To all the dog haters out there

Bernie174 said:
Who prosecuted the CPS or RSPCA?
The RSPCA tend to go for broke more often, and usually win.
Click to expand...
It was the CPS first of all because of the break in and my attack on one of the blokes. After that when shep had to get PTS it was the RSPCA that got involved.
 
Bernie174 said:
Will you stop with the bleeding heart "They'll get a light sentence' routine. It's tedious and utterly without foundation.
Hurt a human and yes, you get a slap on the wrist. Hurt an animal? You are in deep poo. Courts hammer any animal cruelty and neglect defendants, so worry your pretty little heads not.
Click to expand...

In todays paper 16 weeks suspended for two years and banned from keeping dogs for 15 years for starving a dog to death and abandoning it. Now that really is severe. NOT

Apologies to OP
 
In todays paper 16 weeks suspended for two years and banned from keeping dogs for 15 years for starving a dog to death and abandoning it. Now that really is severe. NOT
Click to expand...

It's a matter of opinion.
The point is that you need to compare 2 things. Now there's is no such thing as murder of a dog. There's just the cruelty aspect. But if you compare like for like offence where it can be compared, then 16 weeks suspended is about 16 weeks longer than you'd get for a human.

I didn't say it was severe, no sentence really is nowadays. The argument for or against levels of punishment is a whole different subject, and I am not here to debate that, I simply am pointing out to those that think, that offences against animals aren't taken seriously, they are, more so than against humans.
 
3 posts deleted.... Not relevant guys, back on track thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
The point is that you need to compare 2 things. Now there's is no such thing as murder of a dog. There's just the cruelty aspect. But if you compare like for like offence where it can be compared, then 16 weeks suspended is about 16 weeks longer than you'd get for a human.
Click to expand...

Genuine question Bernie, but I don't quite understand that.
Really don't want to take this off track with talk about levels of punishment either, but that reads as if you're saying that child neglect / cruelty / abandonment would get less than 16 weeks suspended.
Surely that can't be right ???


ST4 said:
I wonder though, would people be baying for blood for the perps if it was a person who got bleach chucked in their face?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not baying for anyone's blood, but I do think that anyone who could commit such a pre-meditated act is somebody who should be kept away from society for the benefit of everyone else.
And TBH I'd feel even more strongly if somebody had thrown bleach in a person's face in order to facilitate commiting a burglary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
SarahLee said:
And TBH I'd feel even more strongly if somebody had thrown bleach in a person's face in order to facilitate commiting a burglary.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!
And it really makes you wonder if
they would have used it on a person, had there been someone (unexpected) at home.
But as I suggested above they knew there was a dog in the house
and went pre-armed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
I suspect it was going on who/what ever was in the home. It should be a life sentence IMHO.
Click to expand...

You can't charge, convict, or sentence on "might have's".
 
viv1969 said:
You can't charge, convict, or sentence on "might have's".
Click to expand...

Where did I say that. What I said was that bleach was going into who ever was in that house in the time. In this case the dog. Animal cruelty laws, breaking/entering will be the charges brought. The aggrivating factor of the offence was the bleach to the dog, it'll be a long stay in jail

Unless the TP Vigilantes get there first :D
 
I would suspect that the thieving gits were watching the property to see when the human occupants went out then struck as soon as the coast was clear.
 
Genuine question Bernie, but I don't quite understand that.
Really don't want to take this off track with talk about levels of punishment either, but that reads as if you're saying that child neglect / cruelty / abandonment would get less than 16 weeks suspended.
Surely that can't be right ?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have brought a number of things in, which I've not mentioned, and there are not comparable offences which apply to humans and animals.

So the comparable offences really are assaults on humans and cruelty ie hitting or beating an animal. You can only compare an assault on an adult, because the animal legislation does not make any provision to a puppy, or kitten etc. Killing a human will always get a higher sentence because maximum sentence for both homicide offences and animal cruelty is prescribed by statute. The against the person offences are much higher, because they are usually life.

Absolutely!
And it really makes you wonder if
they would have used it on a person, had there been someone (unexpected) at home.
But as I suggested above they knew there was a dog in the house
and went pre-armed.
Click to expand...

You would probably never know the answer to that, but most burglars of my acquaintance would run at the first sign of the property owner. It isn't worth getting caught for.

