SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Eleven U.S. states have pending animal abuse registry legislation:
Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and the Columbine High School shooters are among the infamous criminals who had a history of hurting animals before they went on to target humans, a tendency that's part of what's behind a movement to create public online registries of known animal abusers.
New York is among 11 states with animal abuse registry bills pending in their legislatures, following Tennessee, which started its in 2016 along with a growing number of municipalities in recent years, including New York City, and the counties that include Chicago and Tampa, Florida.
"Animal abuse is a bridge crime," said the sponsor of New York's bill, Republican state Sen. Jim Tedisco, who noted that Nikolas Cruz, accused of killing 17 people in the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting on Feb. 14, reportedly also had a history of shooting small animals.
While the main goal of collecting names of convicted animal abusers is to prevent them from being able to adopt or purchase other animals, registry backers say such lists could also be a way to raise red flags about people who may commit other violent crimes ranging from domestic violence to mass shootings. But some animal welfare advocates, mostly notably the ASPCA, question how effective they can really be.
[Ed's Comment - Original link unreliable, so I have added additional links]
Additional Sources:
- http://www.vmdtoday.com/news/animal-abuser-registry-legislation-sought-stalled
- https://www.navs.org/state-animal-abuser-registries-proposed-2018/
- http://www.ladbible.com/news/animals-news-us-states-and-counties-are-registering-animal-abuse-like-sex-offences-20180218
- https://nhes.org/animal-abuser-registries/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @11:26AM (20 children)
This is about as pure an example as possible of know-nothing politicians "Doing Something".
Worse, it promotes the idea that registries for "antisocial" behavior are a good, useful idea; I wouldn't be surprised if more such registries pop up in the future: "I'm sorry, sir, but your credit card has been denied; it says you're on the Obesity Registry. Can we interest you in a glass of water instead of the Pepsi?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @12:14PM
Considering almost all of the killers came from broken families you would think 'family-oriented' republicans will do something about that.
What is the least we can do?
This is a difficult problem, sir!
No you didn't hear me. What is the least we can do.
Um... we can ban tormenting animals. May be create a registry of the offenders?
Brilliant! The registry will keep reminding people that we did something even for rest of their lives!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @12:34PM (14 children)
Animal abuse is one of the most significant and common signs of sociopathic behavior in children and teens. It's also a warning sign for escalating violence in adults.
The risk here is that animal abuse covers a spectrum of behavior that often doesn't indicate violent tendencies. Overt cruelty is a strong warning sign, but animal abuse also covers things like neglect and inappropriate but essentially non-cruel acts that might happen to injure or provoke an animal. So, much as the sex offender registry ends up with people who committed harmless crimes like public urination, it's important to make sure that, if this is implemented, it covers only the crimes which are likely to indicate a high risk of violent behavior. In the wake of the ongoing mass shootings, it's important to try to find an implementation of red flag laws that can prevent violence without indiscriminately restricting law-abiding and nonviolent gun owners.
Unfortunately, the original goal of the registry, to determine who should be able to adopt an animal, is somewhat at odds with this, since neglect is definitely something that would disqualify someone from that. So the implementation needs some finesse.
But ifyou want to equate obesity with mass murder, well, that's up to you.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @01:07PM (3 children)
By living in a lifestyle that leads to obesity, you are burdening your community with the costs of ill health.
Not only are you putting your own life at risk, but you are putting the well-being of your family members at risk, and you are thereby putting the taxpayer at risk of having to support you and your loved ones.
In our increasingly connected world, where we have decided that civil society demands communal health care, obesity must indeed be viewed as antisocial behavior akin to murder. The time has come to protect our citizens and our society from the devastating effects of this disease, the early signs of which can be traced back to childhood, and which remain life-long issues that must be tracked and managed by experts by Common Sense governmental policy. This, fellow members of the Legislature, is why I propose the Obesity Registry; our constituents are counting on us to Do Something! Indeed, the very future of our nation depends on it; it is an issue of National Security—at the very least, Think of the Children!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:06PM
Heheheheh! You win dumb for the day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:48PM (1 child)
Actually, people who are obese tend to die young; dead people don't burden anyone's finances. It's those old farts that cost a lot of money. Go ahead and look it up for yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:07PM
are you retarded? the op was making a fucking point. the obesity thing was just a loose example.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 05 2018, @01:19PM (2 children)
If only this was to stop animal abusers from buying another pitbull to neglect. "Animal abuse is a bridge crime," sounds the same as "weed is a gateway drug," or "Cruz ... reportedly also had a history of shooting small animals," so we'll fudge the definitions to overlap as much as we can with gun owners. You wouldn't hurt a small animal would you? No? Well, hunting is still hurting! You're on the list now,
Gevault... I mean John. If nothing else, it seems to be another reactionary bill proposed after a major disaster, that may or may not have holes to exploit later down the road. To the benefit of the sponsor's interests, of course.(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @08:58PM (1 child)
It's actually quite a bit like "marijuana is a gateway drug," except this time it's actually right.
