Police Arrest Man for Torturing Tortoise

In that case, shouldn't troubled people like this be rehabilitated - rather than severely punished?

I recommend you read up on how effective our jail system really is before suggesting that putting this guy away with other hardened criminals is a great idea.

Well, I do believe in God. I can just see the Lord returning and starting to ask some tough questions.

"What's this about the passenger pigeon? You musta had billions of 'em. Ate 'em all didn't you? And what about those dodo birds, .... dammit, my fresh water dolpins are gone too ! Can't trust you with anything! Eating monkeys, too, I see. And, you managed to melt the glaciers and pollute your skies. What God the Father ever saw in you nasty little creatures, I'll never know,"

The poor turtle. God damn, that's awful.

Henry's right though. Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent should suffer, and do the guilty really have to add to the suffering anyway? I mean is that really going to fix anything?

And if you want to start rounding up torturers of people......

In that case, shouldn't troubled people like this be rehabilitated - rather than severely punished?

Maybe he's troubled. Maybe he's just an ass. I have very little sympathy (read: none) for those who abuse animals, but at least I'll acknowledge that my knee-jerk reaction (that the torturers be fed to crocodiles) is perhaps a tad irrational. Still think he should be fed to crocodiles, though...

People who are asses have my sympathy.

Was an ass kind to you, once?

They're stubborn bastards with hearts of gold. And when you breed them with horses you get mules.

And when you breed them with horses you get mules.

I've always wanted a mule. I'll have to try that!

Methought I was enamour'd of an ass.

Again, only if those that care for him can do the same to you when you're done.

For a nation full of Christians, Americans are not very forgiving.

I'm not Christian, I'm not American.

I've never met this tortoise, and if it weren't for Newsvine I doubt I'd have known it existed. The only reason I care about this tortoise is because dick-a-lot above tried to kill it with a knife. A tiny defenseless animal verse a kid-looking twit. Hmm? At least he'd be able to defend himself against my attacks on him, and myself against the small pack of wolves that care for him, too.

I'm not going to bother defending myself -- don't even know why I'm replying to your waft.

Because you have nothing better to do, and torturing turtles isn't your thing.

I expect the next article to be titled "Children Charged for Tearing Wings From Flies".

Am I misreading it, or does this comment belittle the torture of animals, such as kittens, tortoises...?

I am not belittling, but commenting on the sad state of affairs that this is what you consider national news. In my opinion, this is up there with Paris Hilton in newsworthiness because it is sensationalist and has no real effect on any of our lives. The man should be put into rehab and that should be the end of the story. His acts should not be used to distract otherwise intelligent people from real issues.

I am not belittling, but commenting on the sad state of affairs that this is what you consider national news.

I see your point, but it isn't as though we vote on what gets to be national news - it's as mystifying to us as anyone (I'd hope). I'd like to think that we can focus on multiple issues, however (although the Paris Hilton this is mystifying, granted), and reading about a man torturing a tortoise isn't preventing me from reading other news, it's giving me something to do instead of hitting 'refresh' (sad but true). I think it serves a purpose though, stories such as this; they further the sense of societal taboo, and hopefully prevent other cases, though obviously not all.

Much agreed, Tom.

Henry VII: You obviously do not value animal life highly. You've categorized this issue as sensationalist and compared it to a Paris Hilton story. Wow.

These stories, while disturbing, are not sensationalist. The great hope is that people will make a decision based on the information - to decide on the gravity of the situation and whether it is right, wrong or indifferent.

In this case, most people have never gone through the mental process of decided whether or not the torture of a tortoise is good, bad or indifferent. Now, many of us have sadly had to go through that process.

Reading the story made me a better person. It galvanized my thinking that animal torture is abhorrent, that I should be outraged and that I shouldn't be afraid to take a public stance.

I don't have the same feelings when I read a sensationalist, puff-piece on Paris Hilton (thankfully).

So this is a real issue. This can be a mechanism for parents to teach children about right and wrong. This can be a way for people to better understand themselves, and it certainly can be a way to understand other people based on their response.

I won't minimize or trivialize dogs, cats, ferrets, tortoises or other animals. It's part of my responsibility as a decent person to be outraged.

