Posted on 07/25/2010 9:50:28 AM PDT by Chet 99
By AMANDA PINTO, Journal Register News Service
WEST HAVEN — A city man was charged with animal cruelty Thursday after neighbors heard a golden retriever yelping in pain.
Robert Barnes, 25, of 24 Lester St., second floor, was arrested around 5:30 p.m. Responding police officers found neighbors outside to report the sounds they had heard. Police found a 7-month-old golden retriever with severe injuries consistent with being beaten, Sgt. Martin Garcia said.
Neighbors reported hearing the yelps from 200 yards away. At one point, bangs, which witnesses believe was the dog being thrown against a wall or the floor, were loud enough to shake a neighbor’s kitchen windows.
The dog, which was limping and cowering, was taken to a veterinary hospital where it was treated for shoulder and leg injuries, as well as older injuries including scarring and infection, Garcia said. The dog, which belongs to an acquaintance of Barnes, will be re-evaluated this morning, Garcia said.
Barnes posted $7,500 bail, Garcia said, and is due July 13 in Superior Court in Milford.
But for the uneducated mountain oysters are considered excellent by many people, and if you've ever consumed a hot dog I'm sure you had some.
I’m completely with you position.
I, too, grew up on a farm and cut the balls off a crying calf, along with budding horns.
This is obviously “animal cruelty” to many people here, but they don’t understand why farmers should be allowed to do what they’ve always done to their herds.
Next up, “FReepers Against Eating Meat.”
All animals should be treated as humanely as possible.
Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?
‘Marcellus’? Is that you?
At age 2-3 it is like somebody turns a switch in their heads, and they become reasonable animals (if they are being raised properly). However, you can turn them right back into a rambunctious puppy again by making certain noises, or setting up certain situations. Addressing my 15 1/2 year old lame, deaf, half blind female with an excited “Puppy, puppy, puppy” would send her into spasms of joy, even though she could barely get around. (She died at nearly 16, and we still miss her.)
Have I mentioned that I love Goldens? ;-)
I've paid that. Of course, I had the vet out to the house, he euthanized Terra in my husband's arms, wrapped in her favorite blanket, and we rolled her directly into her grave that had already been dug under her favorite tree. There is a grave stone there, marking the spot. Do you know how difficult it is to dig a grave under a tree? It took my husband and the mayor of our little town all morning to do it. Next time, we'll choose a different spot.
We paid about $120 for this service, and then he hit us up for another $100 to subsidize a kennel at the Vetinary School in her memory. That was OK, though because the Vet school had saved her life at age 5 and gave us 10 1/2 bonus years with her.
The word, “humane” is as malleable as they come.
Some might say it’s “humane” to allow infanticide, abortion, or euthanasia. As long as “humane” is the defining term, just about anything goes. Same with animals, with even the Animal Liberation Front slaughtering farm-raised animals “to put them out of their misery.” Same goes for PETA members who now say that “humane” is to not have pets ever pinned up in homes or yards.
When everything is made relative, nothing is absolute. Your words is as spineless as they come.
The absolute should be this (and always was the rule of law in the US): If you own it, you determine what you do with it. People can have problems with what you do to your property, but they should use social shaming rather than laws to crush people they don’t like.
Get real, lib.
Comment removed by Admin Moderator.
Thank you. I will check it out. They look like great hunters.
Time for a new tagline.
So, it is your view that one cannot really know what is kind and compassionate that is the 'Liberal' one.
Liberals always love to hide behind the view that no one can know what the truth is.
'A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast'(Pr.12:10).
That isn't PETA, that is the Bible.
Being for compassion for animals doesn't mean being against compassion for mankind.
Christianity teaches both.
You really don’t read other people’s words, do you?
I said that social shaming is what should be used, not laws.
I’ve never once said it’s “right” to beat one’s animal, but it should be their “right”. I’m not “for” beating animals, but when it comes to “animal rights” existing, they shouldn’t.
Get real.
Oh, I sorry to have to say this, but EVERY SIN EVER COMMITTED WAS ALLOWED BY GOD. Does that mean He wants the sin to occur? No.
Likewise with my stance. I believe people have a right to be wrong, just as God does.
Well, it doesn't seem that 'social shaming' would work on you, your attitude is that an animal is the same as any other property-it isn't.
And no one said animals have rights, so save the 'straw man' nonsense.
Man is the steward over the animals and has a moral obligation to be a good steward over them.
All of you guys, who come on these animal abuse threads, attack those who believe in being humane to animals as PETA supporters.
We aren't.
But one can care about animals without thinking they are equal to humans.
Try to learn to distinguish concepts.
What you believe is “humane” is relative. Although I believe we are stewards of animals, the US had always viewed animals as “property” and, in fact, they are still that, but now with special privileges other property cannot have.
It doesn’t really matter if you think social shaming would would on me or others, it is the only way animal issues should be handled. If not that way, then laws against penning your pets, eating meat, and the like will logically follow using the same argument you have given us. It’s simply another court case or Administration more to put it over to the liberal side from that point, on.
How can you justify slaughtering one’s animals for meat as “humane”? How can you justify tying up an animal or having it on a leash as “humane”? You can’t. You can only say that, “Well, we’ve always eaten meat so it should continue to be okay,” or, “Well, if the animal runs around, it might get hurt.” “So what?” they will say in return. It’s still not what you would do to a human, so it’s not “humane.”
Unless you are for doing that to humans, and then you and your argument are consistent.
Enjoy.
They aren't merely 'property' since they feel pain, an important distinction.
Actually, laws FOR penning pets, leash laws, etc are made to protect both the animal and other people's property rights.
Eating meat is totally legimate because the Bible allows it.
However, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be humane standards set to remove as much pain and suffering from the animal as possible.
That isn't the 'liberal' view, that is the responsible thing to do, which is conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.