Of course you are presupposing they took the bleach with them. I have to say that I've never seen or heard of a burglar taking bleach with them. It's a very difficult thing to explain away if you are stopped on route!

If they did, then it takes them into a whole bigger world of poo, aggravated burglary is a real big boys rules offence. They may still have committed that if they just picked up the bleach in the house, I'd have to look into the case law on that.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Of course you are presupposing they took the bleach with them. I have to say that I've never seen or heard of a burglar taking bleach with them. It's a very difficult thing to explain away if you are stopped on route!
Click to expand...
As I said above, when confronted with a dog, do you really think they would start rummaging cupboards to look for
cleaning products? if they were that worried by the dog something heavy or sharp would be easier to come by.

And if they wanted to go "armed" with such, a quick stop at a convenience store,
and buy a couple of items in a carrier bag, no one would think twice if they were stopped,
or question the reason for buying it.
 
I've heard of thieves using bleach to get rid of DNA or fingerprints. There was a recent Crimewatch where the home invaders used it. Hope the dog involved is ok.
 
Bernie174 said:
I'm sorry, but you have brought a number of things in, which I've not mentioned, and there are not comparable offences which apply to humans and animals.

So the comparable offences really are assaults on humans and cruelty ie hitting or beating an animal. You can only compare an assault on an adult, because the animal legislation does not make any provision to a puppy, or kitten etc. Killing a human will always get a higher sentence because maximum sentence for both homicide offences and animal cruelty is prescribed by statute. The against the person offences are much higher, because they are usually life.
Click to expand...

:LOL: Well that makes more sense!
It may have been my reading of the earlier post, but it appeared to be saying the complete opposite which is why I was curious about it.

Bernie174 said:
The point is that you need to compare 2 things. Now there's is no such thing as murder of a dog. There's just the cruelty aspect. But if you compare like for like offence where it can be compared, then 16 weeks suspended is about 16 weeks longer than you'd get for a human.
Click to expand...

You were replying to a quote about the sentence for starving a dog close to death and abandoning it to die.
To me, that reads as : "Taking killing (murder) out of the equation because it's not comparable, the cruelty aspect (i.e. starving and abandonment in the case we were talking about) would incur less than 16 weeks suspended if it had been applied to a human"
Obviously reading that as being a dependent human, since in my experience, my husband seems to cope reasonably well whenever I abandon him and make him feed himself when I'm working away from home! ;)

Anyway, time to let Ingrid have the thread back on topic I think.
 
Laudrup said:
I've heard of thieves using bleach to get rid of DNA or fingerprints.
Click to expand...

I've also heard about bleach being used as a dog repellent (as in around the garden, not sprayed on the dog) which may have triggered that thought in somebody's mind, I suppose.

Cobra said:
As I said above, when confronted with a dog, do you really think they would start rummaging cupboards to look for
cleaning products?
Click to expand...

Indeed. We don't know for certain, but bringing it with them would seem to be the more plausible scenario.

Still keeping my fingers crossed for a positive outcome for the dog and that they catch the scum who did it.
 
So sorry to hear this Ingrid.....words just cannot cover the rage & disgust I feel for lowlife scumbags that can do this to an innocent animal :rage:

I hope the outcome is good for the poor girl , fingers crossed the vets can save her eye sight & that the trauma won't affect her long term . Big hugs to you & her :hug:

My parents have a rescue greyhound , softest dog I've ever met , not a vicious bone in his body. They went out one day , he's left in the garden with the conservatory door open so he can go inside when he wants to his bed , food & water , it's a very quiet estate , mainly retired folk ,8 ft fence all round & backs on to woodland . They were only gone about an hour ,came back , opened the house door & he streaked inside whimpering .Turned out that some thugs had tried to get over the garden fence, he'd gone to say hello & they'd stabbed him with something sharp in his shoulder. Blood everywhere & a deep puncture wound .He wouldn't go in the garden for about 3 weeks after that . If my Dad had ever got hold of them they wouldn't have survived :punch:
 
Sitting here looking at 4 sleepy, happy dogs and wondering quite what depths of human depravity is required to do something like this. I honestly cannot imagine what the hell goes on in their heads and why they thought that would be a good way to get past a dog. I suppose these people are from the same kind of scummy, rancid pond [gene pool perhaps] as those that think training dogs to fight, and stealing other dogs as practice bait is a good idea. Loads of wishes for the GSD and to the local force in catching them all.
 