The problem there was that correlation is not causation. It's always been true that marijuana users are also more likely to try hard drugs. So if you only wanted a way to predict who would go on to use hard drugs, looking at marijuana use, especially at a young age, would have been a good way to do it. Less so now, that access is so easy, but if you had a 16 year old using marijuana in the 80s, that would be a meaningful indicator of likely future hard drug use.
But because correlation doesn't mean causation, making access to marijuana harder didn't reduce hard drug use. The people who were going to use hard drugs tried marijuana first, but the marijuana didn't cause the hard drugs - it was just easier to get.
With animal cruelty it's exactly the same, except what we want IS to find the people who are likely go on to commit serious crimes. Just like using marijuana doesn't turn you into a heroin addict, beating a squirrel to death with a rock doesn't turn you into a sociopath. But if you want to find the likely sociopaths, animal cruelty is a VERY strong predictor. Once a child is old enough to understand that animals experience pain, animal cruelty after that age is basically a dead giveaway.
This doesn't mean that all sociopaths become violent. This is where the science and law collide in an awkward way. Sociopaths have no internal checks on their behavior, but that doesn't make them incapable of good behavior - they can still learn to behave according to social expectations, if only so they can make money and not go to jail. Can you trust someone like this with a gun? To adopt a dog or have children? Science says it's a bad risk. Not a guaranteed disaster, just not a good risk. But our legal system and social expectations say you have to give them a chance. Legally speaking, I don't want the government taking away fundamental rights just because an expert says so.
So how do you proceed?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:23PM
How do we proceed? Easy.
No registry or any such bullshit.
Continued awareness / common sense when raising and educating kids is the only way forward. Spending money on counselors and probation officers is the only way to help the problem. Don't create a public list of offenders, create a system of support workers to help and keep an eye on convicted persons. The scarlet letter was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:09PM (6 children)
Today I am a middle-aged person with a clean record and a large family. We're pretty tame, but I still don't care about animals. I'm not at all personally violent toward humans, except that I reserve the right to a vigorous self defense with deadly force. Let's see what I've done...
1. dipped a fish head-first into acid
2. shot a squirrel with a slingshot, knocking the tail off
3. poisoned a cat that was causing trouble
4. opened a live frog, then applied electric shocks to the heart
5. ran down a duck with my car so I could eat it
6. burned a snake in a bucket with alcohol
That's just the vertebrates. The usual PETA-flavored thought is that I'm about to run around attacking my fellow humans, but no. I think the dangerous people who do weird (supposedly "cruel") things to animals share something in common with PETA members: personification of animals. If you personify animals, then how you treat animals is how you treat your fellow human beings. I and many other people do not personify animals. How I treat an animal bears as much relation to how I treat a human as how I treat a plant, car part, or rock. To me, being cruel to a cat is on a level with being cruel to an HP LaserJet 4. Humans are entirely distinct.
Only a subset of the supposed animal abusers are hazardous. It's the ones who personify animals, and really feel that they are actually being cruel. If you enjoy that, you may be a problem. On the other hand, if you don't personify animals, then in your view it's like kicking a rock or taking apart a toaster or cutting an apple. Without that personification, there is nothing to suggest that the person enjoys cruelty.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @11:05PM (5 children)
Wow there is some self-serving logic. My guess is you are a sociopath that knows to follow the rules. Your basic mammalian empathy is defective to some degree, but you learned "morality" probably from the church which gives a free pass on whatever a human wants to do to animals.
Your antipathy and anger towards PETA is probably the result of your conscience trying to assert itself and you are stomping it back down with twisted logic that makes them evil and you just a common sense rational monkey. Errm, PERSON not monkey! Can only burst so many bubbles in one comment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @11:56PM (4 children)
I agree with such churches, despite being atheist. They are right, though for nonsense reasons.
There isn't any "basic mammalian empathy". Watch a cat with a mouse and you'll learn. Tigers see you as food. Most mammals don't even have empathy for their own kind.
Even if "basic mammalian empathy" were legitimate, I'm more than just a basic mammal. I can understand that non-human creatures are not of my type. I can serve them for dinner. I can take them apart to satisfy my curiosity. I can spray them to exterminate them in bulk.
Humans, like so many other creatures, have evolved to make use of the available resources. Animals are resources to be used. Aside from the obvious safety issues, there is nothing wrong with picking one up (alive) and eating it like an apple.
If somebody were to say he enjoyed animal torture, I would consider him crazy for multiple reasons. First, you shouldn't feel emotion when things (good or bad) happen to animals; this is a mental failing. Second, you shouldn't enjoy torture outside of revenge, not that I accept that torture can exist without a human victim. Third, sadly, one normally needs to be careful about admitting such things. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @12:05AM (1 child)
"Second, you shouldn't enjoy torture outside of revenge, not that I accept that torture can exist without a human victim."
Eeeesh, at least it is easy to see why you came up with #3. I see you are operating from the sociopathic human perspective. Some animals have more empathy than others, and natural predator instincts do override a good portion of empathy, but you are just oh-so-wrong with your simplistic assumptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:40AM
As a human with intelligence, you should rationally override any empathy you feel for animals. It is illogical. Wipe that defective emotion from your mind.
