Putting old yeller down...

[j4l]

And "credibilty" ?? to who? You? A kid? Yahoos that shoot at things that "look scary" ?
Are you even remotely serious?

 

[RetiredOC]

And "credibilty" ?? to who? You? A kid? Yahoos that shoot at things that "look scary" ?
Are you even remotely serious?

It is spelled credibility. I believe it was you that told someone in another thread that "hooked on phonics works."

Yes. You have lost CREDIBILITY by using personal attacks to argue instead of standing on solid sources and facts. It's sad you need a 'kid' to tell you this.

 

[j4l]

It is spelled credibility. I believe it was you that told someone in another thread that "hooked on phonics works."

Yes. You have lost CREDIBILITY by using personal attacks to argue instead of standing on solid sources and facts. It's sad you need a 'kid' to tell you this.

None of this is a "personal attack". If you can even remotely consider anything in here to be so, you are in for some serious surprises in life when an actual attack of anything more than some words on a message board occur to you.

As to CREDIBILITY, Ive no need to prove a damned thing to any kid-in here or elsewhere- or anyone else for that matter, as I have long, long since established every ounce of credibility that I need to- long before your parents even finished High School

COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

 

[wrightme]

When surrender isnt quiet wimpy enough, cry to mods for help.


Bottom line. You posted a question to us.
You were given the answer to the question.
You didnt like the answers (and the fact that almost every, single person who answered told you this was not a good idea) -too bloody bad.
In time, with a lot more years under your belt, and (hopefully) at least some kind of life-experience along the way, you'll learn that answers you dont like arent always the wrong answers-just not the ones you hope to hear. Man up, already.

He has no need to surrender. It is valid to point out, as has been done, that ending the pain and suffering of an animal isn't cruelty. Unless case law EXISTS to show that ending the pain and suffering of an animal has resulted in punishment under that statute, you are on loose sand. Do you have cases to reference where ending the suffering of an animal is akin to causing suffering of an animal?

 

[RetiredOC]

None of this is a "personal attack". If you can even remotely consider anything in here to be so, you are in for some serious surprises in life when an actual attack of anything more than some words on a message board occur to you.

As to CREDIBILITY, Ive no need to prove a damned thing to any kid-in here or elsewhere- or anyone else for that matter, as I have long, long since established every ounce of credibility that I need to- long before your parents even finished High School and had their little "accident" of biology.

Yes, attacking someone's character through childish name calling is a personal attack.

No, you haven't established any credibility. In fact you've done the opposite...

 

[wrightme]

Absolute NO-GO

Class III Felony in Florida.

Statute 828.12 et seq.

Intentional Cruelty: Fine up to $10,000, imprisonment up to 5 years.
Intentional Cruelty with torture: Minimum fine of $2500 and psychological treatment.

THat does not fit the definition of the action described in the op of this thread.

 

[j4l]

THat does not fit the definition of the action described in the op of this thread.

The final word on this entirely idiotic topic- dont take my word for any of it-or any one else's in here. Contact the ASPCA, and the Human Society, and ask them.
I almost guarantee you they will tell you exactly what I said. They have the Statue in hand, and can most likely point you to any case law that might exist.
Man up, put up, or shut up.

 

[wrightme]

The final word on this entirely idiotic topic- dont take my word for any of it-or any one else's in here. Contact the ASPCA, and the Human Society, and ask them.
I almost guarantee you they will tell you exactly what I said. They have the Statue in hand, and can most likely point you to any case law that might exist.
Man up, put up, or shut up.

You seem to be a bit worked up and antagonistic.


That isn't an effective communication technique.

If you have some actual information to share from the ASPCA or the Humane Society, then you can bring it forward; instead of simply ranting and badmouthing those who do not 'yes-man' you to death.

 

[j4l]

You seem to be a bit worked up and antagonistic.


That isn't an effective communication technique.

If you have some actual information to share from the ASPCA or the Humane Society, then you can bring it forward; instead of simply ranting and badmouthing those who do not 'yes-man' you to death.

If you read any of the previous posts, I broke it all down for him 100 ways to sunday and back. Almost every other reply did so as well, in their own ways, and/or offered an alternative.

COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

I gave the links, and the contact info- he can check into it for himself.
In fact, I encourage him to do so, as he really NEEDS to hear it from the folks who are most well-versed on the matter, and who have all the info he could need or want at hand. No matter if I sugar-coat it for him, or beat him over the head with it, it's not the answer he wanted, so he's actually going to try to debate it-and fail every time.
Maybe if he hears it directly from the folks he needs to hear it from, it will sink in. Somehow I doubt it though. Instead he will probably try to get them to "cite" everything under the sun, until they come up with some answer he'll actually accept, just to get him off the phone.

But, the plain and simple fact that he wont do so merely proves my point that he knows Im 100% right on the issue, and will have to hear yet another answer he doesnt want to hear.

 

[wrightme]

If you read any of the previous posts, I broke it all down for him 100 ways to sunday and back. .

No, what you DID was misrepresent the statute, and call others names.



The statute does not define mercy killing of an animal as 'animal cruelty.' While it is possible that case law may show that to be the case, you have not supported your contention one bit, beyond bare pontification. Do you have some life problem that causes your animosity to others here, or are you naturally rude?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

The final word on this entirely idiotic topic- dont take my word for any of it-or any one else's in here. Contact the ASPCA, and the Human Society, and ask them.
I almost guarantee you they will tell you exactly what I said. They have the Statue in hand, and can most likely point you to any case law that might exist.
Man up, put up, or shut up.

Isn't that kind of like asking a cop the law?

I usually try to stay out of threads like this, but I have to take issue with the whole "age = wisdom" thing. I've personally known MANY "terminally cranky" oldsters who are no more mature or wise than the average publicly educated highschooler. Unless, j4l, there is some sort of secret wisdom initiation ritual that automatically imbues you with wit, intelligence and maturity that you haven't told us about.

 

[RetiredOC]

The final word on this entirely idiotic topic- dont take my word for any of it-or any one else's in here. Contact the ASPCA, and the Human Society, and ask them.
I almost guarantee you they will tell you exactly what I said. They have the Statue in hand, and can most likely point you to any case law that might exist.
Man up, put up, or shut up.

If I ever need a statue made at the society of humans I'll let you know.

Hooked on phonics works, by the way.

Irony?

If you read any of the previous posts, I broke it all down for him 100 ways to sunday and back. Almost every other reply did so as well, in their own ways, and/or offered an alternative.

COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

Instead he will probably try to get them to "cite" everything under the sun, until they come up with some answer he'll actually accept, just to get him off the phone.

Yes. If I am calling for information on law or case law I would like everything under the sun to have a cite. With out cited sources everyone's input would look like yours, and we can see how useful that is.

 

[ccwinstructor]

People need to take responsibility for doing what needs to be done.

Exactly. The vet doing it, is the way it needs to go. Both in the eyes of the Law- which no, you cannot get around, and in terms of a "humane" way of doing it. The shot from the vet is like the dog goes to sleep.
No one wants ever to do that to their buddy, and on that I feel for the guy.
North is right though, no matter how much he thinks it may be the right thing to do for his buddy,he will not want that as his last memory- it will stay with him forever,and he will end up hating himself for it.

It wasn't that long ago that there was a saying "A real man puts down his own dog." He doesn't fob off the job to others who may bungle it. People kill their own animals all the time.

It is the height of idiocy to say that only an expert may be licensened to do simple things that need to be done.

It is one of the things that is leading us into the nanny state.

If you cannot be trusted to put down your own dog, how can you be trusted to defend yourself?