Man Arrested For Burning Kitten on Grill

AP/CNN | 7-16-02 | my favorite headache

[My Favorite Headache]

Man arrested for burning kitten on grill July 16, 2002 Posted: 4:03 PM EDT (2003 GMT)

A neighborhood friend of Sherry Scott holds the kitten they named 'Lucky,' in a recent handout photo.

LIBERTY, Missouri (AP) -- A man was arrested Tuesday for allegedly burning a kitten on a barbecue grill as several other people stood around and watched in amusement.

A witness pulled the scorched, 7-week-old tabby from the hot coals, but it was severely injured and had to be put to death, police said.

"They kept saying, `Meow, meow,' and they were poking at it with a stick," said Sherry Scott, who burned her hand grabbing the kitten.

Charles C. Benoit, 24, was charged with animal abuse, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. He was jailed on $10,000 bail.

Jim Roberts, spokesman for the Clay County prosecutor's office, said he does not expect anyone else to be charged, because no witnesses could identify the others.

Scott said that on Friday night, she saw 10 or 12 people at the barbecue grill in the courtyard of the apartment complex where she lives. Scott said she asked what they were cooking, and they said it was a cat. She said the group taunted her, daring her to rescue the cat.

She said the group scattered when she threatened to call police. She said she pulled the kitten from where it had been shoved into the coals at the back of the grill. Its tail, whiskers, fur, eyes and throat were scorched.

"I called him Lucky because I thought I got him out of there just in time," she said.

Scott said she and other residents stayed up Friday night trying to nurse the kitten with an eye dropper of milk. But animal control officers decided that because of its respiratory injuries and inability to swallow food, it had to be destroyed.

"If you would have seen him, you would have cried," said Sheri Simpson, one of the residents who helped care for the kitten.

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[Diamond]

Will an unsocialized human be moral?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if such a person will act in morally and ethically acceptable ways, or are you asking if such a person will have moral capacity? By 'unsocialized' do you mean a person who has not had contact with other human beings? Is there such a person anywhere? If there were, it would show, not that the person did not have a moral nature, but only that his moral capacity had been stunted by some abnormal circumstance. In fact, if a moral nature were not part of what it means to to be a human person, there would be no way to tell if our hypothetical man were in an 'abnormal' circumstance in the first place. It couldn't be considered 'abnormal'. It would just be 'different'. Where there is no standard there can be no measure of failure. You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

We have a dog that acts just like your cat. I would judge the appearance of guilt to be just that - an appearance. Our dog and your cat are ammoral creatures that are simply responding to our conditioning, and are not acting out of a sense of moral obligation the way you or I do.

Cordially,

[shaggy eel]

I'm sorry it took so long to reply. I had no idea you were so anxious for my reply. Guess I'm lucky to have other interests in life, huh?

To put an end to this, my reply was to another poster. Why you decided to inject your $.02 is another issue. An issue I don't want to waste any more of my time with. My time would be better spent on the crapper.

,,, your reply to the other poster was abusive and personal. That's as constructive as you could manage. My participation on this thread doesn't point to any such abuse. To that end, our paths met when I took exception to your comment.

The other interests in life you claim to have clearly afford you the limited capability in commenting that you've demonstrated. Back to that crapper for some better spent time, you're exhibiting your demographic.

[Terriergal]

I can see you're interested in a discussion of ideas.

[Terriergal]

Mini-14 Why don't you try engaging the person in a discussion of the matter instead of hurling insults? You might have better success in influencing people. Of course there are a few I've run into that aren't interested in having a discussion once they run out of answers, but RobRoy doesn't bear those hallmarks.

FYI I am not opposed to animal torture being a crime. But with a reasonable penalty not consisting of more than corporal punishment and/or fine. But of course corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual nowadays...

[Diamond]

Our morals are learned. If we're never taught, then we are savages.

