The worm has turned, gentlemen!

 

^
Depending on the operations of the individual slaughter house, a quick spike through the brain, is far preferable to being beaten over and over with a shovel.

Also I doubt she did so because she was hungry. There's a clear difference between killing out of necessity such as for food, or in self defense, and killing out of what seems little more than unbridled human wrath.

Honestly if this old woman's FIRST reaction to something being on her lawn is to strike it repeatedly with a shovel, then she's probably not mentally capable. The most I have had to use to get an animal off my lawn (a neighbor's dog) was a broom, and even that all I had to do was wave around menacingly. You don't accidentally pick up a heavy oak shaft attached to a tempered steel blade and swing it with enough force to shatter a skull.

I'd be profoundly disturbed by anyone who reaches for a shovel FIRST when reacting to anything on her lawn. There would probably be less defense for the old lady if it had been a neighbor's cat or dog.

But I'm getting off topic. To answer the question. Have I, unprovoked, as my first and only reaction to seeing an animal, without necessity for food or safety, struck it repeatedly in the head with a deadly object, until dead? No, I can't say that I have.

 

And that's the sane side of the argument.

To respond to Hot Rodimus's post...

I don't want the woman's blood. I do want to know what would cause a 70+ woman to go homicidal and bash a living creature's head in. A creature that I again say ('til I'm blue in the face) was defenseless, harmless, and the deer equivalent of a child.

They force people to pay huge fines and throw the book at them for crimes far less grievous than smashing a living creature's skull to pieces. I don't want her strung up, I don't want her rotting away in prison, I don't want her blood, but I want her checked, I want the judge to at least put some weight behind his final judgment.

I don't think a $100-500.00 fine is unreasonable for what she did.

No blood, no prison, just a fine and some serious help.

How is that unreasonable? I can't speak for the other posters, but I doubt many of us here want the same fate for the woman as the fawn. (Well some probably do, but then they're no better than she is.)

 

I agree. But also, if a person's FIRST reaction is "OMG I HOPE THE OLD WOMAN IS TORN TO SHREDS SHE DESERVES TO DIE!!!!!" then they probably need mental help too.

I would be too. But I'm more profoundly disturbed by the people wishing painful death on another human being because of an animal.

That applies to wanting to kill the old lady too.

I know you aren't one oif those people calling for death to the lady, I just quoted you because I wanted to add to your points.

 

Actually, if we hadn't progressed as a society, we first of all wouldn't have cared that some person was cruel to an animal. Second of all, if we had, and if there were anything like a witch hunt, she'd be ash around a charred stake by now. Even when people get the "witch hunt" mentality today, we don't actually do it. Do we have a lot more improving to do? Sure. That doesn't mean we've never done any.

 

Id like to hold her face over a popcorn popper, watch them bounce off her cheek

 

I think it's really disgusting what the she did.

 

Oh absolutely. Here in PA, the penalties are stiff. In fact a friend of the family is a big time hunter, I mean...this guy is GOOD. (but a lot of that comes from hunting illegally, offseason. You don't get his kinda skill being a weekend warrior kinda guy.)

And the authorities came right to his door and asked him "Did you kill this deer?" and then if he saw who did, etc. during the tail end of the hunting period for the day. He asked the officer what the big deal is, it's just a dead deer, and the officer said "Killing even one more than what's allowed for the season carries up to a $5,000.00 fine. It depends on how the body was disposed of, what kind of weapon was used to kill it and so on."

Found out that accidents caused by disposed of deer carcasses can carry hefty penalties. Next time you look at that deer on the roadside and you assume it's roadkill, don't. Dirty hunters discard the bodies when they realize they can't get away with it. A truck or car is bound to hit it (and they usually do) so the evidence is wiped away. But every once in a while, the highway patrol will find traces of ammunition in the carcass, proving it wasn't a vehicular impact that killed the animal.

See, here, when you go to have your deer processed professionally (which the local laws prefer, but cannot enforce.) the processing facility has to record your name, age, how many specimens of game you're bringing in, what it weighs, etc. If you're over the limit, they will report you to the law for going over the limit. First time offenders usually get a slap on the wrist followed up by "Don't you do that again, okay? Good. Have a nice day."
So, if someone's broken the law and they can't process the animal themselves, they're stuck with a massive, soon to be rotting carcass, and lemme tell you...that's a smell you cannot get out of your memory once it's in there. Oh hell no. So...they chuck 'em on the side of the road. (This is only during hunting season though. Rest of the year? 100% roadkill.)

I thought it would be something along the lines of $50-500.00 or something. I didn't think we were talking about the price of a used car, here. So yeah, you can get in seriously deep trouble here when it comes to deer and other animals.

 

Yeah, I will trust the judgements of professional conservationists who run the systems and write the laws.

Deer are wild animals that should be killed frequently and whenever possible... hopefully by thier natural predator, but due to ignorant humans attaching human emotions like "innocent" and "murderer" to animals, wolves are dead and Deer are overpopulating and starving.

They are not magestic animals, they are basically wild cows and are no better than giant Rats when it comes to interaction with human society.

I wonder how many people who feel baby deer are 'innocent' have no problem throwing away their garbage when it is full of maggots? Aren't those innocent baby flies? How dare you throw out your garbage and have those innocent creatures murdered brutally by your own hand.

See how that works?

There is way too much attachment of human emotion to animals, especially baby animals. You do know that Baby animals die frequently in nature by design right? You do know that Baby animals are primary on the Prey list and intended to be killed. If we took every baby deer who losts its mother to a preserve and spent money saving it, we would go broke as a society. Babies are left alone all the time, and they wander around lost, starving until they drop dead or run over by something, and it is CRUEL to save them. It is Humane to let them die by nature's own hand.

