Man batters dog to death.

The Dogs Bollix

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Well, no shame in being broke but I bet he would have got in more trouble for not paying court fines than for what he did was my point really.

Are there any free pet euthanasia services in Dublin does anyone know?

The blue cross helps out people in need.

johnnyskeleton

Two observations:

Dont the blue cross do a free or subsidised vet service in the city centre. They come around near me ever week or so and provide a great service to animal owners who cant afford private vet bills.

In fairness, its not the Judge so much as the law/legislature which places more emphasis on prison for drugs and revenue offences than for violence and sexual offences. The Judge is essentially taking his cue from government policy on what is a serious offence. I think it should be the other way around, but then again I aint in government.

phonypony

Clown of a judge, like Carney before him and others around the country with an apparent soft spot for evil. Eventually stupid leniency like this will just lead to mob justice in this country.

johnnyskeleton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Insofar as room in jail, I would happily pay more tax to build and run more jails, to get rid of scumbags like him in addition to all the other scobies who should be off the streets for a very long time.

Unfortunately you and me are in the minority. More people care about their paycheck/not paying charges etc than about prison places.

Muahahaha

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Bit of an overreaction here, yes he's a total scumbag but come on, if we jail for crimes like that we'd have no room in our prisons for those that pose a real threat to public safety, such as the genuine hardcore criminals.

I think its an under-reaction in some ways tbh. Its well known that many eventual psychopaths begin by killing animals, just recently we heard how Graham Dwyer boasted of stabbing and killing a sheep in the Wicklow mountains. I'm not saying this guy is a psychopath but he has displayed a common behaviour of a psychopath so at a minimum I'd like to see him locked up and assessed psychiatrically. Not sent back out on the streets to bring up a now traumatised daughter and own another pet that she'll love but be forever fearful that her father will kill it, just like the last time.

dublinman1990

****ing hell. What an absolute scumbag. :eek:

I nearly felt sick when reading the articles. He should not be given the light of day on the streets again. He should be stuck in a jail cell for a very long time and the child should be brought up in care of his parental guardians to take care of him in the future.

The prevention of animal cruelty has really hit an all-time low with a story like that. The courts in this state are a ****ing joke.

NachoBusiness

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely disagree that its an overreaction.

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think its an under-reaction in some ways tbh.

Check the link folks. Of course it's not an overreaction. I was being sarcastic.

RaRaRasputin

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

Leaflets are written by the pharma companies, they do not have adequate information. It's disingenuous to dismiss doctors advising patients into taking meds as a person's "shortcomings". Medical professionals should be aware of all the properties and possible side effects of anything they prescribe. It's one of the things they're paid to know.

Really? Then how many doctors have you come across who actually know all the details of the medications they can prescribe? I have across some that bother to check these things before handing out a prescription, but this is not a given. You cannot expect to be given any substances in a GPs practice and throw away all responsibility.

Good luck with any law suits against the pharma industry because of the information in the leaflets by the way.

When the Sun Hits

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Good luck with any law suits against the pharma industry because of the information in the leaflets by the way.

Where did I mention lawsuit?

Really? Then how many doctors have you come across who actually know all the details of the medications they can prescribe? I have across some that bother to check these things before handing out a prescription, but this is not a given. You cannot expect to be given any substances in a GPs practice and throw away all responsibility.

It is the persistent promotion of these meds by doctors which I have a problem with, hence why I made the comparison to "dodgy car salesmen". When I say persistent I mean telling you that you should be on antidepressants during every medical appointment despite objecting several times before. It's strange to say the least. This behavior is widespread.

hatrickpatrick

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Bit of an overreaction here, yes he's a total scumbag but come on, if we jail for crimes like that we'd have no room in our prisons for those that pose a real threat to public safety, such as the genuine hardcore criminals.

We apparently already have no room for them anyway, hence that paedo we've been talking about on AH being free to leer through the windows of schools.

What would you suggest we do?

I suggest personally that we empty all non violent offenders from prison, and then we re-fill those prisons starting from the most to the least severe violent crimes. Only after every one of those violent offenders has been locked up should we then consider if we have any free spaces left for non violent offenders.

Non violent offenders can be punished in other ways - those who are violent and dangerous need to be segregated from society so that the rest of us don't have to be afraid to be out in public. The number of "known to the Gardai" scumbags who openly walk the streets in some of the dodgier areas of Dublin is absolutely ridiculous - if you're "known to the Gardai" as a violent person, you shouldn't be free to appear unsupervised in public. End of story.

RaRaRasputin

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

Where did I mention lawsuit?

You didnt, but pointed out that "Leaflets are written by the pharma companies, they do not have adequate information", which they do (unfortunately maybe) from a legal point.

No doubting this was outrageous, and think a ban on having pets in future would have been in order. But if he's looking after a child, I'd have concerns about a custodial sentence.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

No doubting this was outrageous, and think a ban on having pets in future would have been in order. But if he's looking after a child, I'd have concerns about a custodial sentence.

Absolutely agreed.

In fact, all of the case law would indicate that if a non-custodial sentence is a feasible option for a sentencing judge, then family considerations should be a mitigating factor in favour of a non-custodial sentence.

In other words, fatherhood may be relevant to animal cruelty prosecutions, but not to cases of rape, murder or manslaughter.

Anyway, lets pick up our pitchforks before any of the mob spot us rabbiting on about proportionate sentencing and other such irrelevant matters...

Samaris

It's sounds like there's more to this than just what we see - and this is probably a good example of Not Being News.

I'll certainly agree that anti-depressants (and the state of being depressed in itself) can have bad effects on the mind (although people who are depressed are far more likely to do themselves damage than someone else). The man also had no history of violence or anything of the sort. BUT...if it was an act of madness, I'd be a bit alarmed at a child being in his care. It was a horrendously brutal thing to do and in a way, it being so totally out of character (from the sounds of it) is even more alarming. Even if he'd never dream of doing such a thing normally, he'd likely never dream of hurting his kid either. Yet he slammed that poor dog into the ground until it was dead.

It's mind-boggling, really.

Smidge

It goes without saying that what he did was horrendous.
But having known someone who was on antidepressants prescribed by the doctor and became a totally different person from it I can see the two sides.
I in no way wish to mitigate what he did but for the people saying "yeah, it comes with side effects " I don't think anyone really knows how their bodies and brains will react to these chemicals.
Don't get me wrong, they are a life saver for some.
For others, like my friend, they end up sending you into a black pit of madness and despair.
After a couple of months on it, after countless reassurance from Dr to give it time to work, he took his own life.
Incidentally, he was not or never suicidal before.
He just couldn't get out of the nightmare the meds had him in.

Putin

anewme wrote: »

Very upsetting reading

Nope, I wouldn't click on that link or read it. I cannot abided by animal cruelty. But I have no difficulty in hoping the scumbag reponsible, gets a good beating someday.

Kwiecien

Most of the people I know (myself included) are taking some sort of prescription drugs, but never murdered a poor dog because of it.

The man is a thug.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

if he's looking after a child, I'd have concerns about a custodial sentence.

I'd be concerned for the child's welfare because of his Father's public display of brutality not because of any custodial sanction imposed due to that act.

In fact, I think a thorough assessment of the child's welfare would be prudent.

Junkyard Tom

NorthStars wrote: »

Blame the anti-depressants seems to be the main defence.

Kwiecien wrote: »

Most of the people I know (myself included) are taking some sort of prescription drugs, but never murdered a poor dog because of it..

The above also has the effect of stigmatising people who are prescribed medicine for emotional issues. 'Better watch out - he's taking pills for his nerves so might well be prone to beating a dog to death'.

hatrickpatrick

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd be concerned for the child's welfare because of his Father's public display of brutality not because of any custodial sanction due to that act.

In fact I think a thorough assessment of the child's welfare would be prudent.

This. A scumbag like the perpetrator in this case should almost definitely not be trusted to care for a child.

For everyone harping on about mitigating factors - this man bludgeoned a defenceless animal to death. There are no mitigating factors which eliminate the need for someone who does something like that to be punished, and punished harshly. Otherwise, we send a message that someone can do something like this and get away with it - ergo, every scumbag in the country with a violent disposition has one less reason to be afraid of consequences.

Why is the deterrent nature of the law always so easily cast aside by those who argue for leniency? It's not just about punishing this guy (although he sure as f*ck deserves to suffer for what he did) - it's also about sending a message to any other aspiring scumbag that if they do anything like this, their lives will become unpleasant as a result.

What this sentence does is send a message to other aspiring scumbags that in Ireland, you can do whatever the hell you want and nobody is going to do a damn thing about it.

hatrickpatrick

NorthStars wrote: »

Blame the anti-depressants seems to be the main defence.

It always is.
Or mental illness.
Or stress.
Or an alcohol / drugs problem.
Or an unproven suggestion of an abusive relationship.
Or a difficult family background.
Or financial hardship.
Or indeed any number of other bullsh!t life events which many people are capable of going through without turning into sadistic monsters, and do not in any way justify leniency for those who do.

Junkyard Tom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This. A scumbag like the perpetrator in this case should almost definitely not be trusted to care for a child.