My outrage manifests itself in speaking out, commenting on Newsvine, calling the DA's office to tell them to throw the book at this loser and calling for tougher animal cruelty laws. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed by law to do much more than that, although I have a few creative ideas...

So yeah, this issue is up there. Too bad it doesn't hit you that way.

Chasing, Dan, both of you: very well said.

You obviously do not value animal life highly.

You are correct, but I bet that nine out of ten people who commented on how awful these articles are went on to have a burger the very same day. This is a local issue, not worthy of national attention.

In this case, most people have never gone through the mental process of decided whether or not the torture of a tortoise is good, bad or indifferent. Now, many of us have sadly had to go through that process.

Yes, but I think it's sad that most people seem to care more about this one turtle than human torture and human genocide going on around the world.

I have to ask you all - where do you draw the line? Is it at pets? Pets aren't eaten in America, so they deserve the same rights as humans? Dogs should get rights... cats should... apparently turtles... how about rabbits? pigeons? earthworms? Obviously, from the reaction here you don't consider bugs to be as important as turtles. So, where do you draw the live on which creatures should have rights?

I'd like to point out that hurting the fellow isn't going to make the turtle any better and it seems to me that you're just looking for justification for committing human torture. Upping the strength of laws is not going to deter more people from doing this. It's just going to hurt those poor sick bastards more.

At least the turtle has a loving owner, and soon enough the poor thing will heal. I wonder what kind of an awful life a person must have that would lead him to do something like this. Talk about human torture, you want this guy to suffer as much as possible because you have justification to make him suffer. What if it later turned out that it wasn't even him?

Or what if he suffers and his mind becomes even more warped and he now intentionally goes around torturing turtles, but he is better about it an avoids apprehension. Or perhaps he is apprehended again and again and again, each time being twisted more by stricter punishments. Would you eventually support capital punishment or perhaps permanent imprisonment? You'd support destroying his life for something he did without your knowing why? You'd destroy another human being who you have never met and will never meet? How do you know it wasn't the sheriff or his son that did it and the boy in the picture is being used as a scapegoat. You don't, all you know is what you've read and it's gotten you pumped into a fierce fervor over something you don't know anything about firsthand. This could be all made up for all any of us know.

I just don't see human torture as being justified. And punishment for crimes is by necessity torture as a deterrent to other criminals. But we've been doing that for thousands of years and it still hasn't really worked.

I have to agree with Henry insomuch as this being sensationalist, because there are larger issues. Unfortunately these stories exist everyday, but their getting national attention now because Micheal Vick may or may not have been a part of illegal dog fighting. That doesn't mean its okay to torture animals, it doesn't mean this kid shouldn't be served justice, but it does mean this is about the media distracting us with these self made hot-button issues, that get us fired up, watching their networks, visiting their websites and buying their publications. Its sensationalist because its capitalizing by stirring the pot.

I don't need an article about a kid torturing a turtle to know if I would or wouldn't torture a turtle.

So, where do you draw the live on which creatures should have rights?

Well, except you do the same thing. Humans, after all, are "creatures", and you think they should have more rights than dogs. Just because you draw the line in a different place doesn't invalidate where others draw their line, and, personally, I'd have to at least respect the line that does the least harm to the most creatures, even if it isn't the line I toe myself.

And I don't eat burgers.

Yes, but I think it's sad that most people seem to care more about this one turtle than human torture and human genocide going on around the world.

Did it ever occur to you that we could care about both?

Well put, Tom - caring for people, pets and animals are not mutually exclusive. Caring in any context is not wrong, nor is the ability to equalize your caring. Some people value people, pets, animals, trees, plants, and insects to a different level than others. Minimizing the value of any is what becomes the concern.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily trying to equate a tree with a human being, but do I care about wanton waste or callous treatment? Sure I do. Do I care that something was treated cruelly? Absolutely.

So the idea I should "downscale" my considerations based on some wide-gap value scale seems absurd and wrong.

"It's just a dog..." or "It's just a turtle..." - I can't buy in to that. Thankfully.

Your point of,

(drawing the line)...at wanton physical violence ... violence for the sake of violence, violence for the sake of amusement.