One might as well feel empathy for the HP LaserJet 4 (or thereabouts) which gets beaten to death in the movie Office Space. Ow! The torture! We should make a list of printer abusers.
Again, I don't show the normal sociopath signs. I'm not one to screw over my coworkers. I would not feel OK with defrauding a shopkeeper, for example with an unjustified return. I don't swipe unattended valuables, even if I know I can get away with it. I wouldn't cheat on my wife, even if I could get away with it, despite the fact that she is now middle-aged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:19PM (1 child)
"First, you shouldn't feel emotion when things (good or bad) happen to animals;"
bullshit, motherfucker. animals are innocent. they deserve respect. it doesn't mean i won't kill one, but i try not to without good reason. humans who abuse their position against animals? fuck them and their lives. they ruin the world for everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:53PM
There was a cat that shit in my garden. He's guilty. He needs punishment. I could build a little prison for him, but that is such a pain, and he's only a cat. Execution is better.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @03:08PM (3 children)
I'm sorry, I don't see the problem here. As the other poster points out, animal abuse absolutely is a real sign of antisocial behavior; it's absolutely stupid to deny this connection, so it's quite possible society could prevent many horrific crimes by registering people who are known to have these tendencies (which should also be prosecuted on their own BTW).
And you really think obese people shouldn't be prevented from drinking more sodas? That's one of the main reasons they're obese in the first place. If they can't exercise any self-control, and they're going to cost all of us in healthcare costs, then we do have a right to limit their soda consumption. Either have a registry so they can't buy more junk food, or have a registry so they're denied all healthcare, take your pick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @03:17PM
The above comment should be marked "Redundant".
An AC already posted pretty much the exact same, fallacious statements, albeit as satire. See here [soylentnews.org].
In short, people, this is exactly what the libertarians warned us about: When you give Government control over health care, you give Government control over your lives. Enjoy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:33PM
Assuming you're serious, you're just giving people more ammo against single payer health care. You're not helping at all. I'd rather pay higher taxes that micromanage people's lives. Why isn't that an option in your mind?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:15AM
Almost all mass shootings involve people taking anti-depressants, more so than animal cruelty. We should make a public list of such people and ban them from public places. It is stupid to deny this connection.
Obese people cost less in terms of health care because they die faster rather than linger around with expensive medical issues. By your logic, we should force everyone to be fat to reduce everyone's costs. There should be a registry of people buying health food and we should exclude them from health insurance after the age of 70. Any sensible person should die by 70 to not waste resources the younger generations could better use.
GPS tracking of every person would also be helpful in preventing many horrific crimes. If you know where everyone is all the time, you can solve the majority of murders fairly easily. There wouldn't be serial killers. You need to draw the line somewhere and in USA the line is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. These types of lists allow a mistake you made as a kid to destroy the rest of your life and that of your kids (they can't have pets because you won't be allowed to live with any). What would be better is to make crushing an animal's head a real crime rather than a fine for damaging someone's property. If animals had more rights, all the normal laws would apply and you won't need to watch people. They'd already be in jail or covered under existing laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @12:41PM (1 child)
Just wait. By the end of this century, I can see registries for abuse of insects.
(Po-Po) Drop the fucking fly swatter you God damn psycho!
(Citizen) But it caries disease and is inside my house.
(Po-Po) Spare me your fucking excuses and show me your hands.
(Citizen) What the fuck?
(Po-Po) Blam. You saw it. He was resisting arrest.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 05 2018, @03:43PM
Very few animals were harmed in the making of this post. All typing was monitored by the Humane society who was on hand to witness this post being entered -- but were bindfolded.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by cocaine overdose on Monday March 05 2018, @01:13PM (6 children)
First they came for our combustion-based guns, now they're coming for our pellet guns too. Years of battle has shown that a direct confrontation isn't the right way to get what you want. Sneaking around and using sentences that the lower-minded gun-owners will not be able to read between the lines, dastardly.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @03:13PM (4 children)
Why would you need a gun to kill a rat? Have you never heard of a rat trap? It doesn't require a dangerous weapon, but even better, it's a lot more effective. Good luck hitting a rat with any kind of gun; they're not like squirrels or birds, where they're sitting still outside in plain sight, where you can hit them. I don't think I've *ever* seen a wild rat in nature in fact, only scurrying around urban places, and even then only getting a mere glimpse before they're hidden someplace.
And what could you possibly need to kill squirrels for? Unlike rats, they don't come in your house or other buildings, they just stay outside and eat nuts and such. I guess if you have a nut tree (or a farm of nut trees), too many of them could be a problem, but again traps are surely more effective and safer. If they're eating your bird seed, then just put up a shield so they can't get to it. There's plenty of such things commercially available.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday March 05 2018, @03:30PM
I recently had need of a rat trap. Caught one or two and one of them that got caught, the thing just got caught by the leg. So, yeah, ideally a rat trap is quick and humane. I put the other out of it's misery with my pellet gun. Thankfully, I was around, heard it's cries, and dealt with it humanely.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:15PM (1 child)
Squirrels absolutely wreck the trees in the neighborhoods around me. It's a minor emergency whenever a single one is spotted, and they are executed with extreme prejudice.