I'm sure I've read studies that found links between animal cruelty and child neglect/cruelty. People like this cunt should, at the very least, end up on a register that can be accessed by child welfare workers/adoption agencies etc.

Junkyard Tom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It always is.
Or mental illness.
Or stress.
Or an alcohol / drugs problem.
Or an unproven suggestion of an abusive relationship.
Or a difficult family background.
Or financial hardship.
Or indeed any number of other bullsh!t life events which many people are capable of going through without turning into sadistic monsters, and do not in any way justify leniency for those who do.

Indeed. It completely disregards the vast majority of people who've experienced awful physical/mental trauma who don't, in return, inflict it upon defenceless beings. Sweet mercy, can you imagine the carnage that would have been brought to bear on the home populations of returning soldiers traumatised in WWI, or WWII if the above were an axiom?

Widsy97

As a dog owner, I'm angered and disgusted. As an Irishman, I'm ashamed. Ashamed that that 'man' claims the same citizenship as me. And ashamed that a judge couldn't be arsed to put that SCUM behind bars.
Animal cruelty is a big problem in this country. So is general scumbaggery (not a real word). It infuriates me to no end.

Kwiecien

Kwiecien wrote: »

Most of the people I know (myself included) are taking some sort of prescription drugs, but never murdered a poor dog because of it.

The man is a thug.

"Murdered a dog".

Let's not invent new crimes or completely mangle the law in our outrage.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd be concerned for the child's welfare because of his Father's public display of brutality not because of any custodial sanction imposed due to that act.

In fact, I think a thorough assessment of the child's welfare would be prudent.

There was not one suggestion that there was any concern about the child.

I know farmers who have drowned bags of puppies and people who bring up dogs in tiny apartments, subjecting them effectively to a life of cruelty, who make wonderful parents.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

I know farmers who have drowned bags of puppies
I know farmers who have drowned bags of puppies
I know farmers who have drowned bags of puppies
I know farmers who have drowned bags of puppies
I know farmers who have drowned bags of puppies

Are they farming puppies or idiots with a poor understanding of reproduction?

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are they farming puppies or idiots with a poor understanding of reproduction?

They are neither.

They are farmers with dogs that had puppies, and knew that a surplus of dogs was impractical, they could not care for them, they would be left semi wild, that might threaten other animals, and so put them down cheaply.

Should their kids be assessed? I mean, a bag...of puppies?

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

dogs that had puppies, and knew that a surplus of dogs was impractical

'Farmers' with a poor understanding of reproduction of animals under their care who resort to drowning the fruits of their poor judgement...

Yep, 'impractical' is a nice way of saying 'utterly incompetent'.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Farmers' with a poor understanding of reproduction of animals under their care who resort to drowning the fruits of their poor judgement...

Yep, 'impractical' is a nice way of saying 'utterly incompetent'.

Oh I'm not defending their track record on puppies.

Do you think their kids should be assessed?

CaptainInsano

Tried to suffocate the dog previously but failed. Poor thing must have been petrified with him. That kind of cruelty runs deeper than prescription drugs.

tigger123

Beating a family pet to death in a public place is not the behavior of a sane person. I think its more than reasonable to be concerned about how he looks after his kids.

How anyone could do that to a dog is beyond me.

Menas

Jesus, feel sick reading that.

zeffabelli

I suppose every outraged poster on this thread is a vegetarian lobster rescue activist.

Penny Tration

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

Doctors are either totally dishonest or lacking in awareness when in come to the effects of SSRIs.

I'm not excusing his behavior because I don't actually think the meds were the cause for what he did, but your comment is not accurate with regards to SSRIs. Doctors are like dodgy car salesmen when it comes to antidepressants.

SOME doctors. My doctor and psych are fantastic and told me all about potential side effects, withdrawal symptoms, what to watch out for and so on.

Penny Tration

zeffabelli wrote: »

I suppose every outraged poster on this thread is a vegetarian lobster rescue activist.

I didn't realise that you had to be a vegetarian activist to be disgusted by someone beating a pet to death in one of the most terrifying, painful fashions possible.

AudreyHepburn

That's just sick....there is just no excuse for that kind of cruelty. He may have been mentally ill but that's no excuse for behaving like a monster imo. If he really is that unwell he should be in care.

Aside from that if you have a pet that you find you no longer want or can't afford, fine but you send it to an animal shelter or pound or you sell it .....you don't try to suffocate it and then batter the poor thing to death.

He should never be allowed to have animals again and I would also be concerned about the children he fosters....what if he flips again and decides they are too much trouble to look after?

