Dog abuse footage sparks vigilante mob

nice to know that people went round to confront him and beat the crap out of him for doing that.
 
I just wish people would try to understand why dogs do things. A dog out side barking and crying is probably scared and lonely. So beetings and shouting just make him feel worse like he is getting removed from his pack.
 
It's not a graphic video for those wondering whether to watch it or not.

Sometimes it's nice to see people getting a taste of their own medicine. It's the only way they learn and sometimes it's the only punishment they receive.
 
A very sad state of affairs, i saw it when it was put on f/b and the female also beat the dog, nothing said about her being arrested. Why do these horrible cruel people have pets then abuse them ,wicked people. My 2 dogs have a dog flap so they come and go as they wish during the day, its their home as well.
 
I would so love to see a video of the owner getting treated the same.
It's not just physical abuse that sickens me, we live in a top floor flat so have no garden, our dog gets out 3-4 times a day, during the week he gets 30-45 mins in the morning, a toilet break about lunch time, normally an hour in the evening and then a toilet break before bed.
At the weekends it is normally 1-1.5 hours in the morning, the same at lunch, same at dinner then toilet break.
He isn't the biggest dog in the world and is really tired when he comes back (which i see as a good sign), we have people around us with status dogs, and they get a walk round the flats to go to the toilet and thats it. These people need to be sorted out also as i think this is cruelty.
Even when it's awful weather, i know he comes first, in fact can't get him in when it snows.
 
Who would have thought facebook could be useful after all?

With any luck it won't be the last of it either, people like that should be banned from keeping pets.
 
No its not ok to kick and punch a dog!
After all this is supposedly a civilised society

thv3 said:
Who would have thought facebook could be useful after all?
Click to expand...

You mean for encouraging a vigilante posse' ?
And co-ordinating the riots a few months ago?
I thought we lived in a civilised society.?

Shortly after a crowd of around 50 people gathered on Stanley Street, where a man was allegedly attacked
Click to expand...
 
maybe thv3 meant for this

"A man has appeared in court today charged with two counts of animal cruelty after footage of an alleged dog attack was posted onto Facebook"

t'internet footage also helped convict the lady who put the cat in the bin
 
Reidy36 said:
Sometimes the old an eye for an eye.

That sick individual was beating a poor defenceless dog, so yeah why not and while they are beating him, just keep reminding him why.
Click to expand...

Just shows how easily led people are by the media. The people that get up in arms are probably the same people that religiously watch the katie price shows and "feel her pain". Surely common sense dictates that if someone is cruel to an animal the police/rspca should sort it out and beating someone up for it is a more serious crime. Suppose the person was killed.when in court saying "well they hurt a dog so I killed them" is not going to get you jury nullification. Don't get me wrong its a sick individual that should face justice but not with a fist
 
amtaylor said:
Just shows how easily led people are by the media. The people that get up in arms are probably the same people that religiously watch the katie price shows and "feel her pain". Surely common sense dictates that if someone is cruel to an animal the police/rspca should sort it out and beating someone up for it is a more serious crime. Suppose the person was killed.when in court saying "well they hurt a dog so I killed them" is not going to get you jury nullification. Don't get me wrong its a sick individual that should face justice but not with a fist
Click to expand...

The trouble is there is all too much animal cruelty that doesn't carry a hefty enough "legal" penalty.

Sounds like the owner got what he deserved.
 
gatecrasher3 said:
The trouble is there is all too much animal cruelty that doesn't carry a hefty enough "legal" penalty.

Sounds like the owner got what he deserved.
Click to expand...

That may be the case but taking the law into your own hand over something that doesn't concern you in any way is a good definition of a complete idiot.i Don't think for one minute that most of if any of the mob were motivated by the suffering of the animal. They were most likely looking for an excuse for a supposed justified act of thuggery. Now in what way are they any better than the dog abuser. Just because you or I may feel that someone deserves a good thrashing, the person doing it is still wrong. For instance I think all people that mess with kids deserve to be tortured in excruciating pain with parts of their anatomy removed and then finally killed but if I did it would it be right?

Oh and also consider the possibility that not all stories and videos posted on the internet are genuine. But they are a good excuse for people to devolve into neanderthals. Take for example the recent riots.
 
Last edited:
From what I have seen on TV RSPCA shows and heard from one of our friends that works for the rspca. The penalty in court is really very feeble. Most get a pitiful fine, short term community service and banned from owning pets. These aren't rare special cases but very frequent when it comes to animals. The courts don't have a very tough view on things when it comes to animal abuse and are very lenient or soft on offenders. So for me personally, getting prosecuted for said abuse doesn't seem to make any real difference to offenders. So if it takes the secret video footage of an abuser and facebook to pretty much scare the living **** out of the offender when the lynch mob arrives, that probably had more of an effect on him than a suspended sentence and £150 court costs. Not to mention it may make other abusers think twice when their neighbors could be videoing them and thinking of facebooking it.
 
Last edited:
archamedes said:
From what I have seen on TV RSPCA shows and heard from one of our friends that works for the rspca. The penalty in court is really very feeble. Most get a pitiful fine, short term community service and banned from owning pets. These aren't rare special cases but very frequent when it comes to animals. The courts don't have a very tough view on things when it comes to animal abuse and are very lenient or soft on offenders. So for me personally, getting prosecuted for said abuse doesn't seem to make any real difference to offenders. So if it takes the secret video footage of an abuser and facebook to pretty much scare the living **** out of the offender when the lynch mob arrives, that probably had more of an effect on him than a suspended sentence and £150 court costs. Not to mention it may make other abusers think twice when their neighbors could be videoing them and thinking of facebooking it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It seems to me that the fines are usually quite heavy compared to other offences - and very heavy costs are awarded to the RSPCA. In the case of the man convicted of drowning a squirrel, the costs were £1,547 - it would have been much cheaper for him to beat up an old lady and steal her purse.

