Too bad the judge relented...

[mnealtx 0]

Story here.

Fair use applies

Quote

Animal Cruelty Sentence

November 24, 2005 - Ohio woman ordered to spend the night in the woods after pleading guilty to animal abuse.
PAINESVILLE, Ohio (AP) - A northeast Ohio woman ordered to spend a night in the woods without food or shelter for her conviction for abandoning 35 kittens was returned to jail after four hours in the snow and cold.

Lake County sheriff's Sgt. Michael Corbut said deputies removed Michelle Murray, 26, of Painesville, from a park in Concord Township early Thursday on orders from the judge.

It was snowing with temperatures in the 20s when she was returned to the Lake County jail.

"I don't have warm enough clothes and I'm not even allowed to bring a sleeping bag," she said before she began her sentence Wednesday night. "I don't understand how a judge can send me out there to freeze."

Painesville Municipal Court Judge Michael A. Cicconetti, known for handing out unusual punishments, sentenced Murray last week to the night in the park, 14 days in jail, 15 days of house arrest and three years probation.

She also must pay $3,200 in restitution to Lake County Humane Society and $500 to Lake Metroparks.

She had faced up to 90 days in jail and a $750 fine. Murray, a mother of five, agreed to the night in the woods because she said she couldn't be away from her children for three months.

The National Weather Service predicted a low of about 25 degrees and 2 to 4 inches of snow accumulation overnight Wednesday in Lake County.

Murray pleaded guilty last month to abandoning domestic animals, a second-degree misdemeanor. She said she did it because she couldn't get help from the Lake County Humane Society. The kittens were recovered but many had upper respiratory infections and nine died.

Cicconetti said park rangers would take precautions to ensure Murray's safety. Murray's attorney filed a motion Wednesday to amend her sentence from jail to 30 days probation, but Cicconetti delayed his ruling on the request.

Painesville is about 30 miles northeast of Cleveland.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

I'm not a PETA zombie by any means, but this is just friggin wrong... the Judge should have, at most, let her come back to an UN-heated cell!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Story here.

I'm not a PETA zombie by any means, but this is just friggin wrong... the Judge should have, at most, let her come back to an UN-heated cell!!

I'm with you--the judge should have left that piece of shit out there.

Walt

[miked10270 0]

Yeah... She should have been left to complete her punishment, or at least not brought in while still conscious.

It's really a shame that all too often a punishment that fits the crime is considered "Cruel & Unusual".

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,132]

>I'm with you--the judge should have left that piece of shit out there.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather kill a dozen kittens than have a human mother (raising children) given pneumonia. Kittens are animals. We're human beings. Which means we have a duty to treat animals humanely - but we are still the humans and they are still the animals.

People kill dozens of rats with poison or traps that break their backs, think nothing of killing baby cows in some pretty horrible ways, or skinning minks by the hundreds. But change the animal to a cat and people go all PETA.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Yeah... She should have been left to complete her punishment, or at least not brought in while still conscious.

It's really a shame that all too often a punishment that fits the crime is considered "Cruel & Unusual".

Mike.

Agreed. There would be far fewer living rapists and child abusers if the punishment truely could fit the crime.

illegible usually

[livendive 8]

Quote

Kittens are animals. We're human beings. Which means we have a duty to treat animals humanely - but we are still the humans and they are still the animals.

Humans are not animals?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,132]

>Humans are not animals?

Humans are animals. More importantly, humans are humans - which makes them separate from most other animals. Which is why it's a crime to kill a man but not a crime to break a rat's neck.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

>I'm with you--the judge should have left that piece of shit out there.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather kill a dozen kittens than have a human mother (raising children) given pneumonia. Kittens are animals. We're human beings. Which means we have a duty to treat animals humanely - but we are still the humans and they are still the animals.

People kill dozens of rats with poison or traps that break their backs, think nothing of killing baby cows in some pretty horrible ways, or skinning minks by the hundreds. But change the animal to a cat and people go all PETA.

You are not crazy--I understand where you are coming from. This is *purely* a gut-level reaction on my part and I don't think I am capable of discussing it in an intelligent way because my feelings about animal cruelty are just too strong. And I know that you love animals and are kind to them even when you really don't have to be.

We're not different in our compassion for animals, but I think we are a little different in the value we place on different human lives. To dredge up on old example, "Charlie Manson or a kitten". I like to think that most people would spare the life of a kitten before they would space the life of Charles Manson.

Does animal suffering compare to human suffering?

I have seen my fair share of human suffering. I got really used to it when I was a nurse. I don't think people generally deserve to suffer, but I see it as part of life.

I don't see people treating animals in a cruel way as part of life, though, and I would feel fine if that lady had suffered greatly and developed life-threatening illness while serving the punishment that unfortunately got short. Why? Because anyone who would do what she did is a piece of subhuman garbage that needs to be scared as hell of doing something like that again.

I think the lady is not likely to turn into some sort of fine human being no matter what anyone does but putting some serious fear into her about being cruel to animals would probably be quite easy and effective. Given the opportunity, I would gladly do it myself and she would consider freezing her ass off in a park without food or shelter to be a real vacation by comparison.