AudreyHepburn

zeffabelli wrote: »

I suppose every outraged poster on this thread is a vegetarian lobster rescue activist.

There's a world of difference between eating a bit of fish for your dinner and battering a dog to death....but you know that really.

zeffabelli

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There's a world of difference between eating a bit of fish for your dinner and battering a dog to death....but you know that really.

Lobsters are boiled alive.

Have any idea how lambs and cattle are slaughtered?

A throat slit and bled out?

Look up how fois gras is made.

Do you eat any of these products? Or is your life cruelty free?

I probably just killed several thousand ants hanging out my laundry.

Menas

zeffabelli wrote: »

I suppose every outraged poster on this thread is a vegetarian lobster rescue activist.

No, just human.

kylith

zeffabelli wrote: »

Lobsters are boiled alive.

Have any idea how lambs and cattle are slaughtered?

A throat slit and bled out?

Look up how fois gras is made.

Zeff, eating meat does not preclude one from talking about animal cruelty cases, so please stop.

CaptainInsano

zeffabelli wrote: »

I suppose every outraged poster on this thread is a vegetarian lobster rescue activist.

Was wondering when this irrelevant and idiotic post would pop up. You obviously condone the behaviour to some extent? Worrying.

zeffabelli

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Was wondering when this irrelevant and idiotic post would pop up. You obviously condone the behaviour to some extent? Worrying.

I don't condone it but I find the outrage on this thread beyond reasonable tbh.

zeffabelli

kylith wrote: »

Zeff, eating meat does not preclude one from talking about animal cruelty cases, so please stop.

Sorry, but most vegetarians would disagree with you.

When you look at the meat industry close up, which no one wants to do, the moral outrage on this thread is beyond reasonable.

There are farmers drowning puppies and kittens all the time, what you want them to serve a prison sentence for that?

CaptainInsano

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't condone it but I find the outrage on this thread beyond reasonable tbh.

Ah but you condone it ever so slightly don't you? Obviously you do, in your eyes attempting to suffocate a dog before bludgeoning to death in front of kids is on par with boiling a lobster.

zeffabelli

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Ah but you condone it ever so slightly don't you? Obviously you do, in your eyes attempting to suffocate a dog before bludgeoning to death in front of kids is on par with boiling a lobster.

Yeah ok...sure if you say so.....

Penny Tration

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry, but most vegetarians would disagree with you.

When you look at the meat industry close up, which no one wants to do, the moral outrage on this thread is beyond reasonable.

There are farmers drowning puppies and kittens all the time, what you want them to serve a prison sentence for that?

I'd want them punished, but at least it's somewhat more humane than BEATING the poor thing.

And no, I don't eat lobster or lamb. I eat beef very occasionally, but again, even though I don't like the slaughtering process, it is NOT the same as battering an animal to death.

You know the difference full well, too.

Oh, and I'd never eat fois gras, because how they make it is absolutely sickening.

CaptainInsano

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry, but most vegetarians would disagree with you.

When you look at the meat industry close up, which no one wants to do, the moral outrage on this thread is beyond reasonable.

There are farmers drowning puppies and kittens all the time, what you want them to serve a prison sentence for that?

How do you know most vegetarians would disagree?
And ignorant farmers drowning animals despite the many, many humane options available? Sure let's all smash our dog's heads in when they become and inconvenience, we eat meat afterall.

AudreyHepburn

zeffabelli wrote: »

Lobsters are boiled alive.

Have any idea how lambs and cattle are slaughtered?

A throat slit and bled out?

Look up how fois gras is made.

Do you eat any of these products? Or is your life cruelty free?

I probably just killed several thousand ants hanging out my laundry.

I don't eat lobsters, I don't like the taste and I don't like how they are cooked.

I do however enjoy lamb, poultry and fish and I won't apologise for it. But as I think you well know most of these are, in this day and age, humanely killed.

It's completely different to what's been discussed here.

zeffabelli

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I'd want them punished, but at least it's somewhat more humane than BEATING the poor thing.

And no, I don't eat lobster or lamb. I eat beef very occasionally, but again, even though I don't like the slaughtering process, it is NOT the same as battering an animal to death.

You know the difference full well, too.

Oh, and I'd never eat fois gras, because how they make it is absolutely sickening.

Look, I would not be capable or working in an abbatoir or battering an animal to death, I just don't have that in me.

I don't eat lamb or veal either, but I do find this thread outrageously irrational by people calling for prison sentences. And honestly the meat industry isnt any more humane than what this guy did, other than they don't do it in front of kids, but the in front of kids part of what people are upset about seems to be really a side issue to the fact it's a dog.