I don't really care what the old lady did, but I think some people have some harmful misconceptions about animals and how they should be treated and are working themselves up based on some pretty bad justification.

 

Even "professional conservationists who run the systems" based on old myths? Did they tell you that albinos are "cursed", too?
Albinism is a lack of skin pigmentation. It has precisely nothing to do with fertility. But don't take my word for it, try asking a couple of albino parents how they managed to naturally conceive their own albino children.

 

I mean this in the nicest way possible,but you're a pretty fucked up individual. Remember in Blade Runner how the only way you could tell a human from an android was to measure their capacity for empathy?

This does raise an interesting question though,why is it when an old woman does this,it's wrong,but when a drunken hick does it,he's hailed as a "sportsman"?

 

I don't think the people who are upset at the old lady and the people who think shooting animals is a good sport are the same people.

Anyway, the problem here isn't so much that a deer was killed. Their breeding habits are designed to account for wolves that aren't there, so the population does need to be controlled in some way. The problem is that it was killed wastefully and in a cruel manner. There's no excuse for that.

And nkelsch, the near-extinction of wolves has nothing to do with protecting "innocent" deer or punishing "murderous" wolves. It happened long before empathy toward animals was so popular. It has everything to do with overreacting to animals perceived as a threat to the safety of humans.

 

Are you a Vegan? if not, you are a hypocrite.

Deer are nothing more than 'WILD BOVINE'. And I have no problem with them being killed for food or population control. I think letting a population run rampant so it causes animals to starve to death and destroys ecosystems that impacts hundreds of other species is cruel.

The only reason anyone gives a damn is because they attach human emotions to animals and think they are cute and innocent, when they are not. People who attach human emotions to animals are what is wrong this world and they are the careless peopel who are causing harm to animals. They are the reason why ugly animals or animals who 'hunt' were eradicated as pests while the 'cute lovable, innocent animals' are overpopulated.

If those people would have not attached those emotions, we would still have reasonable populations of predatory species that could keep these populations in check without the need for Humans needing to fulfill. the 'predatory' role.

And what about the baby flies? why are they not innocent? Why do those maggots not have the same right to life as a baby dear? Anyone who disturbs garbage once Maggots have been formed is a monster murdering innocent babies and needs to be arrested. See how that works?

Baby deer lose thier mothers all the time. And those baby deer will die. That is how nature works and it would have worked better if there was a predatory species eating those baby deer. If we tried to save every baby deer through putting them in Zoos and handraising them and all that jazz we would bankrupt most of our local state and park wildlife resources. It doesn't mean kill every baby deer on sight, but it also doesn't mean drop everything and rescue them and save them. We don't do that for most other animals, why? Because they are percieved as pests and a nuisance. Hell, most people if they find a nest of wild animals inside their house like mice or bats or possums under thier porch, they have them exterminated and no one cries foul.

The only reason people are bent out of shape is they feel 'baby deer are innocent'. If this story was Woman kills a different, less desirable animal, the internet lynchmob wouldn't be stringing her up.

Even if she didn't kill it, I don't feel anything should have been done for the deer and it probably would have wandered off where it would have died via car accident or starvation. So I have no issue with the end result being a dead baby deer. That is working as intended. It sucks but I didn't design nature that way.

 

Don't be so bloody stupid. There is quite a lot of ground between "vegan" and "beating animals to death with a shovel for no reason." Stop pissing about with questions of who eats meat, and which animal populations need to be controlled and address the issue: a deranged old woman beat a defenseless animal to death with a shovel. There is NO justification for that whatsoever.

 

I think there's bigger problems in the world than people attaching a human emotion to an animal,to tell you the truth.

I'm not a vegan,but I do have this crazy belief that murdering a cow that has been raised for consumption so people can eat is a TINY bit different than beating the shit out of a baby deer with a shovel 'till it's skull shatters.

WTF do you keep going on about maggots? When you throw out the garbage,how does it kill any maggots? The maggots aren't even there until the garbage is in the can. Come to think of it,I don't know what housekeeping skills the people in your residence possess,but here at my house we don't have insects and maggots infesting our trashcans.

 

I didn't defend her... But I do disagree with the 'INNCOENT BABY DEER' as that is the line of thought that has justified the killing of lots of wild animals because some animals are labeled as 'innocent' while others are 'pests'.

I disagree with the idea that Baby deer somehow need to be protected from nature by Humans or else you are a cruel person because baby animals are innocent.

 

And again: stop pissing about with irrelevant issues. That's not what the story is about, it's not what the discussion is about.

 

Technically, Houseflies lay eggs on food while we are still preparing and consuming it many times. So if a Duck laid an egg in your potato salad mid-dinner, it would be wrong because baby ducks are cute? But if a Fly does it, it is ok to destroy that developing baby animal? is that maggot not innocent?

Baby animals die in nature. That deer was no more innocent than anything else out there. She did wrong and was cited for it, but people take it to extremes as if she murdered a baby human with that shovel. The whole point is 'perspective'. They are increasing the severity of the crime because they have attached human emotions to the animals. If she destroyed a nest of ants or smashed a baby mole with that shovel would anyone have cared? And there is the hypocrisy.

 

The thread is about blowing this way out of proportion and compare her crime to killing something pure and innocent like a person because people attach higher levels of 'worth' to like-able animals and baby animals then simply saying she hurt an animal in a cruel way.

The Internet Lynch mob needs some perspective. She got her fine and she knows not to do it again.