I see… Just normal serial killer behavior. I wonder why someone would want to put scores of people people matching a certain profile in the care of a serial killer?
Whatever I’ll say it. Is she a dangerous sociopath, very likely. Does what she did to the goat fit the definition of the South Dakota law written above, doubt. A judge/ jury would find she thought a gunshot would kill the goat, and shot it. And since it is her story no one can prove she pranced around or did anything other than what she said she did, which was go get another “shell” to end its life. Her compete disregard for other peoples lives/feelings/wants/freedoms make her a shit person who should fear the possibility of her claimed religion being real. But being a shit person isn’t part of that law.
What I don’t understand is why I’ve seen people say she used a pistol and she keeps using the term shell. Her wording seems specific to her using a shotgun to shoot the goat, which should make it harder to miss… But it isn’t a guarantee. But my point being is that if she shot the dog with a pistol she had on her, she would have had to put the pistol away, see the goat, go grab a shotgun from the truck and shoot it at least once, and realize she was out of shells and go back.
She may need to see a specialist to figure out if she should be committed, but I don’t think anyone could prove she broke a law.
Between what the law says and what actually happens, there is a yawning gulf. It’s the same in basically all jurisdictions where there are animal-welfare laws. The meat industry is powerful and consumers are unrelenting in their clamor for cheap meat. With such incentives, the weakest link is always going to be animals, which by definition have no voice.
Not withstanding what @boddhisatva wrote in reply and in no way a defense of the meat industry, you’re missing the point.
The point is the woman demonstrably lacks any empathy and in fact appears to be a sociopath. She should never have been in any position of power over others, far less the position she holds now.
It’s about her, not the animals (as horrible as it was for these, and is for other, animals).
deleted by creator
So not only is she an awful human being, but she’s also an awful shot.
I see… Just normal serial killer behavior. I wonder why someone would want to put scores of people people matching a certain profile in the care of a serial killer?
Whatever I’ll say it. Is she a dangerous sociopath, very likely. Does what she did to the goat fit the definition of the South Dakota law written above, doubt. A judge/ jury would find she thought a gunshot would kill the goat, and shot it. And since it is her story no one can prove she pranced around or did anything other than what she said she did, which was go get another “shell” to end its life. Her compete disregard for other peoples lives/feelings/wants/freedoms make her a shit person who should fear the possibility of her claimed religion being real. But being a shit person isn’t part of that law.
What I don’t understand is why I’ve seen people say she used a pistol and she keeps using the term shell. Her wording seems specific to her using a shotgun to shoot the goat, which should make it harder to miss… But it isn’t a guarantee. But my point being is that if she shot the dog with a pistol she had on her, she would have had to put the pistol away, see the goat, go grab a shotgun from the truck and shoot it at least once, and realize she was out of shells and go back.
She may need to see a specialist to figure out if she should be committed, but I don’t think anyone could prove she broke a law.
deleted by creator
The dog she can justify with him trying to bite her (not saying I agree, but she can provide justification). The goat isn’t justifiable at all.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How they’re “put down” (that’s a very kind euphemism) is only part of the problem. It’s how they’re forced to live
That’s their entire life.
deleted by creator
This is the internet. Deflection from the point being made, in an effort to one-up or simply argue with a post.
More specifically this is Lemmy. If we don’t have morons arguing with the dumbest logic possible, something is wrong.
So theyre forced to live just like the people Noem is kidnapping via ICE?
Between what the law says and what actually happens, there is a yawning gulf. It’s the same in basically all jurisdictions where there are animal-welfare laws. The meat industry is powerful and consumers are unrelenting in their clamor for cheap meat. With such incentives, the weakest link is always going to be animals, which by definition have no voice.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Personally I share your take, but you’re not helping the cause by insulting people.
You support the Trump administration?
Because when this shit comes up and you do your best to shift the focus, that’s one of two conclusions I can come to.
Not withstanding what @boddhisatva wrote in reply and in no way a defense of the meat industry, you’re missing the point.
The point is the woman demonstrably lacks any empathy and in fact appears to be a sociopath. She should never have been in any position of power over others, far less the position she holds now.
It’s about her, not the animals (as horrible as it was for these, and is for other, animals).
But what about the children?
This is exactly my mental response to this kind of story. Total hypocrisy. Try to ignore the pushback, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.