Dead animals found in pot, freezer in Vt. home

Uh, did this happen in the future? Hello! AP! Have you considered hiring proofreaders?

its the raw feed..as we oft lament; IT will change.
(er we get it same time as the proof readers)

No, cited into court means cited to appear in court on Sept 8. No time travel necessary

aha. Teach me to read more carefully. Hence why I am not a proofreader by profession. ;)

Yeah, me too either.

That should be "nah, me too neither, whatever." Learn proper English before posting here! I can't believe you can't tell the difference between either and neither.

Excuse me....is this issue about the abusers, THE ABUSED, or the grammar police? I'm too dumbfounded reading about the horrible torture that we humans can inflict upon the defenseless (both animals and humans) to worry about proofing an article. Are we so jaded and heartless that a grammatical error gets more outrage than the atrocity (the torture and murder) perpetuated upon the innocent? Wow, are we (humankind) ever in BIG trouble.

Um, I was joking and tweaking Viki and oldcrankyman.

After you're stuck in one of those places for an hour or so, you nose shuts off in self-defense. Really, you just don't notice the smell anymore. Definitely not sanitary.

I'd have called animal control.

We think he might have been dead

I love how you just stated this and left it hanging. :)

The guy looks like...nevermind,

I wanted to go there too ... but I know a few decent people who look like that, even though I was scared to death of them at first. Most people I know who look like that are truly scary, though.

Remember the Toms Hanks' movie...The Burbs? The son from the neighbor's house...

Just as clarification I was not so much looking at his outer appearance but rather his eyes...they are distant and missing heart and soul.

Kurt! You have separated out your name. Not that it matters, I'm just wondering whether I am imagining things or not.

I don't know about petitioned to forensic residential

I didn't see any references to that term in the article. Can you please explain?

You are all talking about a "lock down mental facility" let us apply the proper clinical terminology please...and I stand by what I say...until they prove themselves a threat

So where does "forensic" come into play? According to merriam-webster, it means "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems." And I think we all know what residential means - yet nowhere are the two words together considered a clinical term.

Let us use actual terminology here, please, instead of inventing stuff.

Forensic in this logistical application applies to the criminal aspect of psychiatry and its application and residential would be the housing aspect of the circumstance. If I'm making things up then Forensic Psychiatry as a discipline just dissipated and completely disappeared and many, many people are now out of work and many dangerous people whom I know personally and you will never want to encounter are now on the street again!
Also, many residential and long term Psych facilities that I have physically dealt with and set foot in are no longer there?
You and I will have no more dealings I can see....

You and I will have no more dealings I can see....

No, we probably won't, because you apparently don't like people who challenge your "clinical terms" that aren't actually clinical terms, like "forensic residential." I'm quite familiar with forensic science, aka forensics. But you didn't use that term, and then lectured me for not using proper terminology.

No, because I refuse to argue with anyone, ever over anything but especially over something so fundamental and that is my life's experience and endeavor.

Consider it a lecture if you prefer but one thing it is and that is accurate. Deal with it!

No, you don't like to argue with anyone who calls you out on your pretensions. I can deal with it, no problem. But here on NV, you can expect to be challenged on your claims, and not just by me.

It is very telling how you refused to even discuss your challenge for us to use "clinical terms" once your "clinical terms" were shown to be a sham. Accurate ... not. Delusional ... probably.

Okay....If you say so....

Rewrite the whole Medical Discipline of clinical Forensic Psychiatry and my life while you are at it makes you feel any better and then prove me wrong....

Good Night

Great point, Jason.

It is strange, isn't it - how so many people who chime in on animal abuse issues are silent when children are the issue. Although, I have some friends who run an animal rescue league, and I am not about to tell them that they should concentrate their efforts on children instead. I even spent several days writing a database system for them for free, so they could track the animals' adoptions, vet records, etc.

I choose to use most of my volunteer time on my local fire department (doing computer work, landscaping, fundraising, painting), and also put on some events to raise money for the VA Hospital and Toys for Tots. If I had time, I'd go into the Habitat for Humanity program as well.

So .. while I agree with you on some levels, Jason, and voted up your comment, I also think we need to appreciate people's good sides regardless of where they choose to help. Someone could easily say that my volunteer work with the local FD is not helping anyone outside of my county ... and isn't feeding anyone, or helping abused children. I like to see and encourage compassion wherever it occurs (where are you Vas so I can say that I don't want to be forced into it).

I think I see where you're coming from, though - you won't often see this kind of outcry when it was a child instead of a dog or cat who was treated this way. And that really is a shame.

I also think we need to appreciate people's good sides regardless of where they choose to help.

Good point and I didn't intend to malign people who do have causes that they really care about. There are a lot of worthy causes out there (like the fire dept and Toys for Tots) and I hope people continue to support them. Thanks for he reply.

I absolutely despise people like the two mentioned in this article. I think the punishment for such a crime is weak...if I had my way I would starve them and make them live in the way which they inflicted upon on these innocent animals.

And this is another reason why I see your point!

Apparently you missed the article about Danieal in Pennsylvania. People care. We can care about all things. You know, like ALL living things...

That was uncalled for to berate a person for having compassion for these animals.