Yes, moral propositions are learned. But implicit in your statment about the savagery of those who are not taught morals is the tacit assumption of the transcendent, innate, moral nature of human beings over against that of animals. Binding moral propositions only emanate from authoritative personal sources, and are incumbent only upon persons, not animals.

So if you say that persons do not transcend animals in this regard, which seems to be what you are arguing, then you are cutting off the branch on which you sit. The more you saw, the more you lose of the corresponding transcendent ethic incumbent on all persons to obey. Thus, if you succeed in cutting off the branch, it will no longer make any sense whatever to describe as savages those who are not taught morals, because by cutting off the transcendent nature of man you will also have cut off any transcendent ethic by which to judge and reject the actions of anyone as morally defective, whether it be a sadistic creep playing with a hot cat over burning coals, or a cat toying with a mouse before killing it.

Cordially,

[RobRoy]

I do, and he hits the nail on the head much better than I have said it. Someone who explains it even better (sorry diamond) is C. S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity."

It's really a pretty short read and really gets to the root of the whole dilemma of good, evil and the whole morality thing.

Give it a try...

[RobRoy]

I keep forgetting the person on the other side of this computer screen isn't someone similar to myself. That's the one problem with this non face to face communication technique.

I'm beginning to get a feeling I would much better understand some of the responses I get If I imagined that on the other side of my screen sat Homer Simpson.

I'm dead serious.

[RobRoy]

>>I'm accustomed to reading and UNDERSTANDING scientific papers, which are not exactly 2nd grade reading
material.<<

Y'know, it's interesting you bring that up. It seems that the gross majority of the functioning of the human brain rests with making sure the heart beats when it is supposed to, walking across the street without stumbling and picking up a glass without crushing it in your hand. Only a tiny fraction of our brain power is used for what we call the higher functions. So the differences in intelligence are actually quite miniscule, when comparing one person to another.

You read technical papers. Cool. I read technical papers in the computer world and in the legal world. Unfortunately, that doesn't help me much with a paper on quantum physics or "rocket science" (which, by the way, isn't rocket science, like everyone thinks). Likewise, the communication style used in your "scientific papers" doesn't necessarily prepare you for understanding information as presented in documents found in the other professions.

A real world Homer Simpson can understand some documentation about nuclear power plants better than me because I have no training in that area.

He's still an immature little kid in an adult body.

Knowledge is not wisdom and single line insults do not an argument make. Of course, in Homers world, he thinks he's really Zinged 'em - while they just go away shaking their heads…

[CDHart]

The e-mail addresses for the Liberty, Missouri, Chamber of Commerce and the Clay County Economic Development Council follow. I will send each an e-mail asking them to be aware that if this horror is not punished, Liberty is likely to be the last place anyone would want to live.

Carolyn

[CDHart]

Sorry. I'm so upset about this that I forgot to type the e-mail addresses. Here they are:

info@libertychamber.com

info@clayedc.com

Carolyn

[Diamond]

... If I don't understand something, it's either poorly written, intentionally obfuscating, or internally contradictory. Or all three.

Ok I plead guilty to poor writing. I'm not C.S. Lewis, after all. Are human beings trancendent beings in any intrinsic moral or spiritual way?

Cordially,

[RobRoy]

>>Perhaps the fiction I have written and had published would prepare me. Perhaps the non-fiction I have written and
sold would prepare me. <<

Not necessarily. Two equally intelligent people can be thinking on parrallel, but different planes. Communication can be difficult, sometimes, even for great communicators.

This can especially be true if they strongly disagree with what they are hearing. We all can become obtuse when reading from or listening to those with whom we disagree.

So in a sense, all that stuff can prepare you. It's just that being prepared is no guarantee of anything.

BTW, it's cool that you've actually SOLD some stuff. That's usually the hard part.

Also, this thread has run it's course for me. You seem to have a hard time finding much coherency in my posts anyway.
Nevertheless, it was fun.

Thanks

[LasVegasMac]

I can see you're interested in a discussion of ideas.

Ideas, yes.

Liberal type crap, no.

LVM