A callous act

If you eat animal products then you support cruelty, so I don't see why the OP is so outraged when his food probably died in equally horrible conditions
 
MrMoonX said:
If you eat animal products then you support cruelty, so I don't see why the OP is so outraged when his food probably died in equally horrible conditions
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. Compare a road traffic accident involving someone's beloved cat to the food industry. I can see the fairness and similarity straight away.
 
Fido McNasty said:
That makes perfect sense. Compare a road traffic accident involving someone's beloved cat to the food industry. I can see the fairness and similarity straight away.
Click to expand...

Actually he is partially correct imho, if you eat 'cheap' / mass produced meat then you are indeed an accessory to significant animal cruelty !

I'd argue that if you buy ONLY free range / organic meat then you are not involved with animal cruelty (generally speaking), and I'm a vegetarian.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that I enjoy eating meat, and thus at some point in that process someone is cruel to an animal. I'll still eat meat. Wouldn't like to think it is put to excess suffering and was subject to current regulations on animal welfare.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Actually he is partially correct imho, if you eat 'cheap' / mass produced meat then you are indeed an accessory to significant animal cruelty !

I'd argue that if you buy ONLY free range / organic meat then you are not involved with animal cruelty (generally speaking), and I'm a vegetarian.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that we are overlapping the morals of the meat industry and eating meat with the morals of a brain dead and equally intolerant man. Maybe the reporter went away at that point or there was nothing more to be reported but there is nothing about anyone waiting to eat the cat in that piece anywhere that I could see.

It is somewhat difficult to pop out and humanely nail a Pig with the intent of storing and eventually eating it's meat. Well around here it is, maybe it is different in other parts of the UK. How on Earth can the food industry in any form be compared to the accidental roadside killing of a pet cat? It might just be that easy to put such extremely different things into one convenient argument here but it remains a wasted opportunity to learn that monsters exist... Oh no.... Thus somehow giving the whole anti animal cruelty movement momentum here, and to defend the guy who throws a dying cat across a road to a verge in front of other people... ? Wow, that is all I can say to that.

In fairness we can use words and take the moral viewpoints all day long, but a bad act is a bad act. The guy shocked those people and did not care even slightly. That is how it would appear to me to have made news in the first place. Cats get flattened all the time, along with Pheasants, bats, frogs, owls, dogs and so on. We do what we do and want to care. Some people are happy to fly in the face of that caring.

The cat could have been carefully moved. That is it really to me and it would have quite possibly given the cat it's life back. The guy murdered the cat out of pure unfettered spite.
 
Oh lawd some people are wrapped in cotton.

They put their school blazers over it? awwwww, I'm sure it made a whole load of difference to poor ickle diddums.

The cat was dying. The cat is a cat. What genuinely would YOU have done? Held up traffic giving it mouth to mouth?


I'm not one for animal cruely, but looking at the drivers action vs comments such as:

" Someone should hit him with a car, attach a rope from his leg to the back of a car speed off and start doing donuts with him still attached and then release the rope so he going flying so he knows what it feels like to be flung after getting hit by a car "


I think I know who is more strange.
 
Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did there... the cat was an obstruction in the road, it could have caused more accidents and put human life at risk.

No animal is more important than human life and if the idiots there looking at the dying cat didnt have the balls to do something, im glad this bloke did. It was obviously all but dead, so no harm done anyhow.

Why wasnt the story about the driver that hit the cat? They were the ones that killed it... surely we should ban all cars, turn roads into massive cat litter trays and all walk along watching cats **** everywhere, because they are furry.
 
In some parts of the world the driver would have taken the cat home for dinner.

I feel more sorry for larger animals like deer and elks getting hit by cars than cats. I just think cats have no excuse. Animal rights activists don't seem to care as much about larger animals as they do cats.
 
Last edited:
"We urge anyone with any information to call us in confidence on 0300 1234 999."