---says it all. That's what we need to be about.

So, if he ate the turtle afterwards - it would be okay? Same for the girls with the cat?

So, if he ate the turtle afterwards - it would be okay? Same for the girls with the cat?

Eating a hamburger is not a warning sign that you may be a sociopath. Torturing a kitten, however, is.

Hey Henry? Howsabout you write an article about human torture? A well-researched, well-written article about the torturing of a human? Include your feelings that you've presented here as regards your opinion that people seem to care more about the torture of a turtle or a cat than a human.

And let's see what happens.

And please, and I mean this in all sincerity and honesty, feel free to contact me privately if you'd like to bounce some ideas around.

Because I think you're halfway to making some very good points here, and your thoughts on the subject could inspire an amazing conversation.

Please consider it.

Henry does have a point/ The way the food industry raises these animals, particularly chickens, can be considered torture, but I don't hear you getting up in arms about it.

Eating a hamburger is not a warning sign that you may be a sociopath. Torturing a kitten, however, is.

This is a non-fact most of you have been spouting. Just because you look an a sociopath's past and see that he or she tortured animals does not mean there's a relationship. You of course ignore all of the people who have tortured animals and nothing ever came of it afterwards - just some stupid kids having stupid fun.

Further, you act like being a sociopath is a choice - especially when you state the same should be done in return to these kids or that they should be thrown in prison.

It's blatant ignorance with a dash of hypocrisy boiled in idiocy served on a sensationalist platter!

Viki, I'll consider it - but I expect to be quite busy these next few weeks - so it may take a while.

Henry,

hardly a "nonfact". There is a respected body of work the correlates animal abuse and criminal behavior. May I direct you to the winter 2003/2004, vol. 5, no. 3 & 4, of the National Child Advocate article "The Correlation between Child Abuse, Animal Abuse, and Domestic Violence"? They're not talking pulling a leg off a spider or squashing a cockroach, but specify pet abuse as both a sign of being abused and becoming a future abuser.

Henry, I hope you do consider it. It would make for an excellent article. And I meant my offer of help/guidance/whatever.

This is the kind of discussion that is ripe for a great response article laying out your thoughts. Please do it!

This is a non-fact most of you have been spouting.

Really? I guess I'll go turn in my degree, then, in exchange for one more "fact" than "non". It is most definitely true that a) eating a hamburger is not a warning sign that you are a sociopath, and b) torturing a kitten is. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into your worldview.

You of course ignore all of the people who have tortured animals and nothing ever came of it afterwards - just some stupid kids having stupid fun.

You just equated torturing an animal to "fun". Qualifying it as "stupid" fun hardly does you any favors.

but I don't hear you getting up in arms about it.

Yuriy, I don't know who that was aimed at, but for myself, I'm a vegetarian, and have been for a good twelve years. I acknowledge that "meat" is an awful affair, but that doesn't make torturing a kitten (or tortoise, or dog) any less horrid.

They're not talking pulling a leg off a spider or squashing a cockroach, but specify pet abuse as both a sign of being abused and becoming a future abuser.

A relationship does not prove causality. Even junior high school students can admit that fact. You have as much proof of this "fact" as the "fact" that the number of pirates in the world is the cause of global climate change.

You just equated torturing an animal to "fun". Qualifying it as "stupid" fun hardly does you any favors.

Kids are stupid - what can I say? I would guess that your degree is in psychology, but if you know nothing about how young boys experiment with things like this as children - perhaps you've specialized in a different area. Don't you have a PETA rally you should be attending?

but if you know nothing about how young boys experiment with things like this as children

Funny, that. I was a "young boy", once. I don't recall the section in the handbook on torture, however.

And I'm not a fan of PETA. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your dismissive generalizations.

You have as much proof of this "fact" as the "fact" that the number of pirates in the world is the cause of global climate change.

Do we now?

A history of animal cruelty during childhood was significantly associated with APD, antisocial personality traits, and polysubstance abuse. Mental retardation, psychotic disorders, and alcohol abuse showed no such association.

APD being antisocial personality disorder. Now, about those pirates...

And I'm not a fan of PETA. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your dismissive generalizations.

