Lithuanian Dog thrown from Bridge

HarryD

Anyone else heard about this.. ?
Some Lithuanian scumbags recoreded themselves throwing a helpless dog from a bridge, on to a track 40ft below.
The dog lay injured yelping, while the scumbags filmed it all.
The video has stirred quite a lot of emotions within online communities such as 4chan and reddit, with people offering to go there and deal with the scumbag themselves.
A Facebook group has been setup to track down the culprit, who was originally wrongly identified as someone else on facebook. 4chan have apparantly tracked down the guy.
The police have identified the culprit and are looking to question him.
Thankfully the dog survived and is been looked after, but still not eating or drinking.


HD

Warning: The video is available online but is very distressing to watch.

cashel girl

Advocating violent stuff removed.

star-pants

Hadn't heard about it.
I'm always shocked when I hear a new cruelty case like these ones, you'd think you wouldn't be but every time you just think 'how could they'.
There's clearly some blackhearted people out there, and I hope karma comes to each and every one of them.

little edit here - by Karma (if you click the link there) I mean that they will have consequences for what they've done - whether it be fines/jailed/exposed or have their life just not work out so well. It is *not* a violent statement.

thorbarry

ahh the poor dog

Hellrazer

To the person who reported these 3 posts^^^


Couple of things.

1.Have you nothing better to do?
2.Theres no need to report a thread 3 times.

Are you now the forum police?

Leave the moderating up to the mods please.

thorbarry

Hellrazer wrote: »

To the person who reported these 3 posts^^^


Couple of things.

1.Have you nothing better to do?
2.Theres no need to report a thread 3 times.

Are you now the forum police?

Leave the moderating up to the mods please.

lol we were reported?

Hellrazer

thorbarry wrote: »

lol we were reported?

Yes for advocating violence against the person who threw the dog off the bridge.Its against the forums rules to advocate violence of any sort so Ive edited the reported posts except for Star-pants one which Im sure she`ll defend herself.

star-pants

Hellrazer wrote: »

Yes for advocating violence against the person who threw the dog off the bridge.Its against the forums rules to advocate violence of any sort so Ive edited the reported posts except for Star-pants one which Im sure she`ll defend herself.

Darn right I'll defend myself - there was no violence mentioned in my post? So to the person who reported me you explain how I'm being violent.

Back ON topic - it's horrendous thing for people to be so cruel to animals or anyone I shall honestly never in my life understand it.

thorbarry

star-pants wrote: »

Darn right I'll defend myself - there was no violence mentioned in my post? So to the person who reported me you explain how I'm being violent.

Back ON topic - it's horrendous thing for people to be so cruel to animals or anyone I shall honestly never in my life understand it.

yea, your post was fine dude, i dont see any problem with it

It really amazes me what some people are capable of doing. In my mind, throwing an innocent dog off a bridge is the same as throwing an innocent person of a bridge, and the people that did this should be given a proper jail sentence and not 6-12 months community service

CokaColumbo

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

Your thoughts...

star-pants

So you feel it's perfectly humane to kill someones pet by tossing them off a bridge?
Purely because we kill animals bred for food in the best way we can?

If chickens & cows and other edible animals were killed by being tossed off a bridge you'd be damn sure there'd be an uproar.

CamillaRhodes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

I am not going to try to advocate against vegetarianism, but you must recognise that the vast majority of human beings are carnivores, and have been for millenia. The vast majority of humans are not torturers of animals for their own amusement. Thus the actions of those few are repulsive to the majority.

The time may come when eating meat is considered by repulsive by the majority of human beings. But until that time comes, do you really think it would be better that we not be horrified by sickos torturing animals for their amusement?

HarryD

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

Putting any animal through such a degree of suffering is a bad thing.
This case is sick, because it was done for a twisted form of amusement.
However it's as bad as the systematic cases of creulty that goes on today in the meat industry.

Whispered

I think what happened is a disgrace, absolutely.

However, acts of cruelty do happen as standard in abbatoirs. It may not be throwing them off bridges, but needless cruelty happens and people either don't know about it (and if eating ethicially thay should make it their business to know about it IMO) or else they have an idea and turn a blind eye.

BUT, at the end of the day, the dog was abused for amusement, nothing else. And there is a difference between that and farming.

lintdrummer

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

Your thoughts...

Difference: Killing animals for food is not pointless and on the whole cows, chickens, etc etc are killed as humanely as possible. And for taste and convenience isn't the only reason we eat animals, nutrition has much more to do it. We flavour meat with herbs, spices and sauces.

Killing, or indeed in this case injuring, an animal of any kind simply for kicks and lack of anything else to do is just cruel and unnecesary.

Whispered

CamillaRhodes wrote: »

I am not going to try to advocate against vegetarianism, but you must recognise that the vast majority of human beings are carnivores, and have been for millenia. The vast majority of humans are not torturers of animals for their own amusement. Thus the actions of those few are repulsive to the majority.

Omnivores, not carnivores.

And while the vast majority of people do not torture for amusement, the same vast majority support cruelty by buying products obtained by cruel means. I am not saying people should not eat meat. But people should try to eat ethicially sourced meat. Like free range chicken and pigs. Meat from family butchers. I hate when I hear people going on about how cheap meat is in x,y or z. It's cheap for a reason. Usually that reason is terrible conditions for the animals.

In saying that, I can't talk, I drink milk and have no idea where it's sourced and how the calves which are a byproduct of this industry end up. Most likely as veal ca;ves I'd imagine.

I don't think that poster was trying to tell you NOT to be disgusted at what happened to the dog. I think s/he was trying to point out that there are levels of cruelty which we accept that we shouldn't.

heno86

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

Your thoughts...

blah blah blah we know cows and chickens are killed and the reason it's different is because we do it for sustenance to live, its part of our natural diet...if these guys were starving in the woods i wouldnt have a problem with them eating a dog for survival by the same token if i had a pet cow and someone pushed daisy off a bridge just to see her die and in agony then i would say they were sick fu*ks too...people are more shocked at the mentality of individuals who want to cause pain and suffering to a living creature for no apparent reason other than deriving sick pleasure than the actual death, would you rather live next door to one of these guys or someone who worked at a slaughter house?

Whispered

heno86 wrote: »

blah blah blah

ooohhh quick edit!:)

I think that was his point? That people accept some forms of cruelty with a blah blah type of attitude.

EDIT: Of course it was awful and wrong what happened to the dog and I hope the person responsible does time for it. I think the whole conversation on the ethics of farming would be better off in another forum or thread?

heno86

helena.ryan wrote: »

ooohhh quick edit!:)

I think that was his point? That people accept some forms of cruelty with a blah blah type of attitude.

yeh i felt bad:) haha, it's not a blase attitude towards the animals death it's towards this kind of rationale i sometimes think people just talk like this to hear their own voice...seriously this has nothing got to do with the slaughter of animals for food its an act of cruelty for no other reason than a sadistic thrill thats why it causes uproar, it's nothing to do with the type of animal its the human that people are shocked at and it's very frustrating when people try to belittle one animals suffering to push their own cause, the reality is they're two very different situations and the poster knows that just as any right minded person does so why do people feel the need to try relate any animal cruelty to domsticated animals to livestock treatment

HarryD

Update on the case:
The culprit has handed himself in and has been released pending charges.
The dog is still terrifed but has started to eat and drink again

more links:
here
here

Peanut

emmettogara wrote: »

... And for taste and convenience isn't the only reason we eat animals, nutrition has much more to do it.

Nah. I reckon it's more to do with what a particular society is used to.

It's not difficult at all to eat an equivalent in non-animal nutrition, but a majority of people like the taste of meat and prefer not to think about where it comes from too much.

Whispered

I know what you mean I can see what that poster is saying and I agree to a point but it doesn't take away from the fact that it is appaling what happened.

why do people feel the need to try relate any animal cruelty to domsticated animals to livestock treatment

I think because there is unnecessary suffering caused to these animals too. It's not on the same level of depravity, but on a much larger scale.

CokaColumbo

star-pants wrote: »

So you feel it's perfectly humane to kill someones pet by tossing them off a bridge?
Purely because we kill animals bred for food in the best way we can?
If chickens & cows and other edible animals were killed by being tossed off a bridge you'd be damn sure there'd be an uproar.

I think by the standards of a meat eater, this act was not an inherently wrong thing to do as we both kill animals for essentially trivial reasons. Granted, those men killed that dog for the sheer, perverted enjoyment of taking his or her life; but we the consumers kill animals all the time because we are absolutely indifferent to their suffering and death (which is not exactly saintly in my opinion).

CamillaRhodes wrote: »

...the vast majority of human beings are carnivores, and have been for millenia. The vast majority of humans are not torturers of animals for their own amusement. Thus the actions of those few are repulsive to the majority.
...But until that time comes, do you really think it would be better that we not be horrified by sickos torturing animals for their amusement?

I defintely agree that the vast majority of humans are not deliberate and active torturers of animals but I do think that we are passive torturers of animals.

It is because of us and our indifference to 'food' animals that we allow severe abuses to be inflicted upon them, equal to and often worse than the poor dog who was thrown off that bridge.
Yes we eat Irish cows and Irish pigs whose lives have been 'humanely' taken away from them but we also generally eat packaged pizza's, Chinese take-aways, imported yoghurts, chocolate bars, biscuits, Tesco processed meals, imported ice creams, McDonalds, KFC, Burger King etc. etc. all of which contain animal products which have come from animals who usually live out their short lives in perpetual pain and discomfort in intensive agriculture conditions (factory farms).

emmettogara wrote: »

...And for taste and convenience isn't the only reason we eat animals, nutrition has much more to do it. We flavour meat with herbs, spices and sauces.
Killing, or indeed in this case injuring, an animal of any kind simply for kicks and lack of anything else to do is just cruel and unnecesary.

I can assure you that a diet which does not involve meat products (or animal products at all) is entirely healthy and may be in fact more beneficial to you in the long run. Eating meat is just more convenient in obtaining the necessary nutrients and minerals (protein, iron etc.) but all of these can be found easily in a plant based diet. Convenience and taste are the only reasons we can put forward for our killing of animals; we are the ones who "lack" justification for taking sentient life away.


In my opinion, we are all, in one form or another, those bad men on the bridge.

lintdrummer

Peanut wrote: »

Nah. I reckon it's more to do with what a particular society is used to.

It's not difficult at all to eat an equivalent in non-animal nutrition, but a majority of people like the taste of meat and prefer not to think about where it comes from too much.

I agree. Certainly people enjoy eating meat and it is to do with society, tradition is a valuable part of cuisine.

However you missed my point here, I wasn't trying to drag the thread off topic into a vegetarian vs omnivore debate, I was simply stating that killing an animal to eat it is not pointless and is entirely different from pointless cruelty.

Discodog

It's a pity that there was not an internet outcry over the poor puppy that was set alight & thrown over a wall in Dublin. Those delightful people are still at large. Maybe because it was not filmed. Perhaps we can ignore what we don't see ?.

CokaColumbo

wrote:

Perhaps we can ignore what we don't see ?.

That's exactly it. We point the finger at those who commit this abuse with such blatant intent yet we ourselves are guilty of comparable abuse; we just have different motives, but equally frivolous ones, for committing it.
We hide behind the bogus claim of "I only eat humanely killed animals" and "humans need meat for its nutrition". Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

(if I have misrepresented your quote I apologise. That sentence just summed up my initial argument.)

lintdrummer

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I can assure you that a diet which does not involve meat products (or animal products at all) is entirely healthy and may be in fact more beneficial to you in the long run. Eating meat is just more convenient in obtaining the necessary nutrients and minerals (protein, iron etc.) but all of these can be found easily in a plant based diet. Convenience and taste are the only reasons we can put forward for our killing of animals; we are the ones who "lack" justification for taking sentient life away.


In my opinion, we are all, in one form or another, those bad men on the bridge.

My good god what is wrong with people here? I never said that I disagree with vegetarianism and I never said that it is less healthy than a meat rich diet. My girlfriend is a vegetarian and I rarely eat meat myself. My point was that killing an animal for it's meat isn't senseless whereas throwing a pet off a bridge for no reason is.

I am not a vege basher!!!!!!!!!!!!

CokaColumbo

emmettogara wrote: »

My good god what is wrong with people here? I never said that I disagree with vegetarianism and I never said that it is less healthy than a meat rich diet. My girlfriend is a vegetarian and I rarely eat meat myself. My point was that killing an animal for it's meat isn't senseless whereas throwing a pet off a bridge for no reason is.

I am not a vege basher!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry if I made you look like a vege basher

My point is that it is in fact senseless to kill a living, sentient being, a person in my opinion, when it isn't necessary in any way WHATSOEVER to do so! I think the taking of that dog's life was just as pointless as killing a cow to make 50 double, flame grilled cheeseburgers. Emmettogara, i want you to become a vegan. I want you to reject animal products for ever and ever.

heno86

in other news check out after hours, a fish being eaten alive after being fried, if i hear "well thats no worse than what happens to charlie the chicken in bangladesh" i think i might scream, look at it for what it is not what its comparable to....its really fu*ked up if your squeamish dont look at the vid

wolfpawnat

Well I dont see what vegitarianism has to do with a dog in Lithuania, but anywho!

That poor animal, those sub-human beasts would not do such things if they knew they would be subjected to the same in return. I wish there was harsher laws for animal abuse!

If you can't love a dog what can you love?

star-pants

Cokacolumbo, whilst I see your point, if we go by that rule, then every person on the planet is a murderer, paedophile, torturer, abuser and so forth.

People fight for better conditions - such as free range animals, so as to give them the best life they can have (being bred for food).
Animals kill other animals for food.
We kill animals for food.

Killing animals for fun is another matter and that's what this thread was about.