I did catch one in a home-made live-catch trap long ago, but it bit me, so I may be a little nuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:26PM
Don't worry that's just the rabies talking.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday March 07 2018, @06:53AM
Squirrels can move into attics and such. The fix is to seal the holes but if one has developed the habit, sealing doesn't help much and it might need killed.
There's also an invasive species of squirrel around here. They're twice as big as the native ones and kill the native ones as well as raiding the local song birds nests. Too late now but they should have been killed when they first showed up.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 05 2018, @03:39PM
Defendant: I object to being accused of animal cruelty. I LOVE animals.
Judge: The complaint here says that you were seen by multiple witnesses of molesting chipmunks in the park.
Defendant: I object to being accused of molesting chipmunks in the public park.
Judge: on what basis?
Defendant: Threefold your honor
1. I deny having ever molested a chipmunk, in the public park, alley ways, under bridges, on balconies, or stopped at traffic lights.
2. I deny having ever molested any other kind of animal at any other location not listed in item 1.
3. I impugn the reliability of the witnesses; how can you trust a witness who is unable to tell the difference between a chipmunk and a squirrel?
Judge: what is the difference between a chipmunk and a squirrel?
Defendant: the primary difference is that a squirrel has a larger, softer tail that feels really good against your skin. I submit these Google Images of chipmunks into evidence. I also submit these photos of squirrels but request that they be sealed or partially redacted because they are unsuitable for publication.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:37PM (1 child)
If the authorities were serious about doing something they would penalize other authorities who failed to properly utilize NCIC and other existing, well-funded resources available for answering exactly this sort of question instead of creating another do-nothing registry.
If these assholes were database administrators they'd have an index on every table and things STILL wouldn't work.
~childo
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:25PM
this is all government is good for: creating more government. poor ignorant slaves hire them to do a job, they fail and say they need more tools/resources. rinse repeat. anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or a liar.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:45PM (40 children)
Cool, where can I register to abuse animals?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Thexalon on Monday March 05 2018, @03:06PM (39 children)
Lots of places:
- The Royal School of Bullfighting in Seville, Spain
- Horse and dog racetracks
- Many many agriculture jobs
And this is the real pitfall of animal abuse laws: We only seem to really be worried about abusing the animals that we aren't planning on eating and have deemed "cute".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @03:22PM (18 children)
- Horse and dog racetracks
The dog racetracks seem to have mostly died out here in the US. Good riddance.
- The Royal School of Bullfighting in Seville, Spain
Yep, between this crap and the "running of the bulls", the Spaniards are still a pretty backwards and stupid bunch of people. I really do understand why the Catalans want to get away from those morons. Heck, Spain still has a national holiday celebrating Columbus's brutal acts in the New World, complete with a military parade. And don't forget, they were an actual dictatorship only a short time ago, complete with numerous disappearings. They try to act like they're some advanced western European nation, but they're really much more backwards than most of the eastern European countries that only recently joined the EU.
We only seem to really be worried about abusing the animals that we aren't planning on eating and have deemed "cute".
Well to be fair, there *are* supposed to be laws that require livestock to be treated humanely, executed painlessly, etc. Some farms do seem to do an OK job of this, giving them nice pastoral lives until their number is up, but the giant corporate factory farms seem to be pretty horrific, and somehow get away with not following these laws, and worse having corrupt relations with local law enforcement so that activists attempting to document law-breaking end up in trouble with the cops instead of the law-breakers.
What we really need in this country is a federal police force that polices the state and especially local cops, and when it finds illegal actions by them, prosecutes them ruthlessly. We don't have much trust in our police in this country, and part of it I think is because each police department seems to be a separate, independent fiefdom, with very little accountability, outside that provided by civil court suits which isn't really helpful and doesn't punish actual law-breaking. I would say that this should be the job of the state police, but they sure as hell aren't doing it.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Freeman on Monday March 05 2018, @03:46PM (11 children)
Creating a "Federal Police Force" and doing away with local law enforcement would be a monumentally bad idea. Local law enforcement have ties with the local population and I would say are more likely not to be corrupt. They would more likely at least be less corrupt as they have far less power than a "Federal Police Force" would. May as well declare martial law and disband the police at that point.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:32PM
That's not what he said at all. Of course you're fully aware.
Why the fuck are you here posting dishonestly?
Pretending not to understand so you can counter with bullshit.
He said federal oversight of local agencies. Which is exactly how people all around the world, across decades, have handled the problem he's described.
We aren't stupid and don't need stupid people here go spout your dumb on youtube .
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @04:58PM (9 children)
Just to echo the AC responder, are you really that fucking stupid, or are you intentionally lying? Because it's plainly obvious that I never advocated for what you claim I did. So either you're a fucking moron or a fucking troll.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday March 05 2018, @05:22PM (8 children)
Sorry, my brain must have been turned off this morning. I re-read your comment and yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @06:01PM (7 children)
Wow, thanks.