When I see vegetarian and likes animals over humans, I think PETA. I'm not alone in that thinking. Again, it's just a relationship - and doesn't prove causality - which is exactly my point when it comes to animal cruelty being used to predict human torture.

The point is that probably one in five children perform some kind of animal cruelty before they reach the age of eighteen. This is probably much less so among children who grew up in major cities where wildlife is not abundant. Still, of those one in five - probably one in one ten thousand of them end up torturing humans in the future. You completely ignore the 9999 that go on to live quite normal lives.

As for the pirates, you can see the relationship here.

When I see vegetarian and likes animals over humans, I think PETA. I'm not alone in that thinking.

I don't like meat, and I don't "like animals over humans", but nice try. Just because you're not alone in that thinking doesn't make you accurate, it just means you have comfort in numbers. Not exactly something to shout from the rooftops, or prove a point.

The point is that probably one in five children perform some kind of animal cruelty before they reach the age of eighteen.

I was kind enough to link to a report backing up my my assertion. Now, why don't you do the same? And, while you're at it, perhaps a third that says the two must be mutually exclusive? Many thanks.

PS - this "child" we're talking about is 18.

I don't like meat, and I don't "like animals over humans", but nice try.

That's exactly what a PETA member would say. Still, you continue to assert that a relationship proves causality - eschewing accepted facts about logic. So, we are done.

I simply find that no turtle's life is more important than a human's life - even the life a twisted human that needs psychological help, not jail time.

Still, you continue to assert that a relationship proves causality - eschewing accepted facts about logic. So, we are done.

You mean that link I provided you with? Yeah, that's eschewing "accepted facts about logic". Darn those scientific papers! Darn them all to heck!

I simply find that no turtle's life is more important than a human's life - even the life a twisted human that needs psychological help, not jail time.

Again, you'll find that I do not think a "turtle's life is more important than a human's life". I can repeat it again, if the next time will be the charm?

The point is that probably one in five children perform some kind of animal cruelty before they reach the age of eighteen. This is probably much less so among children who grew up in major cities where wildlife is not abundant. Still, of those one in five - probably one in one ten thousand of them end up torturing humans in the future. You completely ignore the 9999 that go on to live quite normal lives.

Apparently, from this admittedly limited sample, 1 in 1 statistics is made up on the spot.

It's funny that you get bent out of shape over rules of logic, but have no compunction in drawing logical inferences from statistics that it appears you just presented based on your personal feeling for the matter. There's nothing wrong at all with ignoring a baseless statistic.

You mean that link I provided you with?

You provided a link that shows a relationship, not a causality. How many times do you want me to spell it out for you? Essentially, your argument is that if you see a person eating a salad - they are probably a vegetarian... whereas I acknowledge that there are plenty of normal people that enjoy the occasional salad.

Again, you'll find that I do not think a "turtle's life is more important than a human's life". I can repeat it again, if the next time will be the charm?

You can lie as many times as you want, but your previous statements [and the statements of many others on this and the other article] clearly say otherwise. Saying that you want him tortured or eaten or whatever does nothing to help this man. For someone who supposedly has a degree in the area, you're like a doctor that won't help a cancer patient because you believe it's their fault. Friends of mine are psychologists, and every one of them would say that this person needs help that can't be provided by jail time, being tortured, or being eaten.

It's funny that you get bent out of shape over rules of logic, but have no compunction in drawing logical inferences from statistics that it appears you just presented based on your personal feeling for the matter.

If you'd like to fund the study, I would be fully willing to have it carried out. The fact of the matter is that these kinds of studies are not done - and when they are done, people lie. If you call 100 people and survey them on whether they tortured an animal as a child, do you honestly believe that any of them would admit to doing so? With sociopaths that you see fit to put in jail, you can look at their history and see what is in common - but you fail to differentiate that from what is a societal norm in this instance. You can look at the histories of school shootings and see that most of these children listened to rock music and played video games. That does not mean that either of these things caused or influenced the person's decision to kill.

Clearly, my statistics used the word "probably" because I wanted to point out the fallacy in assuming that one who tortures animals will also torture humans. My goal was not to show the opposite, but that your current information is a relationship and not a causality. I don't need to do another study to show this, I only need to show a theoretical model where your logic falls apart.

IF you prevented the children from torturing animals, would this prevent them from torturing humans later?

Also, animals can be far more charismatic than people.

Yuriy, that is a good question. If I can advance parameters for defining pathological animal torture, it would be a repeated pattern deliberate infliction of pain for amusement or gratification, beyond teasing, and toward a vertebrate, particularly toward pet by someone with the capacity to know better. (Re; vertebrates my rationale is, one forms a relationship with a pet, though probably not with a lightning bug, let's say.) Because the torture is a perversion of a relationship, it is serious. Childhood torture of animals is usually a symptom - sometimes it's a sign that the child is abused or traumatized, sometimes it's inborn - nature/nurture. it is an acting out that must not be ignored o excused away.

Now that I've defined what I'm talking about, yes, I do think that prevention would be helpful. In fact, one good reason for a family pet is to teach compassion.

You seem to be ignoring a lot of what's being said, so why don't I spell it out for you.

You provided a link that shows a relationship, not a causality.

He said "warning sign," not causality. A warning sign is an indicator, not a cause. If you go out and drink to get drunk, it may be a sign you're an alcoholic, but it's hardly an absolute. If you have high blood pressure it's a warning sign that you may be at risk for heart disease, but it's hardly an absolute. Warning signs are just what they say they are.

This guy by most reasonable definitions of "warning signs" clearly demonstrated a warning sign given the link Chasing provided showing significant statistical correlation. Correlation, not causation, which is all "warning sign" implies. And when you take into account the rest of the story, which includes theft, a crime by almost anyone's definition (and by the way, criminal behavior correlates significantly with some mental illnesses, too), then speculating on his mental health is not unreasonable.

You can lie as many times as you want, but your previous statements [and the statements of many others on this and the other article] clearly say otherwise.

You have some nerve. Go back and read every statement Chasing has made in this thread, and you won't find anything where he suggested that. You throw around "liar" a lot here, but you're the one making up fantasy statistics. Many people would call that lying.

Just to head this off at the pass, I imagine you'll try to come back with the "fed to crocodiles" statement further up. First, most people would take such an absurd suggestion as a joke. I suggest you do so. Your lack of humor is noted. Second, no comparison between the life of a human and that of a tortoise was made with that comment. If you read that to mean that Chasing likes animals over humans (I guess maybe he especially favors crocodiles), then you are reading your own bias into his statement.

Trying to attribute the statements by others to him is ridiculous and absolutely idiotic. If anyone were to try to do that to you, you would be rightly critical of them. If you're going to criticize Chasing, address what Chasing said, not "what many others on this" thread said.

If you'd like to fund the study, I would be fully willing to have it carried out.

That's a lot of words to say, "I just made it up all up." Noted, in case I see you attempt to use statistics to back your arguments again on Newsvine.

Yuriy, I especially like squirrels, even though I know they're little rabies factories.

You provided a link that shows a relationship, not a causality.

Uhm. Bingo? I'll refer you back to Spiffie's excellent reply, should you need more.

Anyway, methinks you doth protest too much, Henry.

I like chipmunks because of Chip and Dale. They were Bilokonsky favorites.

I had a dog for a bit, but my mother made me get rid of it. She did the same with my kittens, and my toads I used to domesticate. I wonder what sort of effect that has on a person.

Particularly since my dear dog's new owners went and had him injected with harmful chemicals (so that now he's probably autistic) and had him castrated (which they never do in Europe). He was a good friend.

Were you a Rescue Ranger, Yuriy?

I actually prefer Mac and Tosh to Chip and Dale, but then I generally think that Warner Brothers cartoons of the era are far superior to Disney cartoons.

WB cartoons are the towering cultural achievement of the 20th century. I'd give up Stravinsky, Picasso, Miro, Balanchine, ec, for the Termite Terrace output. Sublime. & Ridiulous.

I vaguely remember Mac and Tosh. But they were never marketed like Chip and Dale. They shoulda been.

"Shall we?"
"Surely!"

"you're hired"?

My friend's favorite dog was intentionally run over when he was young. Scarred him for life. He plots revenge with no hopes of ever fulfilling it. I can completely understand the sentiment.