| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:13 pm Post subject: �Serial animal killer� can�t be imprisoned under law |
 |
|
| Quote: |
�Serial animal killer� can�t be imprisoned under law
Man confessed to feeding adopted poodle box cutters, dumping newborn puppies, but he can only be fined, provoking call for stricter animal cruelty legislation.
Three weeks ago, the SBS television show �Animal Farm� ran a feature on a man media outlets are calling �Korea�s first serial killer of animals.�
The man in his 40s, who lives in southeastern Seoul, allegedly pulled out the claws of a poodle with pliers and burned it with a lighter. He also said he forced the dog, one of several he had adopted over the Internet, to swallow box cutters, which later led to its death, and confessed to beating other dogs to death and putting newborn puppies into a public trash can. Though he only told the police about killing eight animals, officials say it is likely he killed more.
He is still being investigated by the Songpa District police and is awaiting indictment |
.
| Quote: |
This generous attitude toward animal abuse is enshrined in Korean law. According to the most recent revision to local animal protection law, which was passed in 2006 and came into effect in 2008, the maximum penalty for animal cruelty is a fine of 5 million won ($4,350).
Still, no animal abuser has ever had to pay that much. The SBS program revealed that the maximum fine courts levied on anyone convicted under that law in the last three years was 500,000 won.
A man who burned a cat to death paid 200,000 won. Another man who deliberately killed a dog by throwing it from a high-rise apartment was sentenced to a 300,000 won fine. |
Look at the bottom of the link for additional sites
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2916162 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stalin84
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Location: Haebangchon, Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They just slap them on the wrist when they should be getting 20 to life... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nine years for tying a dog to the back of a truck and dragging it for miles - a sentence in a US court.
Korea's acceptance of violence toward animals (let alone women and children) is behind the times.
That Korean serial animal killer wouldn't last ten days on the streets of my home town before some guys decide to take justice into their own hands.
Hard to believe the guy isn't institutionalized for mental disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crockpot2001
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Google serial killer and animal abuse. Some familiar names appear. How we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat each other.
| VanIslander wrote: |
Nine years for tying a dog to the back of a truck and dragging it for miles - a sentence in a US court.
Korea's acceptance of violence toward animals (let alone women and children) is behind the times.
That Korean serial animal killer wouldn't last ten days on the streets of my home town before some guys decide to take justice into their own hands.
Hard to believe the guy isn't institutionalized for mental disease. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Google serial killer and animal abuse. Some familiar names appear. How we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat each other. |
yeah don't worry. after a while he'll get bored with animals and move on to something bigger.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crockpot2001 wrote: |
Google serial killer and animal abuse. Some familiar names appear. How we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat each other.
|
That is the first thing I thought of too. I think it was in the premier episode of Dexter as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am a much more serious animal killer. When the fried chicken trucks come to my apartment I have been known to go through three in a single night. Imagine how many I have had in a lifetime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
That Korean serial animal killer wouldn't last ten days on the streets of my home town before some guys decide to take justice into their own hands.
|
I'm guessing Victoria, BC, capital of the man hating environmentalist movement on the island? What are they going to do, smoke a joint and then forget about it?
Vigilantes attacking a man who has violated nobody's rights does not make anything better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
Nine years for tying a dog to the back of a truck and dragging it for miles - a sentence in a US court.
Korea's acceptance of violence toward animals (let alone women and children) is behind the times.
That Korean serial animal killer wouldn't last ten days on the streets of my home town before some guys decide to take justice into their own hands.
Hard to believe the guy isn't institutionalized for mental disease. |
That sentence would be pretty unusual in North America, though. Some U.S. states are making progress, but Canada is still way behind the times too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dixon wrote: |
| I'm guessing Victoria, BC, capital of the man hating environmentalist movement on the island? What are they going to do, smoke a joint and then forget about it? |
 You couldn't be more wrong. Five hours north of there: Port Hardy. Fishermen and loggers and real men who love their dogs and who would load a pickup to beat up a guy who ever kicked their dog or any other one around. Really, kicking a dog is seen as pretty low and cowardly and many a guy in my hometown would step up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dixon wrote: |
| I am a much more serious animal killer. When the fried chicken trucks come to my apartment I have been known to go through three in a single night. Imagine how many I have had in a lifetime. |
| Dixon wrote: |
I'm guessing Victoria, BC, capital of the man hating environmentalist movement on the island? What are they going to do, smoke a joint and then forget about it?
Vigilantes attacking a man who has violated nobody's rights does not make anything better. |
I suspect you're just trolling, but I'll toss an argument in your direction all the same, if only for the sake of anyone else who's undecided on animal rights issues:
1) The humane slaughter of chickens for food is different from feeding a dog box cutters. I imagine most of the people who would be offended by this story aren't vegetarians and that's OK because it isn't the killing so much as the deliberate torture that's messed up.
2) Why do you believe feeding a dog box cutters doesn't violate said dog's rights? What does it take to qualify as a "somebody?" Just being human? Intelligence? If your measure is intelligence, I hope you're not opposed to abortion or supportive of rights for the severely mentally retarded.
My more objective argument aside, I've grown up around dogs and find the ones I've known to have been pretty affectionate, intelligent, and endearingly loyal creatures. Which animals deserve which rights can turn into a tough, slippery slope kind of question, but I have a hard time understanding why anyone wouldn't put dogs somewhere near the top of any hypothetical rights lists.
PS: Why are you associating the appreciation of dogs with environmentalism and cannabis? Do you have any idea how many gun nut hunting fanatics in America there are or how much they all love their hunting dog companions? I imagine some of the most right wing people on the planet own and love dogs as though they were family members. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
1) The humane slaughter of chickens for food is different from feeding a dog box cutters. I imagine most of the people who would be offended by this story aren't vegetarians and that's OK because it isn't the killing so much as the deliberate torture that's messed up.
|
I disagree. If you say you support animal rights, you should support the rights of *all* animals not to be the resources of humans. There's nothing "humane" about the way chickens are slaughtered, or the way they're treated before slaughter, but even if conditions were to improve that wouldn't make it right.
I'm not trying to talk you out of your worldview if you're determined to hold onto it, but you should call it animal "welfare" (with welfare in quotation marks) because it has nothing to do with animal rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
I disagree. If you say you support animal rights, you should support the rights of *all* animals not to be the resources of humans. There's nothing "humane" about the way chickens are slaughtered, or the way they're treated before slaughter, but even if conditions were to improve that wouldn't make it right.
I'm not trying to talk you out of your worldview if you're determined to hold onto it, but you should call it animal "welfare" (with welfare in quotation marks) because it has nothing to do with animal rights. |
Fair enough. I would rebut that point by pointing to the whole slippery slope deal all the way down to insects or even bacteria, but I could see where chickens would be clearly more worthy of certain protections than insects (which is why I would hope that humane slaughtering regulations were being followed in practice). What wouldn't you include under your definition of animals? Where would you draw the line?
EDIT: To clarify my stance, I'd prefer it if everyone just hunted whatever meat they ate so any animals killed would be getting a somewhat fair quasi-natural type of death, but I think the next best (and more practical) thing would be to allow farmers or factories to raise and slaughter certain varieties of livestock in as natural and humane a way as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
I disagree. If you say you support animal rights, you should support the rights of *all* animals not to be the resources of humans. There's nothing "humane" about the way chickens are slaughtered, or the way they're treated before slaughter, but even if conditions were to improve that wouldn't make it right.
I'm not trying to talk you out of your worldview if you're determined to hold onto it, but you should call it animal "welfare" (with welfare in quotation marks) because it has nothing to do with animal rights. |
Fair enough. I would rebut that point by pointing to the whole slippery slope deal all the way down to insects or even bacteria, but I could see where chickens would be clearly more worthy of certain protections than insects (which is why I would hope that humane slaughtering regulations were being followed in practice). What wouldn't you include under your definition of animals? Where would you draw the line? |
Between animals and things that aren't animals (such as protozoans, plants and non-living things, all of which are incapable of having feelings or experiences of any kind). Insects shouldn't be resources either and we should avoid harming them to the greatest extent possible ... but they're so tiny that it's impossible to avoid harming them altogether. The fact that it's impossible to avoid harming some animals is no excuse to throw up our hands and support harmful practices when it's easy to avoid doing so.
What "slippery slope" are you referring to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