Well, here's another example of where this site needs the ability to edit or delete comments afterwards. This happens to me once in a while on Reddit, and when it does, I just go and delete the angry comment that's no longer called for, which also ends up making it hard to see the rest of ensuing thread which is at this point unnecessary. There's no reason to keep around angry comments that are just the result of a total misunderstanding.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)
Also, I apologize for being overly harsh with my reply.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:29PM
why don't you apologize for your seditious post? the feds don't have authority over the locals in this fucking country. if you are native born you are woefully ignorant of how this country is supposed to work.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday March 05 2018, @08:14PM (2 children)
There's another fix. Let go of all human emotions, all desires, all motivations. You need to shed the essence of your very humanity so that you'll never be compelled to write the angry comment in the first place. A number of meditative, chemical, or surgical fixes can accomplish this.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @08:44PM (1 child)
Fixing the site would be a lot easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:21PM
Yeah, but the idea of me handing out free icepick lobotomies sounds a lot more fun.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Reziac on Tuesday March 06 2018, @03:16AM
Maybe we need a couple more mod options.
One the poster can use: "Sorry, fucked up"
One the respondent can use "Sorry, didn't mean to jump your shit"
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:51AM
Nah, maybe you'll think next time before getting unhinged. After all, the AC apparently expressed your sentiments (which I can definitely understand, there are lots of trolls that appear like that), and yet you still felt you needed to rant off under your name.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @05:16PM (5 children)
Be careful what you wish for. Himmler had something similar to what you're asking for. The SS did a lot of things, and policing the police was one of their lesser known duties.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @06:05PM (4 children)
The Nazis also had trains that worked pretty well and were on time. Is that a bad thing too?
The Nazis also were proponents of making inexpensive cars that people could afford. Should we not have those?
The Nazis were proponents of spending on science and tech research. Should we stop all of that?
The Nazis preferred attractive uniforms. Should we consciously avoid that too, and make sure all our uniforms are as ugly as possible?
The Nazis did all kinds of things. I'm quite sure many other countries do have national-level police who are there as a check on the local police powers and to make sure they're following the laws and not corrupt.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @06:28PM (2 children)
Well, the police have been known to make people disappear, without a trace. Or, if the bodies are somehow found, suicide is the accepted explanation. Think about the SS. They could make the police dissapear. Mayors. Generals. Anyone, in fact. Having a super police force could well have unintended consequences.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
Again, I'm pretty sure every advanced nation on the planet has something like this, and they don't seem to have any real problems with disappearances, or even excessively-high suicides. Just look at Norway for instance.
Not having this has clear consequences that there's variable or even complete lack of rule of law depending on your locality. You can't have a functional republic that has "rule of law" if the people in some little town are basically living under a dictator who has extra-legal powers and the higher levels of government have little recourse to deal with him, and every town is potentially like this to some degree.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:35PM
It's helpful if you have access to explosives like dynamite to deal with tyrants inside their bunkers. [jpfo.org]
You can even fight back and win against the federal government, both with weapons on a potential battlefield [youtube.com], and also in federal [theguardian.com] courtrooms [katu.com] (though some of the observant among us might be inclined to state that 'the process is the punishment').
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:22AM
This white supremacist meme needs to die. Like in a fire. Newsflash: I lived for a few years in Germany and I can tell you that the trains were running on time long after the Nazis were gone. As in fifty years after they were gone. And I'm willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that the trains were running on time long before the Nazis ever arrived on the scene.
Another newsflash: Henry Ford had this idea at least several years before the Nazis showed up.
They also had a nasty habit of excluding Jews from University. It had a debilitating impact on their science and tech research. Just so you know.
FYI, in the USA the DoJ traditionally has the role of stepping in as a check on local police abuses. Most of the cases I am familiar with involve evidence of civil rights violations by state and/or local police. Just so you know.
I do hope this clarifies things a bit for you.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 05 2018, @03:46PM (6 children)
The problem is your suggestions all require the registrant to be 18. We are looking for a registry that we can use for kids who might make a stupid mistake, but be branded for life.
A further problem with your suggestion is that the registry does not carry a stigma. And employers won't care to check if you are registered for bullfighting or betting at racetracks.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday March 05 2018, @10:28PM (5 children)
Correct. An example of this was the 17 year-old David Huckabee, son of the former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Young David, when he was 17 years old, tortured and killed a dog while he was at Boy Scout camp. Later, Governor Mike Huckabee, being the good father that he is, used the power of his office to cover up this torture and killing of a dog.
We wouldn't want David Huckabee to be branded for life just for torturing and killing a dog for fun when he was 17 years old. And certainly, we wouldn't want this behavior to reflect on any members of the Huckabee family who might be working as press secretary for the Trump administration.
By the way, here is a photo of David Huckabee, who tortured and killed a dog when he was 17 years old:
https://goo.gl/images/3XLv6E [goo.gl]
https://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/huckabeedog.asp [snopes.com]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:37PM
David Huckabee can rot in hell but such examples do not make a registry good. Kids do stupid and sometimes evil shit, if they can get past that then I don't think they should be stigmatized the rest of their life by a quick registry search. Same thing for felons, once they serve their time I don't think they should be forced to tell people about their mistakes or be barred from voting. You know how to guarantee recidivism? Stigmatize someone for life so that it is near impossible for them to succeed in society.
I said in another comment, case workers are where the focus should be made but emotional appeals have made it impossible to apply reason when a child or animal is hurt. If you don't agree to the most insane reprisals you are labeled an uncaring monster!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @03:40PM (3 children)
That is a poor example. Not what I meant. What Huckabee did is EXACTLY what should be branded for life.
I'm thinking of stupid mistakes, relatively harmless. Things that will be abused in order to force someone onto the list who should not be there. I don't have an example, but an analogy would be to become a registered sex offender for public urination.
An example of an abuse of the system: Oh, you unintentionally ran over a squirrel -- it's the animal abuse registry for life for you buddy!
If this kind of registry is created, it will be abused, unless some protections are built in. It seems like you cannot create any well intentioned mechanism without people trying to abuse it.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 06 2018, @04:09PM (2 children)
That was kind of my point.
The thing about intentionally hurting animals is that it has to be intentional. Otherwise, it's not intentional, you know? And yes, I would put hunters on the list.
Sex offender registries can be easily fixed. Everybody likes to point to the tens of millions of people who get on those lists for merely urinating in public, but the legislature could have put in a "public urination is not a sex crime" clause into the law. Personally, I'd like to know if the guy who just moved into the apartment above the day care had been incarcerated for unintentionally raping and murdering a toddler while he was urinating in public. And I'd like to know if the young man buying an AR-15 with high-capacity magazines has done time for skinning cats and setting them on fire.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:09PM
Me too.
I would like to know if he was registered for raping and murdering a toddler. I think urinating in public is irrelevant.
As for urinating in public. I am all for having a legal penalty for that. But I think being on a sex offender registry is ridiculous. I think it is somewhere between or near jaywalking and parking in the handicapped spot. Or BMW drivers thinking they are entitled to drive in the carpool lane (and urinate in public).
Nobody is going to accuse legislators of being bright, insightful, or thinking through the consequences of their actions. (Hence so many of them being accused of groping or worse.)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:37PM
why? you think the government will protect you with bullshit lists , spies and pigs everywhere? you're a fucking slave. carry a pistol, like a free man (don't get a license/permit like a little groveling bitch) and defend yourself and your family like you're supposed to.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @03:47PM (12 children)
This is a natural progression after 30 years of toleration of PETA and their ilk. They should have been involuntarily committed long ago to institutions able to care for those individuals. Now we have fruitcakes trying to drag peacocks onto commercial airlines as "comfort animals." Every time I go to a big box store, I regualrly see some nutcase dragging along Fido dressed in some Amazon purchased knockoff vest to help them shop. Last week, I saw some loony millennial dragging her miniature German Shepard puppy around in the damn cart at the grocery store. It yapped incessantly at every customer she passed. No store employee seemed to care. I sure as Hell don't want to put my food in a cart where Rover has been sitting and slobbering. And I am sick to death of grandmas bragging about their "grand puppies." Seriously? It's a dog. If that's the highlight of your existence, you have no life at all. If your kid ever manages to breed you'll have a stroke trying to contain yourself.
We have allowed crazies to elevate animals up to the level of human beings and sometimes sainthood. Rome is falling. Nero is tuning up his fiddle.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @06:13PM (9 children)
Oh please.
This is a natural progression after 30 years of toleration of PETA and their ilk.
This is stupid. This is a natural progression of actual science which has proven a connection between kids abusing animals and adults who become mass murderers or serial killers. PeTA fruitcakes (who think that swatting flies is somehow horrible) have nothing to do with this.
Every time I go to a big box store, I regualrly see some nutcase dragging along Fido
It yapped incessantly at every customer she passed. No store employee seemed to care.
This too has nothing to do with PeTA, this is just a modern trend, stupid as it may be, and is mainly the fault of retailers for not having stricter policies and enforcing them.
I sure as Hell don't want to put my food in a cart where Rover has been sitting and slobbering.
Why not? You probably don't have any trouble putting your (packaged) food in a cart that someone's nasty, snot-nosed kid has been sitting and drooling. And that nasty kid is likely carrying some disease that you can very well catch, unlike anyone's dog. I haven't heard of any viruses that work on both dogs and humans. I'm no fan of dogs at all, and don't think people should be able to bring them in stores, but be realistic: kids are a much bigger threat to public health.
And I am sick to death of grandmas bragging about their "grand puppies." Seriously? It's a dog. If that's the highlight of your existence, you have no life at all.
Maybe they're bragging about their "grandpuppies" because their grandkids are a bunch of little shits. Most kids, in my experience, are. At least most dogs are friendly. I don't really want to be around them because they smell and drool, but I'd rather be around people with small dogs than people with little kids. Dogs are generally much better behaved.
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 05 2018, @06:55PM (7 children)
Viruses? Not really - they require DNA or RNA compatibility.
But ringworm, hookworm, roundworm, tapeworm, giardia, campylobacter, brucellosis, cryptosporidium, MRSA, salmonella, leishmaniasis, bubonic plague, rabies. Yes, a lot of those require fecal contact or similar, but not all.