As for her being a mother, why in the HELL should that be a mitigating factor? She just may be sick enough that she is raising the next Charles Manson. If anything, I'd be ok with her kids being taken away and being placed with people who have some sort of compassion for animals--particularly animals who are dependent on human care.

Walt

[billvon 3,132]

>I don't see people treating animals in a cruel way as part of life, though . . .

I agree. We should avoid it if we can.

>and I would feel fine if that lady had suffered greatly and developed
>life-threatening illness while serving the punishment that unfortunately got
>short. Why? Because anyone who would do what she did is a piece of
>subhuman garbage that needs to be scared as hell of doing something
>like that again.

This is where we disagree, I suppose. I see no difference in killing a rat in a spring trap (it generally breaks its back then holds it there till it starves or suffocates) and killing a kitten. Or, for that matter, shooting a raccoon or a skunk. All are mammals. All feel pain in the same way, all live in social groups, all nurse their young.

But people who kill rats that way aren't (usually) subhuman garbage; they just want to get rid of them. Generally they are just thoughtless. And if someone who kills a rat can be thoughtless, so can a woman who kills a kitten. It may be a crime to be thoughtless, but it does not make one a monster.

>As for her being a mother, why in the HELL should that be a mitigating factor?

Because mothers have children, and hurting the mother hurts them.

[waltappel 1]

I know where you are coming from on killing rats, but the fact is that you and I both trap 'em live and release 'em where they won't bother us.

And as much as I love guns, I don't shoot animals with them. (As weird as it sounds, I would shoot the right person without hesitation, though.) I don't generally pass judgement on people who do hunt, if they do so responsibly and go for the quick kill.

If someone is going to kill an animal, I think there should be a decent reason behind it and it should be done in a humane way.

People dumping dometicated animals somewhere and leaving them to fend for themselves isn't anywhere in the same neighborhood as human, IMO.

As I said earlier, this is really a gut-level thing with me. I can't discuss it intelligently. On the other hand, I think anything I have to say about how I feel about cruelty to animals would sound absolutely brilliant compared to whatever that nutcase lady would have to say about why she was willing to dump the kittens.

Walt

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

* I am not a PETA activist, but....

Look at the statistics for people that abuse/neglect animals and how many go on to do it to humans....it might surprise you.

As a matter of opinion a 'mother' with 'mothering instincts' could not dump helpless (as in unable to fend for themselves) babies (animal or human) into the elements.

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[billvon 3,132]

>As a matter of opinion a 'mother' with 'mothering instincts' could not
>dump helpless (as in unable to fend for themselves) babies (animal or
>human) into the elements.

I have seen mothers squash baby mice underfoot, then sweep them into a dustbin and flush them (some still alive) down the toilet. The reason they gave? "I'm not going to have those filthy things in my house!"

Mothers only protect _their_ young.

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

Quote

Mothers only protect _their_ young.

I respectfully disagree. I have witnessed it many times along and across the species.

I am not doubting she was at her wits end and made a hasty action. THere is most likely more to the story in the events that led to this than we know (why she 'couldnt get any help'). 35 kittens do not just happen overnight. Feral kittens would have a better chance than 'fully' domestic kittens..but both require a mother to a point in time.

While we may differ on the worth of the being, her actions are not so very different from the teens who ditch their newborns ot the mother that drove her children to their deaths in a lake.....the thought/action/reaction pattern.

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[billvon 3,132]

>I have witnessed it many times along and across the species.

So you figure that if a human child got between a bear and her cubs, the outcome would be pleasant?

>her actions are not so very different from the teens who ditch their newborns . . .

If you really think that, then you and I have nothing in common when it comes to morals. Abandoning human children is not even in the same universe.

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

Quote

So you figure that if a human child got between a bear and her cubs, the outcome would be pleasant?

only one way to find out , but seriously you said a mother only protects her own..i will give you 'most of the time' but not 'only', since like i said, i have seen it many times. plus the whole driving your children in a lake thing...that kinda proves your statement false as well

Quote

>her actions are not so very different from the teens who ditch their newborns . . .

If you really think that, then you and I have nothing in common when it comes to morals. Abandoning human children is not even in the same universe.

i never said we had any morals in common

i was trying to point out the parallel in actions/thought processes/problem solving in the two scenarios

yes, i too see a human abandonment as a much greater issue....

BUT someone who solves a problem of not wanting a life/cant care for a life by chucking it in the woods knowing it cant defend itself....like the abuse and neglect statistics prove....if it is easy for them to do to an animal, chances are it will happen with a human

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

>As a matter of opinion a 'mother' with 'mothering instincts' could not
>dump helpless (as in unable to fend for themselves) babies (animal or
>human) into the elements.

I have seen mothers squash baby mice underfoot, then sweep them into a dustbin and flush them (some still alive) down the toilet. The reason they gave? "I'm not going to have those filthy things in my house!"

