:
    2,883
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    I understand your point.

    I suppose people could argue semantics when it comes to hunting deer, or even fishing, but shooting a deer is very different from torturing it. Hurting animals because you're an asshole is still wrong, even if it's legal.

    Do you really condone the actions of somebody who is hurting his dog because he is a negligent prick? Is that really the same as a deer hunter who shoots deer to keep the population down, and hell, maybe to get some delicious venison jerky out of it? I don't think it is.
     
  18. Cobalt Agent

    Cobalt Agent My dick kills dinosaurs

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Posts:
    3,669
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +10
    It's not so much semantics to me. It just comes down to cold, hard legality to me. The law shouldn't always be nice. And I don't equate hunting with torture. One's likely out of sport, while the other is likely out of boredom or lack of sympathy. And I don't argue that people who mistreat their pets are nice, or even good, but I do still believe in the law of the land (and since I hold certain libertarian beliefs, the less law, the better).

    I condone what he did in the sense that I'd be chanting and wooting like at a sports event. He damn well could be a prick. I don't know. I just know that he didn't treat his dog properly. He could sit around drinking beer all day yelling at the news anchor for not taking off her top. He could spend his extra time knitting sweaters for old people. I don't know. It's not important. There are plenty of people who are assholes, but I don't support murdering them.

    I draw a line. That line ends at the border of humans and does not extend past animals. I don't want farmers to have their livestalk taken because they raise them for food. I don't want kids thrown in a correctional facility because they step on bugs out of boredom. I don't want they Japanese jailed for whaling. I don't want KFC shut down for the treatment of their chickens. I don't want companies shut down because they test products on animals. I don't want sports that use animals to be made illegal because they might be stressed. If a man owns a dog, I see it as a property issue that should have very little government intervention.
     
  19. Draven

    Draven Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2002
    Posts:
    23,860
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    286
    Likes:
    +5
    Wow. Just... wow.
    I hope you don't have any pets yourself; if you do they have my sympathy. Which, seeing as how I reserve that for creatures that deserve it, is something you're unlikely to ever get no matter what happens to you. Twats with opinions like yours shouldn't ever be allowed to own pets.
    Hey may well own the dog, but that doesn't give him the right to abuse it. Fucking asshole should have the shit kicked out of him for what he's done to that animal. Cold hard legality? Utter bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2007
  20. Trenner Dios

    Trenner Dios Humility > Huge Ego

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Posts:
    2,883
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Fair enough. Maybe owning an animal as a pet should have a different status then animals owned for food/other uses. Not rights, exactly, but something. I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but I just don't think it should be legal to torture or mistreat an animal simply because you own it. People shouldn't own animals as something to take their anger out on or to be negligent towards. To me, it's no different than beating your wife or leaving a child out in hot a car, property or not. A pet is a responsibility, and if you can't be responsible, then you shouldn't have the pet. A gun is your property as well, but if you misuse it, then it should be taken away from you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page