Posted on 07/16/2002 3:21:27 PM PDT by 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Nope, no limits on what you can read and comment upon. However, if you're going to attack other people's beliefs, then I would think you'd have to courage to at least state what yours are.
There's a lot of bitterness that shows up in your postings, and I thought that maybe we could have a discussion about what's going on. But you prefer to hide in the shadows. I thought that maybe you'd like to talk, but you don't want to do that, and that's fine. That's the wonderful thing about the internet. You can attack people and hide in your anonymity. It's the coward's way, but feel free to do it your way.
Hmmm...do you think that maybe that's why I've been asking you about yours?
I wonder if that's one of those things she meant to come across, or if it's just a side effect of the phrasing she chooses to use? If she doesn't intend for it to come across, her writing is kind of sloppy in that regard, don't you think?
and I thought that maybe we could have a discussion about what's going on. But you prefer to hide in the shadows.
Notice how she has successfully derailed the discussion that was at hand and all our attempts to bring it back to the course it was on are ignored or further dodged. Methinks this woman has a hard time having a rational discussion or following a logical train of thought all the way into the station. Which is not so unique after all.
My experience with non-christians is that they have stereotyped Christians to the point that they won't even give anyone the benefit of the doubt. They always think they know what we're thinking or what we'll do even before we do it. And they always use it to dodge any discussion that gets them looking rather closely at their own beliefs.
That being said, I have met ONE atheist online that was interested in a discussion. Over the course of a year we became great friends. He finally admitted to being an agnostic rather than an atheist. (which is more intellectually honest IMO).
I guess if non-Christians prefer to obfuscate and remain unchallenged to defend their "faith" or "non faith" we will remain in ignorance. *sigh*
I hear ya!
Wisconsin was giving away a doe tag with each deer tag they sold the last two years.
Some places were contemplating a "deer a day" limit for thirty days, for one year, to see if that would help. But of course the antihunters don't like any of those ideas. {:-\
I don't know what anyone would do with more than three deer, unless they give it away to friends and family or turn it in to Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry.
You are not going to like this, but your statement leads me to believe that at least part of your experience might be due to a self-imposed filter of hackneyed cliches.
Cordially
Since you mention Jesus, recall that he forgave the murderer who was being executed alongside himself. He didn't seem to have a problem with that fellow's repentance at the hour of death.
Cordially,
Yes, and that's why NOW is a good time for repentence, wouldn't you agree?
Jesus told another parable that will offend you.
Matthew 20
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.
6"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Cordially,
"...[U]ntil we recover a sense of absolute moral truth, we're going to continue to see [business] scandals, and we'll also see our portfolios decline. I wonder if the people will be so eager to dismiss us as 'religious bigots' when they realize that it's the lack of ethics in our society caused by the abandonment of a Judeo-Christian consensus that's causing them to lose their retirement plans. This ethical crisis poses a direct threat to the millions of Americans who directly or indirectly own stock." --Charles Colson
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.