Overall Bill, not entirely a cruel way to dispatch a mouse. Better than a trap for sure as it's quicker and most likely less painful for the mouse.

A glue trap is a better example of being cruel.

illegible usually

[billvon 3,132]

>plus the whole driving your children in a lake thing...that kinda proves
>your statement false as well . . .

There are crazy people in any society, and deranged animals out in the wild as well.

>BUT someone who solves a problem of not wanting a life/cant care for a
> life by chucking it in the woods knowing it cant defend itself....like the
>abuse and neglect statistics prove....if it is easy for them to do to an
>animal, chances are it will happen with a human

Again, I think that's a load of crap. A woman who steps on a mouse and then tosses it out the window is not primed to become a serial killer. A woman who raises veal is not a potential mass murderer. Both of those could be good parents. Or they might not be; but willingness to kill an animal has nothing to do with fitness as a parent.

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

willingness to kill an animal and someone who solves a problem of not wanting a life/cant care for a life by chucking it in the woods knowing it cant defend itself are two very separate things.

Slaughterhouses have a very humane way of killing the animals....and it does not involve letting them starve/freeze to death. I am also willing to bet you the woman did not see the 35 kittens as 'dirty rodents' or as a potential meal for herself either!

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[rehmwa 2]

You know, if you put a dead cat in a ziplock bag, they have a longer use period as a door stop before the smell gets out.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>willingness to kill an animal and someone who solves a problem of
>not wanting a life/cant care for a life by chucking it in the woods
>knowing it cant defend itself are two very separate things.

OK, you're right. Had she stepped on the kittens first before throwing them into the park that would have been fine.

>Slaughterhouses have a very humane way of killing the animals....

I suspect you've never been in a veal stockyard.

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

appropriate euthanasia is totally humane - much moreso than starvation or exposure

a slaughterhouse by definition is not a stockyard

you suspect wrong as I have been to several slaughterhouses (the pc term is 'packing plant')

yes today's method of an instantaneous lethal shock is much more humane than several misplaced bullets

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[billvon 3,132]

>appropriate euthanasia is totally humane . . . .

Now you're going off on a tangent.

The bottom line is that kittens are cute and cuddly and mice are not. Mice? Who cares if you stomp em, break their legs and leave em outside to get eaten - they're vermin! Or flush em down the toilet. Maybe they'll drown, maybe they'll just starve if they're lucky. But oh, the cute cuddly little kitten, freezing to death in the cruel outdoors!

That's an emotional response, not a rational one. Rationally, if you apply that standard to cats you have to apply it to mice, rats, squirrels, you name it. But that's OK. Your response doesn't have to be rational - as long as you don't try to impose your emotions on others.

[rehmwa 2]

wow, I've never had someone channel my ghost before

is it scary?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

appropraite euthanasia is a tangent...wow, better get on the line quick to the AVMA, and all the APSA right away, they have a lot of standards and protocols to change and I am sure they would love to hear from you!

my opinion (as I clearly stated the first time) is that

Quote

As a matter of opinion a 'mother' with 'mothering instincts' could not dump helpless (as in unable to fend for themselves) babies (animal or human) into the elements.

and I gave my supporting opinions based on many published studies into the minds of abusers (animal and human) and assorted sociopaths (think Jeffrey Dahmer). Alas, it still is an emotional response...better get busy calling the medical journals as well since apparently they are all wrong as well.

Quote

The bottom line is that kittens are cute and cuddly and mice are not. Mice? Who cares if you stomp em, break their legs and leave em outside to get eaten - they're vermin! Or flush em down the toilet. Maybe they'll drown, maybe they'll just starve if they're lucky. But oh, the cute cuddly little kitten, freezing to death in the cruel outdoors!

That's an emotional response, not a rational one. Rationally, if you apply that standard to cats you have to apply it to mice, rats, squirrels, you name it. But that's OK. Your response doesn't have to be rational - as long as you don't try to impose your emotions on others.

while the attempt to put words in my mouth was a clever one...if you read my posts you will see not only did I not say that, I am more alarmed at the warning flag of her actions/problem solving skills than the species of the animal involved. I do believe it was in fact, you, Bill who brought in the emotions with the qualification of value of lives. The standards of humane and inhumane do not vary dependent upon the species.

As I originally said, I believe wholeheartedly she dumped them as a drastic action...the actions which caused that to become necessary in her mind are not apparent (she didnt want them to be euthanized at the shelter, she didnt want the shelter to take them, how she got 35 kittens in the first place) the only thing the article says is the shelter wouldnt help her, not that she tried to give them away, donate them to a vet hospital, or many other options which were available.

Our society says it is ok to hunt deer, only during certain times, it is ok to kill animals for food but not people, not a shock society denotes humane treatment for animals we own...guess they like to impose their emotions on others, huh, better give them a call too!!!

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[rehmwa 2]

If you soak a dead kitten in lamp oil for 3 hours, you can then poke a stick in it's mouth and use him as a torch for nearly 90 minutes.

The smoke will still attract dogs, though. And hobos.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants