Crazy Man

[chinasmom]

This guy is being held on a 30.000.00 dollar bond.


Angry Dad shoots family dogs a... (http://www.wspa.com/midatlantic/spa/news.apx.-content-articles-SPA-2008-02-27-0016.html)

[JRSPITS]

Wow, what law did he break? I don't agree with what he did, but what did they charge him with? IMO execution style is humane, better than making them suffer.

[yellaman420]

Thats just foul, son! I dont care what 'law' he broke, that was just mean spirited. 'Tex' needs to get his head right. Poor kids.

[confederatemule]

Wow, what law did he break? I don't agree with what he did, but what did they charge him with? IMO execution style is humane, better than making them suffer.I agree with you.

[chinasmom]

Did you read the part where he came home early in the morning in a drunken stuper and decided to do this in front of his small children? He was charged with three counts of animal cruely which could carry 9 to 15 months in jail for all three. If he wanted to get rid of the family pets, I think he could have done it in a better way. That's just sorry and a sad excuse for a father. I thought pple on here are always hollering about stiffer penalties, Ban the Deed, Not the Breed. Well, I personally think he got what he deserved. Drunk Basturd... He should have shot himself while he was at it. Now, when he gets out, what will those kids think about this man they are supposed to call Daddy. Did any of you think that far ahead? :rolleyes:

[confederatemule]

No, I did not read that far down.

Personaly, I do not see that he broke a law.

As far as the kids go, they will grow up and each one will be different from the other.

If there was a way to know, I'll bet most of the best people were raised in bad inviornments and the worst people were raised in squeeky clean inviornments.

Me, I like to think I would of handled it differently.

Said my peace, I am finished. Sorry if I offended.

[buzhunter]

WOW! I agree - that was some cold sh*t to do but I don't agree that he should have been charged. iMO what he did was morally offensive but not a legal offense. Attempting to legislate morality is a very slippery slope.

[JRSPITS]

I totally agree that what he did was horrible and his kids probably suffered watching it. My feelings aren't the law though. Will we need a permit from a judge or vet stating the animal should be euth. in order to do it? I don't think the dogs were abused by him with one shot, therefore didn't break the law. Now if they charged him with child abuse for making the kids watch I would be ok with that! But we all know that kids aren't as important as dogs LOL.

[ABK]

What a sick fukker! I for one am GLAD he's in jail!!

As for what law did he break - are you kidding me? These weren't sick dogs, these weren't even culls, they were innocent pups he decided to shoot in a drunken rage.

But back to my point - the law he broke was clearly stated - cruelty to animals. In many communities it is illegal to shoot or otherwise euth an animal youself. And luckily the community this guy lived in had such a law in place.

Then it is said it's OK to shoot them b/c they didn't suffer. How do we know they didn't suffer? It doesn't say whether they did or not. You're just assuming they didn't. But there is absolutley no mention of the guy being a crackerjack shot who dispatched them all w/ one bullet each. It just says he shot them. And just b/c you shoot a dog doesn't mean the dog automatically goes quickly & painelessly. A botched shot job can be one of the worst ways for a dog to go.

Not to mention he probably scarred the kids for life - too bad the sorry bastard wasn't charged w/ child abuse & child endangerment too!

Heck, I remeber when I was in gradeschool my Mom was yelling at us kids & our kitten happened to walk by. She grabbed it & flung it against the wall. I am a grown woman & I still remember that & cry. And my cat lived. HTF do you think some drunken loser exceuting their puppies in front of them is going to affect them mentally?

All in all IMO this guy is in serious need of either a good stay in jail or a detox facility - or both! :mad:

[chinasmom]

The law he broke was inhumane treatment of an otherwise perfectly trio of dogs. If there is a stray on my property, I'm not allowed to even shoot over it's head to scare it off. Guess some have lived in the country too long. You just don't do that sh&t in a community. As I said, the Swastika tattooed ass should stay in jail. Too many ppl getting away with what they think is right.

[buzhunter]

...Too many ppl getting away with what they think is right.
That is a very good point. Brings to mind the HSUS and PETA. Too many people being persecuted and criminalized for what other people beleive is wrong.

[coolhandjean]

If he was going to be charged with anything, I would have charged him with Child endangerment, not animal cruelty. While yes his reasons for taking the dogs' lives were shitty, he didn't strangle them or make them suffer, he put a quick bullet to their head, which is probably the most humane way to kill an animal. But seeing how he was drunk, he could have hurt his children, physically, and that is where the charge should lie. He put those children at risk. Also, he should get reckless discharge of a firearm. I think the wrong charges were made.

[chinasmom]

If he was going to be charged with anything, I would have charged him with Child endangerment, not animal cruelty. While yes his reasons for taking the dogs' lives were shitty, he didn't strangle them or make them suffer, he put a quick bullet to their head, which is probably the most humane way to kill an animal. But seeing how he was drunk, he could have hurt his children, physically, and that is where the charge should lie. He put those children at risk. Also, he should get reckless discharge of a firearm. I think the wrong charges were made.Then it is said it's OK to shoot them b/c they didn't suffer. How do we know they didn't suffer? It doesn't say whether they did or not. You're just assuming they didn't. But there is absolutley no mention of the guy being a crackerjack shot who dispatched them all w/ one bullet each. It just says he shot them. And just b/c you shoot a dog doesn't mean the dog automatically goes quickly & painelessly. A botched shot job can be one of the worst ways for a dog to go.

As ABK said, we don't know about the suffering part and he was drunk, he may have shot six times. You know you do see double when drunk.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/chinasmom/drunk-1.jpg

[coolhandjean]

I thought they said that he shot them execution style, which to me means a bullet to the head. I might have the term wrong though. I still would rather see him get some time for the danger he put his kids in more than what he did to the dogs. If he did shoot somewhere besides the head and just let them bleed out, then yes, he deserves to get Animal Cruelty added on, but it shouldn't be the main charge. The main charge should be child endangerment with animal cruelty and reckless discharge of a firearm, tacked on to it.