(And none of that had anything to do with the rest of your post as you actually made excellent points. Just that I don't want to have my cart previously occupied by Fido or the child.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @07:36PM (3 children)
Yes, that is a very good point. However, I'm much more worried about catching a cold or the flu from being in public than I am hookworm, roundworm, salmonella, plague, etc. People really do catch colds and flus all the time, in huge numbers, every winter (as well as other times of year, but "flu season" is a real thing); I don't think I've ever heard of someone catching plague, rabies (without being bitten by a rabid animal), worms, etc. just from being in a public place. Almost all those things are easily avoided by simply washing your hands, and also not putting your hands into strange bio-matter (and especially not putting your hands in strange goo, and then putting them in your mouth! Something that stupid kids are always doing.).
My central point was that if someone's worried about disease or hygiene from other peoples' pets, they should be much more worried about other peoples' kids, but somehow peoples' disease-ridden, snot-nosed brats get a pass. It's even worse for housing: most apartments will restrict pets altogether, or charge you "pet rent" and additional fees, supposedly to cover damage, but there's no such extra fees for having kids, who cause far more damage to apartments than pets do on average.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:18PM (2 children)
I'll try to keep that hygiene point in mind next time I see Rover dragging his ass over the carpet, or lapping water from his bowl and dribbling it all over floor. However, last I checked, nobody's little "snot nosed brat" went apeshit and bit off some poor fucker's face for looking at them wrong. My wife and kids were pinned in the house by a neighbor's loose "pet" one time and had to call the police to walk out to our car. The cops drew on the mongrel and held a bead while my wife and kids walked in our own front yard. Fido would have gone to the dog park in the great beyond if he had charged them like he did earlier that morning.
I can't tell you how many news stories I have seen from dog attacks where the owners were shocked, totally shocked, that their beloved baby would try to eat some poor bastard who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, just last week some woman was found dead in Virginia, on the path she normally walked her dogs. And she had been mauled and eaten by her own beloved dogs.
So yeah, when I see an obvious asshole taking advantage of well meaning laws meant to protect truly disabled people just so they can carry their little shit factory into a grocery story, I get sick to my stomach at their self entitled ego. These are not trained animals by and large. They are someone's baby surrogate that they can't leave alone at home long enough to buy their fucking groceries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @12:02PM (1 child)
My son's grandparents on his mother's side have a "rescue" dog that has attacked me twice, he literally tore my clothes off, and bit me multiple times as fast and as hard as he could. I could see the look in his eyes, and it was scary, no regard for anything but to fuck me up.
He also pushed my son over as he opened the door to go into the house, and ran up and bit my father in the side of his belly and proceeded to try and tear off a chunk of his belly fat as he got back in his car.
The dog has also attacked neighbors the same way.
I love animals, but if that dog ever charges at me again, I'm going to kill it right then and there with my bare hands, and my booted feet.
I won't let it suffer, but I will not give it another chance to attack me.
If he ever attacks my family again I'm going to demand it be put down, either by hunting accident, or by animal control.
I've told his grandparents exactly that, and the dog is lucky that when he bit my father that their other dog had just recently died, so I didn't want to push the issue, and be the bad guy that took their other dog away.
And no, I've never harmed an animal, even though I grew up a farm boy, and a hunter.
But if you just heard about the guy who killed his in-laws dog, you might feel they should be on that list, even tho anyone who knows the truth would disagree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:19PM
My girlfriend has a Jack Russel that thinks he's Billy Badass. He periodically flips out and finds the nearest cushion and shakes it in his mouth then he runs up to you and growls. He's not bitten me yet, but he's got a history. If the little bastard ever does, I'm gonna go for the field goal with his ass and I'm sure that will cure him of trying to intimidate me. I've warned my girlfriend that I will retailiate if he bites me. You let it go and it reinforces the behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @08:29PM
These diseases are all much more easily spread from human to human, or require circumstances that aren't plausible, or are so rare as to be irrelevant, or aren't actually spread by dogs. The only genuine health risk you have from a dog is if you are allergic or if one bites you.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday March 05 2018, @10:34PM (1 child)
I can count at least six items on that list that I caught from your Mom.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @03:25AM
That's funny. I made the list from all the items I caught from your daughter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @01:31AM
These laws have nothing to do with that other than as marketing to get them passed. If you want to track such people then you want them to continue to have pets so you can track how much they're abusing them. These laws are one strike and you're out forever of having a pet near you. You won't find out who likes abusing animals thus they'll be further underground when they 'suddenly' come out and kill a bunch of people.
If they actually wanted to keep these kids from becoming serial killers then the laws would be proposing educational classes to teach these people how to respect others. Instead it's the expect opposite. Here's a new list of people we're legally compelled to oppress and thus in turn cause them to hate society even more. These types of lists tighten the lid on a pressure cooker allowing it to explode with far more force rather than adding a pressure relief valve like they should.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @07:10PM (1 child)
Do you even know what PETA stands for? Certainly not pets. Or saints...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:22PM
People Eating Tasty Animals?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Monday March 05 2018, @04:01PM (7 children)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:37PM (6 children)
I'm opposed to these lists, since they often are used to implement retroactive punishments without due process, in utter defiance of the Constitution. For example, adding additional restrictions on the lives of people on the sex offender list even after they've been released from prison. How could it possibly be constitutional to retroactively tack on extra punishments? This is in addition to other unconstitutional punishments, such as forbidding Internet use.