What's really needed IMO is for the police to accept responsibility for the enforcement of animal cruelty cases instead of handing them over to the RSPCA, because involving the RSPCA gives them a sort of false credibility, and because the RSPCA don't bring their private prosecutions based on merit, only on their publicity/public donations value.

There have been plenty of cases of vigilante action that have involved suspected paedophiles and the like, and often the mob gets it wrong and innocent people suffer. Law enforcement should always be left to law enforcers, not to law breakers.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I disagree. It seems to me that the fines are usually quite heavy compared to other offences - and very heavy costs are awarded to the RSPCA. In the case of the man convicted of drowning a squirrel, the costs were £1,547 - it would have been much cheaper for him to beat up an old lady and steal her purse.

What's really needed IMO is for the police to accept responsibility for the enforcement of animal cruelty cases instead of handing them over to the RSPCA, because involving the RSPCA gives them a sort of false credibility, and because the RSPCA don't bring their private prosecutions based on merit, only on their publicity/public donations value.

There have been plenty of cases of vigilante action that have involved suspected paedophiles and the like, and often the mob gets it wrong and innocent people suffer. Law enforcement should always be left to law enforcers, not to law breakers.
Click to expand...

This.

Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.

Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...

Guardian
 
PSILVERMAN said:
All very well but if the law can't or won't protect you then you have to. eg Tony Martin.
Click to expand...
Let's not get sidetracked here. Tony Martin wasn't a vigilante, he was a householder who defended himself against a gang of burglars.

What he did would have been legal if
1. He had stopped shooting when he had dealt with the threat, i.e if he hadn't shot one of the thieves in the back as he ran away
2. If he had phoned the police/ambulance to get help for the men he had shot, instead of running away
3. If he had not been using/in unlawful possession of an illegal firearm, a 5-shot Winchester pump action shotgun that required a S.1 FAC - he didn't even have a shotgun certificate, it had been taken away a few years earlier after a similar incident.

I agree that the police aren't always efficient, but they're all we have, and they're much better than most societies have. It's their job to enforce the law, mob rule is always wrong.
 
the tony martin case gets brought up too often and alough i feel his pain and frustration with being burgled to which im with him, people seem to forget the facts, he did break a lot of laws that makes his arguement invalid. I also remember the sun newspaper being a snake in the grass when this hit the headlines. Firstly they were painting him as a weirdo loner who was barricading himself inside with an arsonal of weapons, yet when they realised soo many people were on his side and agreed with what he did, the sun then decided to back him.

And i agree that misguided lynch mobs with incorrect information are always bad news for the poor innocent victim who gets caught up in it, however this case is different because, the guilty party was clearly captured on video and his address was accuratly given by the neighbor who recorded it. That doesn't make it alright, but i think he gotwhat he deserved and that may have more of an effect than going to court. I imagine he will deffinatly think twice before doing it again
 
Last edited:
Imo theres never any justification for abusing an animal in this way

but nor is there any justification for mob violence - its easy to sit at home justifying their behavior in this instance, but when mob decides to smack the **** out of a photographer because they think he's up to no good then thats a different kettle of fish

if we support the rule of law the guy concerned should be prosecuted for animal cruelty and the mob ring leaders for affray or breach of the peace.

It will also be interesting to see if the 23 year old who posted this on facebook is quite as happy with his actions when having been personally identified in the media he has to deal with a confrontation with the guy he filmed.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what will be the response when he sues the mob for injuries sustained. Guess it won't have been such a bright idea then
 
archamedes said:
the tony martin case gets brought up too often and alough i feel his pain and frustration with being burgled to which im with him, people seem to forget the facts, he did break a lot of laws that makes his arguement invalid. I also remember the sun newspaper being a snake in the grass when this hit the headlines. Firstly they were painting him as a weirdo loner who was barricading himself inside with an arsonal of weapons, yet when they realised soo many people were on his side and agreed with what he did, the sun then decided to back him.

And i agree that misguided lynch mobs with incorrect information are always bad news for the poor innocent victim who gets caught up in it, however this case is different because, the guilty party was clearly captured on video and his address was accuratly given by the neighbor who recorded it. That doesn't make it alright, but i think he gotwhat he deserved and that may have more of an effect than going to court. I imagine he will deffinatly think twice before doing it again
Click to expand...

But what if the neighbour had made a mistake and given the wrong address, or if it had been a fake video?
Mob 'justice' is always wrong
 
My two cents on this....

Shocking behaviour by the man and woman, and I believe the last bit the man did in front of his child! What kind of an example is that to set.
Though also anxious for the neighbour who filmed this, he may get some re percussions from his actions.

Though let's put this in perspective, we have public outcry over this, and a mob forming. What about in china last week where a toddler was hit by a van, left in the street while several people walked past and ignored this child, for the child to be hit again and I believe sadly passed away.

It truly is a sad and shocking world we live in
 
Pre-emptive invocation of Godwin's law. Within 5 posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top