Animal abuse penalties should be the same as penalties for child abuse

I wouldn't go that far. Have you checked in your neighborhood to make sure everyone is treating their children well? Will you use prairie justice on those who aren't? Would you take one of those abused kids into your home as you would an abused puppy?

To make animal abuse and child abuse penalties the same, it is in the same sense making both crimes equal. I don't care how much people love animals, to put them on the same level as a child is ridiculous. As a start, animals don't live nearly as long as humans, thus the effects of the abuse last less time. Also, animals don't tend to create a cycle of abuse, like what happens to humans. Thus, abusing humans has much longer-term consequences.

Diana

They are manifesting a symptom.

I know you are only reflecting the inculcations of your culture when you say "lock 'em up" with vengeance which is the American answer to everything real or imagined and the numbers absolutely reflect that as well but especially at the very point of youth that you described is a critical point where the emerging Anti Social Personality might very well be treated.

The American answer? Oh boy...

"As for the effects of abuse not lasting as long in animals as it does in humans...huh? We're all God's creatures and no being should ever have to suffer for a lifetime. Whether the suffering be one year or 50 is irrelevant. "

Sure, it's not nice or politically correct to say, but it's the truth. Time is probably the most important thing when it comes to judging a crime. The time it takes to rebuild after a crime is everything. So, if you take 2 years from someone or 20 years from them, obviously the 20 is more severe.

Punishment is nothing. It is not about punishment, it is about protecting society. If it doesn't hurt society in the first place, it really shouldn't be a crime. If I steal a car, you lock me up for two reasons. First, keep me away from others so I don't commit the crime again, and second, to help retrain me to hopefully be able to function again in society. However, in some cases, rehabilitation doesn't seem feasible/possible.

On that note, why do we need to "rehabilitate" grown people who know that it was wrong to steal the car in the first place? That's just an excuse.

"On that note, why do we need to "rehabilitate" grown people who know that it was wrong to steal the car in the first place? That's just an excuse. "

Why? Because we can't kill them. That would be ridiculous, reminiscent of a police state. So, if we can't kill them, then we have two choices: keep them locked up forever or work to get them back out. If we keep them locked up, they drain tax dollars and never help society. If we work to get them back out, they can contribute tax dollars and possibly push society forward.

The point, however, is why do we keep holding everyone's hand along the way...

People need to take responsibility for themselves...rehabilitation is most often done simply through yourself (in the universal sense of yourself).

And punishment stills needs to fit the crime.

"And punishment stills needs to fit the crime. "

Indeed. It also needs to be functional. I'm not against harsh punishments. I don't think jails need to be nice. However, when we have a criminal, our focus isn't to be humane, or to appease our anger. It is to ultimately rid our society of that crime, in whatever way reasonable.

Ultimately< however l submit that it is possible and enlightened people are obligated to be 'multicausal' as it were and that Human compassion should be an everpresent component in the decision making process.

And we are still and only talking about the abuse of Animals here and not people and that these are very ill Human beings at the cause of it. Let us not lose focus of that.

It is such a low level to inflict punishment to appease anger. In fact, it is the same level as an abuser. How many times is abuse inflicted because of anger, or how about to exercise power? How can someone act that way and still stand on a moral high ground?

If you want to equalize punishment for the abuse of animals to humans, we should then equalize punishment of animals. The next time I see my dog trying to rape the bench (or a guest), oh boy...

jppager

The next time I see my dog trying to rape the bench (or a guest), oh boy...

If your dog humps my leg, I'm suing him for sexual harassment. I mean, isn't he doing it deliberately to violate my rights as a human being? I might get some puppy treats as part of my settlement.

Diana:

As I said, we're all God's creatures and "only" torturing an animal is, in my opinion, as horrible as abusing a child.

I like my father's point of view on this. He said that animals don't have rights, but that humans have a responsibility to treat them well and not abuse them. I love animals and hate those who abuse them, but I still can't equate someone torturing an animal - as horrible as that is, and as much as I would like to inflict pain on that person - to someone who abuses or tortures a child.

I don't agree with those who feel that people who contribute money to animal causes are nasty and should be spending that money on humans instead. I'm just happy if someone wants to contribute to a charity. I've seen lots of formerly abused animals due to my friends who work with rescue leagues. Yet even my rescue friends wouldn't equate a sad emotionally backward dog to a child with that same experience. For one thing, it's a lot easier for a dog to recover from that; he doesn't have to learn how to build relationships, deal with the public, get a job, and so on. He just has to learn how to trust one family and needs no other resources.

I have cats and I love them. And, I don't have children. But I have some friends whose kids are so close to me that I would kill, or risk my life, to protect them if I absolutely had to. I can't see myself killing someone who threatens my cats, or begging someone to take me instead of my cat - as much as I love my sweet furballs. I can see myself doing that for a human, especially a child.

And Diana ... if I may add, I've lost several cats over the years, and it hurt. And I've lost my father, and my sister-in-law. No way was the grief I felt when my cats died anywhere near as bad as it was when I lost a person. And from what I've heard, losing a child is even worse than losing a father, so you insult parents when you equate animal abuse with child abuse.