FFS, there are 35 Scaffolding companies around Caterham, get off your fat doughnut arse and start being a Policeman :rolleyes: Useless bunch of clowns.
You don't have to be Inspector Morse to nail this Psycho, flipping office teaboy could do it.

Teknobry said:
wow, talk about over reaction. It was a dying cat, hell you don't even have to stop or report it if you run one over.
Click to expand...
You might not, clearly others would.
This was someone's favourite pet, and it's last moments were not pain free.

mlbtheshow said:
Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did there...
Click to expand...
When you are in minority of one, it's a good idea to review your outlook on life :)
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
Sounds fine to me.

What if this guy was a paedophile as well? The suggestions of pain inflicted that some would come up with would no no bounds.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to detect the sarcasm in this post but I can't.

Fido McNasty said:
The cat could have been carefully moved. That is it really to me and it would have quite possibly given the cat it's life back. The guy murdered the cat out of pure unfettered spite.
Click to expand...

I agree the cat should have been carefully moved, but you can't deduce from that article that flinging it into the bushes killed it and that the guy "murdered" it. Plus you can't "murder" an animal.

He treat a severly injured animal cruelly, nothing more.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
What should someone have done in this situation?
Watched the cat for the two minutes until it died, then threw it to the side of the road?

The cat was clearly going to do from its headwound injury. I just ponder what the best action to do, when the situation is hopeless, I guess you do just stroke the poor thing until it dies.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling neither you or the person involved are qualified vets & therefore your opinions on if it was 'clearly' going to die are worthless.

Hikari Kisugi said:
Right, people are implying that I support the actions of th guy who chucked the cat.
I think I need to specifically rebute that.
I do not in any way support cruelty to animals.

I was asking what the actual guidelines are in such a situation.
Do you move a dying animal or not?
Click to expand...
The animal wasn't simply 'moved'.

It was tossed by the tail in such a manner it could kill in it's own right - if he delicately moved the animal to the side then drove off I could understand this line of reasoning, but he didn't.

Malc said:
you can't deduce from that article that flinging it into the bushes killed it and that the guy "murdered" it. Plus you can't "murder" an animal.

He treat a severly injured animal cruelly, nothing more.
Click to expand...
Not quite, he engaged in an action against somebody's property (a pet) in such a way which in itself could have caused serious injury to it or killed it.

mlbtheshow said:
Absolutely nothing wrong with what he did there... the cat was an obstruction in the road, it could have caused more accidents and put human life at risk.

No animal is more important than human life and if the idiots there looking at the dying cat didn't have the balls to do something, I'm glad this bloke did. It was obviously all but dead, so no harm done anyhow.
Click to expand...
So many vets at the scene of the innocent on OCUK able to give an informed opinion - who would have thought.

Also, technically he did something wrong - as the RSPCA are attempting to get information to pursue him.
 
Last edited:
anything I don't mind said:
I just think cats have no excuse.
Click to expand...

Actually they do. It is down to the way their eyesight works.

They are not very good at visual acuity with objects coming towards them in the center of their field of vision (IE cars). Also the accuracy of their vision is limited to about 20 feet. So by the time they have seen the car and perceived it as a threat the chances are it is on top of them.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
However misguided he may have been that day, I dont think there is a person here who would not do the same when it came down to the crunch.

I feel for that guy, and it changed my perspective on the behaviour of strangers. You just dont know if it is completely out of character or if it is driven by desperation.

The guy and the cat is no different.
Click to expand...

Hmm?
It was someone's pet, have you ever had a pet? They're members of the family in all degrees.

Nobody is saying putting the cat to one side was wrong, nobody is saying he should have given it mouth to mouth or nursed it until it stopped breathing just to give it a bit more comfort.

The problem with what he did has already been told in the article and what people are upset about.

The man flung the cat swinging it by its tail.

He then proceeded to mouth off to other members of the public before driving off aggressively.

The man has issues that need seeing to because normal people who can control themselves don't do things like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom