beating his dog

pokertalk

Discodog wrote: »

It is appalling but the voters of Ireland won't vote for anything better or support a proper nationwide ISPCA.

well in the meantime people like my mate will have to be the voice for mistreated pets . if the system is so bad then alot more people should intervene when they see this type of thing itdoes not have to come to blows but if it did i would have no problem defending me and the dog

Fair play to your mate, if I saw that carry on I'd be attempting to knock them out myself :mad:

pokertalk

it may end up with me on the ground but i would still give it a go;)

Burkatron

pokertalk wrote: »

well in the meantime people like my mate will have to be the voice for mistreated pets . if the system is so bad then alot more people should intervene when they see this type of thing itdoes not have to come to blows but if it did i would have no problem defending me and the dog

Thats all well & good in theory but then you get the vigilante who takes it too far in the heat of the moment & gets himself in serious trouble like your mate could be. Or you get the scummer who kicks the living piss out of the person intervening. As said before no matter what you want to do at the time the best course is to step back take the license plate & forward it onto the cards. Better yet would be whipping your phone out & getting a quick video/photo of the scum doing it then shouting at them till they start at you or piss off! The end of the day the dog is still with them, your mate stopped it that occassion, but he's not going to be there the next time!

Kevo

Well done to your friend. It's a pity that the law sees him as being in the wrong.

Graces7

pokertalk wrote: »

well in the meantime people like my mate will have to be the voice for mistreated pets . if the system is so bad then alot more people should intervene when they see this type of thing itdoes not have to come to blows but if it did i would have no problem defending me and the dog

You are not alone; we have recently moved house because of the repercussions of fighting for help for abused animals. Threats of abuse and illegal eviction followed.

A campaign of harassment and intimidation.

We had to leave in the dark to prevent aggression.

The system stinks, frankly.

oppenheimer1

Eibhin wrote: »

Yeah and hopefully the dog will learn not to behave so badly as to make his owner punch him......

Are you joking wetdogsmell......anyone who does that to a dog deserves to be punched at the very least.

No they don't. While I don't condone cruelty, its just a dog. Perspective people.

Burkatron

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No they don't. While I don't condone cruelty, its just a dog. Perspective people.

Troll

sligopark

Graces7 wrote: »

You are not alone; we have recently moved house because of the repercussions of fighting for help for abused animals. Threats of abuse and illegal eviction followed.

A campaign of harassment and intimidation.

We had to leave in the dark to prevent aggression.

The system stinks, frankly.

whilst the greens are off annoying country folk about hunting and adding their ecothesist carbon taxes to our enrgy costs they ignore the real issues for animals on the ground - where is that c_nt gormley and the yellow warriors on this issue?

pokertalk

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No they don't. While I don't condone cruelty, its just a dog. Perspective people.

y do people just post stupit comments like this just to get a reaction

wetdogsmell

why is anyone with a different point of veiw on here called a troll, seems childish

pokertalk

wetdogsmell wrote: »

why is anyone with a different point of veiw on here called a troll, seems childish

people feel strongly about there pets and when someone says thats it just a dog it gets up there nose everyone is entitled to there opinion but if your willing to voice it then you will have to defend it and deal with what prople think of that opinion

Burkatron

wetdogsmell wrote: »

why is anyone with a different point of veiw on here called a troll, seems childish

Did I call you a troll Karl ya big giant egg? :P

The other guy is coming onto a pet & animal forum & stating "it's just a dog"
That's an inflammatory statement thats gonna cause an arguement when it's not really necessary. I never said he was wrong but it's not the place to be saying it!

Edit: I never said he was right either!

wetdogsmell

pokertalk wrote: »

people feel strongly about there pets and when someone says thats it just a dog it gets up there nose everyone is entitled to there opinion but if your willing to voice it then you will have to defend it and deal with what prople think of that opinion

all though i did'nt say it, i agree with it a little bit, i think a dog is less important than a person

Burkatron wrote: »

Did I call you a troll Karl ya big giant egg? :P

although i may be a big giant egg i'm not a troll, (thats the lord of the rings your thinking of)

The other guy is coming onto a pet & animal forum & stating "it's just a dog"
That's an inflammatory statement thats gonna cause an arguement when it's not really necessary. I never said he was wrong but it's not the place to be saying it!

i would have thought an animal and pet fourm was the perfect place to talk about it

Edit: I never said he was right either!

Burkatron

wetdogsmell wrote: »

all though i did'nt say it, i agree with it a little bit, i think a dog is less important than a person

But would it sit right with you if you saw some one punching the **** out of a dog? I somehow doubt it would?

pokertalk

i understand that the human issue comes first but the guards should of dealt with the dog s situation afterr it especially when my mate explained the hole story to them. if i seen a human being treated like that i would also step in the issue is not who is more important dogs or humans its the fact that it was not dealt with nor were the guards interested in dealing with the dog situation

Discodog

sligopark wrote: »

whilst the greens are off annoying country folk about hunting and adding their ecothesist carbon taxes to our enrgy costs they ignore the real issues for animals on the ground - where is that c_nt gormley and the yellow warriors on this issue?

As someone who cares about animal welfare I have to say that the Greens are a disaster. However they are the only party who instigate any welfare legislation. The other parties have no interest whatsoever.

We should be getting a new Animal Welfare Bill to bring us in line with other countries. However it is now unlikely to happen as the Greens are likely to disappear.

I do blame the Guards. A lot of people say that there is insufficient law & that the law is very out of date. But the law does lay out definitions of cruelty. The Guards will say that there is a lack of evidence but they make no effort to collect the evidence that is there.

But the real problem will remain the people of Ireland. If this incident had happened in the UK the guy would of been lucky to get out alive. Attitudes are changing but only at a Snail's pace.

homerhop

I am sure the guy had a phone with a camera on it. All the evidence the guards would have needed. but then wouldn't the world be such an interesting place if we could all go around punching people who offended us.

oppenheimer1

Burkatron wrote: »

Troll

I am no troll. I just find it hard to believe that you could condone violence against people while at the same time being aghast if it occurs against animals. Talk about a double standard. What happened to the OPs friend was proper order, you cannot go around punching people when you see something objectionable acting like a vigilante. The proper course of action would have been to alert the authorities had he witnessed suspected animal cruelty.

But no the OP was right and the people attacked were wrong seems to be the unenlightened chorus to be heard here. Unprovoked punching a person, or hitting a dog, you have to ask yourself which is the greater evil. It seems that people here believe the latter to be worse, which is crazy.

Burkatron

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I am no troll. I just find it hard to believe that you could condone violence against people while at the same time being aghast if it occurs against animals. Talk about a double standard. What happened to the OPs friend was proper order, you cannot go around punching people when you see something objectionable acting like a vigilante. The proper course of action would have been to alert the authorities had he witnessed suspected animal cruelty.

But no the OP was right and the people attacked were wrong seems to be the unenlightened chorus to be heard here. Unprovoked punching a person, or hitting a dog, you have to ask yourself which is the greater evil. It seems that people here believe the latter to be worse, which is crazy.

I see you chose to ignore this:

Burkatron wrote: »

Did I call you a troll Karl ya big giant egg? :P

The other guy is coming onto a pet & animal forum & stating "it's just a dog"
That's an inflammatory statement thats gonna cause an arguement when it's not really necessary. I never said he was wrong but it's not the place to be saying it!

Edit: I never said he was right either!

The bold part is the epithamy of trolling. Do you go onto all forums & say things that are obviously going to be against users beliefs & piss them off?

But no the OP was right and the people attacked were wrong seems to be the unenlightened chorus to be heard here. Unprovoked punching a person, or hitting a dog, you have to ask yourself which is the greater evil.

So you're saying they were right? The OP's mate wasn't necessarily right. Was it unprovoked? Where you there? The OP's mate stated he was swung at 1st, does he not have the right to defend himself if this is true!? He had every right to tell them to stop hitting the dog. I do ask myself which is the greater evil! A SCUMBAG who hits a defenseless animal, or a person who hits the SCUMBAG who hits the defenseless animal? I know the 1st 1 is seen in the eyes of the law as worse but the law isn't always right!

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

I am sure the guy had a phone with a camera on it. All the evidence the guards would have needed.

Would you adopt the same attitude if you saw a woman being attacked & needing help ?.

Would you say "Hang on a minute love I need to take some pics " ?.

We knew children were being abused & we did nothing.
We knew that the politicians were corrupt & we did nothing.

Maybe it is time to do something. In France it is illegal not to intervene.

jap gt

Discodog wrote: »

Would you adopt the same attitude if you saw a woman being attacked & needing help ?.

Would you say "Hang on a minute love I need to take some pics " ?.

We knew children were being abused & we did nothing.
We knew that the politicians were corrupt & we did nothing.

Maybe it is time to do something. In France it is illegal not to intervene.

big diference between a dog being attacked and a woman, and im fairly sure the gaurds would see it differently too

Discodog

jap gt wrote: »

big diference between a dog being attacked and a woman, and im fairly sure the gaurds would see it differently too

Oh they do. We all know that the Guards are selective in which lawbreakers they choose to apprehend. Hitting the dog is illegal. It is not up to the Guards to decide priorities unless a human was being attacked at the same time.

What is the point in having law if we leave it to the Guards to decide.

oppenheimer1

Discodog wrote: »

Oh they do. We all know that the Guards are selective in which lawbreakers they choose to apprehend. Hitting the dog is illegal. It is not up to the Guards to decide priorities unless a human was being attacked at the same time.

What is the point in having law if we leave it to the Guards to decide.

And this was the case in the incident we are discussing, both person and animal (allegedly) were attacked at the same time.

Discodog

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And this was the case in the incident we are discussing, both person and animal (allegedly) were attacked at the same time.

Wrong. The dog was being beaten & a man tried to intervene to prevent the crime of beating the dog. Seeing as there were two of them & one of him it was an act of bravery especially as one man had already shown his willingness to be violent towards the dog.

Given these facts your Honour it is clear that the accused only used reasonable force in trying to apprehend a vicious criminal. The accused was perfectly entitle to assume that, any man who beat a dog, would have no hesitation in beating him. The accused acted to prevent further harm to the dog.

Go for trial by Jury - no chance of a conviction.

oppenheimer1

Discodog wrote: »

Wrong. The dog was being beaten & a man tried to intervene to prevent the crime of beating the dog. Seeing as there were two of them & one of him it was an act of bravery especially as one man had already shown his willingness to be violent towards the dog.

Given these facts your Honour it is clear that the accused only used reasonable force in trying to apprehend a vicious criminal. The accused was perfectly entitle to assume that, any man who beat a dog, would have no hesitation in beating him. The accused acted to prevent further harm to the dog.

Go for trial by Jury - no chance of a conviction.

Reasonable force?! He decked him!


Look he took the law into his own hands and rightly paid the price. He should have alerted the authorities and not got involved.

There is only evidence of one vicious criminal and thats the OPs mate.

Burkatron

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And this was the case in the incident we are discussing, both person and animal (allegedly) were attacked at the same time.

Right, so the animal was allegedly attacked! The OP's mate allegedly stepped in to stop the alleged beating. The OP's mate was allegedly attacked, but he assaulted the guy.

I think you're going to have to take the OP's 2nd hand account of the story as a hypothetical situation as no1 here was there to verify what happened.
So hypothetically if this all happened said is the OP's mate still in the wrong & the man accused of beating the dog is the victim here?

jap gt

Discodog wrote: »

Oh they do. We all know that the Guards are selective in which lawbreakers they choose to apprehend. Hitting the dog is illegal. It is not up to the Guards to decide priorities unless a human was being attacked at the same time.

What is the point in having law if we leave it to the Guards to decide.

an assualt on a human being will be treated more seriously than that of an animal, and rightly so, im not having a go at the op friend, but your arguement that if it was a woman being attacked is silly

oppenheimer1

Burkatron wrote: »

Right, so the animal was allegedly attacked! The OP's mate allegedly stepped in to stop the alleged beating. The OP's mate was allegedly attacked, but he assaulted the guy.

I think you're going to have to take the OP's 2nd hand account of the story as a hypothetical situation as no1 here was there to verify what happened.
So hypothetically if this all happened said is the OP's mate still in the wrong & the man accused of beating the dog is the victim here?

There is no evidence that the dog was attacked but the OPs mate knocked out on of the guys so there is evidence for that assault.

Yes the OPs mate is still in the wrong as he should never have punched the man.

oppenheimer1

Discodog wrote: »

What is the point in having law if we leave it to the Guards to decide.

Whats the point in having a justice system if we leave it to vigilante to dole out the punishments.