The girl is a factor that makes this even more sad, but she's not the sole reason for the outrage. This kid beat a dog with a bat for no other reason than because he can. No animals should have to be treated like this. The animals we use for food certainly don't. This little jackass did something so reprehensible that it makes him less than human in my eyes.
Freak, I think I personally would be appaled whether it was a stray or a pet. Ther ewas a case in my area a long time ago before such things got lots of publicity where a local teen was caught using some stray cats to test the sharpness of his lawn mower blades. I think the general consensus was that the community was pretty upset about it and he received some sort of sentence. I do think thought that there is a difference between animal cruelty and slaughtering an animal for food. TO do what this sicko did to that dog was cruel. It was a barbaric act that had no reasoning behind it except that it was done by someone with a sick mind. when animals are slaughtered for food there is a purpose behind the act. the purpose is to provide nourishment for someone or something. Another difference, this kid did not beat the animal to actual death. He beat it into suffering. Leaving it alive enough to go through a painful period before it dies. Slaughtering is meant to be a quick death. There is no intention of leaving an animal that is being slaughtered alive just so you can watch it suffer or get some pleasure out of the fact that it is suffering. CK
someone needs to stick that bat up his ass. i cant belive someone would do something like this. why is beyond me.
First, the kid's sick. Animal torture is almost always an early sign of someone who will be violent toward people. Most serial killers started on animals. Second, the tragedy is much greater because the dog was a pet -- the dog wasn't the only the one who will suffer. But Freak has a good point. Livestock and fowl are also killed in painful ways. He asked if the tragedy of their painful deaths was lessened by the fact that they'd be eaten. I say no. Obviously, no livestock (in this country at least) is killed in quite so tortuous a fashion, but he's right to raise the spectre of hypocrisy. How many of you read this thread, felt sick about what the dog suffered, and then ate a dead animal for lunch? I'm not trying to equate the two and I'm not trying to preach. Only saying Freak raises a legitimate question.
It doesn't bother because it was a pet. It bothers because of the individual. As Bats pointed out, its a sign of a particular mindset. I have no respect for a person who would inflict pain on anything simply because they can, and its generally an indication of the character of the person. An animal like a pet is - in most cases - about as innocent and defenseless as you can get. If someone gets their enjoyment from hurting something like that, it doesn't get much more pathetic than that.