Pretty much sums it up, Yv. There are some whose way of relating to the world/environment/community - I can't find the right word - is so far removed from the vast majority of other people that we cannot understand the way they think.

Dave
 
As I said above, when confronted with a dog, do you really think they would start rummaging cupboards to look for
cleaning products? if they were that worried by the dog something heavy or sharp would be easier to come by.

And if they wanted to go "armed" with such, a quick stop at a convenience store,
and buy a couple of items in a carrier bag, no one would think twice if they were stopped,
or question the reason for buying it.
Click to expand...

Burglars aren't known for being brave, so if they know a dogs in the house, or a person, they almost never bother, it's much easier to go elsewhere where the chances of being caught or hurt aren't there. Of course its' possible they took it with them, I would just think it unlikely. As for the danger of being stopped? Yes, it would make a police officer think twice. You have to remember that the majority of burglaries are committed by 14-17 year olds, not by Mr Cunning. It's easy to sit and assume the worst with burglary, or any crime, but it almost never is planned to the extent it would need to for the assumptions to be correct.

I've heard of thieves using bleach to get rid of DNA or fingerprints. There was a recent Crimewatch where the home invaders used it. Hope the dog involved is ok.
Click to expand...
It doesn't get rid of fingerprints. Even if it 'melted down' the ridges of skin so they were flat, there would still be marks on your fingers which would be unique, so you will still be convicted on the basis of that. Anyway a pair of marigolds, or any glove is much simpler and less painful way of doing the same thing.
 
Bernie174 said:
It doesn't get rid of fingerprints. Even if it 'melted down' the ridges of skin so they were flat, there would still be marks on your fingers which would be unique, so you will still be convicted on the basis of that. Anyway a pair of marigolds, or any glove is much simpler and less painful way of doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

:thinking: I took it to mean for squirting on any surfaces they may have touched, not actually removing their own prints. Mind you I say that as one of those naughty sorts that doesn't get too fussed about neat bleach and my fingers coming into contact with each other occasionally and I still seems to have a full set of prints.
 
Bernie174 said:
It doesn't get rid of fingerprints. Even if it 'melted down' the ridges of skin so they were flat, there would still be marks on your fingers which would be unique, so you will still be convicted on the basis of that. Anyway a pair of marigolds, or any glove is much simpler and less painful way of doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
I read that as using the bleach to wipe down surfaces after, not applying to actual fingers.
 
You don't need bleach to get rid of a finger print from a surface, you wipe over the surface with anything you like, cloth, sleeve, back of you hand. Fingerprints only exist while undisturbed. Seems like a great deal of trouble when a pair of gloves have sufficed for many years!
I think I missed your point because its such a pointless exercise.
 
Bernie174 said:
I think I missed your point because its such a pointless exercise.
Click to expand...
But you're talking about idiot burglars (probably), who watch things like Dexter and get confused with fingerprints and blood/spittle/sweat and other carriers of DNA
 
No, I am talking about most burglars who aren't stupid, know more about forensics from TV or their own and mates experience of being caught than the majority of the public. Lesson 1 wear gloves. DNA of any sort and fingerprints are only rare finds at burglary scenes. Lesson 2, don't go equipped with anything obvious. and 3. don't go in anywhere you think someone or a dog is.
That kind up describes the vast majority of burglaries. Every so often it goes wrong and someone is in, thats usually followed by a very quick exit stage left, or a dogs there, then its exit even faster.
 
Gremlin said:
@CaveDweller , Paul that is so sad, poor Shep paid a heavy price at such a young age for someone else's mindless greed.
It's just mindless violence for the sake of it my heart goes out to you at your tragic loss :hug:
Click to expand...

sorry for Shep and most unfortunate that one perp "fell down those stairs... " ;-)
 
CaveDweller said:
I'd love to get my hands on scum like that, even more so with experiencing this myself.

. He ended up with a few broken ribs, broken nose, fractured arm and he was still unconscious when the police arrived
Click to expand...

people really shouldn't resist arrest lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top