Furthermore, either these people are dangerous or they are not. If they are dangerous, keep them in prison; otherwise, let them out. There is no room for such lists.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @06:26PM (4 children)
If they are dangerous, keep them in prison; otherwise, let them out.
You could use that logic for any crime, yet we have bail, parole, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:44PM
Justification due to the status quo is absurd.
A neighborhood thug broke my neighbor's window and was sent to jail. My neighbor was victimized TWICE, once for the window and once more for paying for the thug's room and board.
The overwhelming vast majority of the US criminal justice is useless at best and most likely actively harmful. Proper solutions would involve an armed, trained populace and imposed restitution for the thugs which survive their crimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:57PM
That's exactly what bail and parole are for. Bail is set by the judge and can be revoked or set to whatever amount he feels is necessary. Parole is granted only after being assessed and determined to be able to function and serve the remainder of the sentence in the free world. People who are really dangerous are routinely denied both.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:42PM
I don't think you're really thinking this issue through and are comparing apples to oranges.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:42PM
why are all your thoughts stupid and sycophantic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:19PM
There's hope. At least in my state (Colorado) the most problematic cases were removed. Two that come to mind are public urination, which won't get you on the list, and indecent exposure, which now requires "sexual intent". So flashing people on the street corner can put you on the list, but streaking at a college football game or participating in a nude protest won't. And people who were on the list for such things can petition to be taken off.
I actually spent quite a bit of time looking through the registry recently (last Halloween, when the media always makes a big deal about it) and was a little surprised. First, by just how many people are on it. It seems like almost every block has a sex offender. Second by the fact that just about everyone on the registry seems to belong there. It's mostly stuff like sexual assault and a surprising amount of incest, with plenty of statutory rape and child pornography in for good measure. Legal incest isn't the same as biological incest and there might be a portion of those people who don't really belong there, but aside from that, it seemed like it was appropriate.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:33PM
Young men who spank monkeys and choke chickens in their spare time must be stopped.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday March 05 2018, @07:56PM (1 child)
Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit
This is the guy who started profiling serial killers/finding ways of questioning them to help with the profiling and catching of them, etc.
Interesting read.
Other indicators: bed wetters, stutterers, only child of single domineering mother... My wife sees some of these kids at school.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Monday March 05 2018, @10:37PM
Yes.
https://goo.gl/images/DXmCEB [goo.gl]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @08:29PM (3 children)
Animal abuse is fucked up shit and such people should have their arms broken.
However, such registries are human abuse so we should not go down that route either.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @09:06PM (2 children)
No, registries are not "human abuse". What do you think it is when someone is on parole? That's effectively the same thing: someone is a registered criminal, but instead of locking them up in prison, they get to stay outside, as long as they stay out of trouble, check in with their parole officer, etc. There's also "work release" where they can go out, but with their freedom very constrained (can go to work and back to prison), there's various other freedom-limiting schemes out there, esp. in other countries that aren't so harsh on convicts. People get put on registries when they've been convicted of something normally.
What's abuse is when people on these registries are harassed so much (e.g., not being able to live anywhere because there's literally no place except under some bridge where they aren't within a certain distance of a school) that they can't live a somewhat-normal life, or when they're put on registries for completely wrong and stupid reasons, or the registries are totally misused (e.g., two teenagers have sex, and are now treated as child molesters forevermore). These aren't problems with registries per se, these are problems of a broken justice system. But broken justice systems have other problems too, like wrongful convictions or bad trials where the jurors are racists and convict someone because of that; does that mean we just shouldn't have convictions or trials? Obviously not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @10:52PM (1 child)
Bail / parole are not the same as a registry, but being a lifetime "felon" certainly is and we should reverse that policy. How can you guarantee people won't be harassed? You can't, therefore creating such registries is a crime against the human being punished. Such registries can't even stop the convicted from re-offending so the basic premise itself is flawed.
I personally do prefer to live in a free country and believe it is better for a society's psychology to not be in constant fear of perceived transgressions. Think of the edge cases before you promote legislation that will ruin innocent lives and have marginal value against the guilty aside from continued punishment with little practical value.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday March 06 2018, @03:33AM
USDA recently removed its licensee list (or at least their addresses) from its website, because whatever legit use anyone got from the list was overshadowed by PETA types using it to harass licensees (including major destruction of private property).
So yeah, I already know how public lists of "abusers" will get used.
Under California state law, having an animal for sale in a public place is "abuse". Having an unlicensed dog can also be prosecuted as "abuse". In San Francisco, a recent law makes not providing 'quality' food or bedding is "abuse" (despite that what constitutes 'quality' is left to the imagination of the prosecutor). Tying up a dog is "abuse" (and the way it's written, hooking a leash on the fence while you tie your shoe could be prosecuted).
So yeah, it's already right up there with public urination getting you on a "sex offender" list.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.