Woman finds fawn, beats it with a shovel

[AngryOldDem]

Came across this while trolling the CNN site, and I can't get it out of my head.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/07/08/dcl.elderly.fawn.killer.wkyc

:wtf:?? Why??? Seriously...we have had does leave their fawns in our front garden many times...how can they even be perceived as a threat??? Jeeze...if you don't want them around, call fucking animal control and have them removed.

I hope she is prosecuted to the maximum.

[Ganja Ninja]

1. I half expected it to be Sarah Palin. n/t

[semillama]

9. no, she would have shot it from a helicopter. n/t

[MineralMan]

2. Morons abound!

That's the only possible answer.

[panader0]

3. Was this incident in Wasilla?

[AngryOldDem]

44. No. Suburb of Cleveland, OH

Something else that makes just so proud to be an Ohioan.

[Critters2]

67. A new-ish suburb? So this woman moved into the deer's territory?

Would a little respect for creation be so difficult?

[AngryOldDem]

100. It;'s Euclid.

Maybe Euclid isn't considered a true "suburb" of Cleveland...I've always thought it was so.

[FarCenter]

143. Another news story says her home is near the Euclid Creek Reservation

Which is no doubt overrun with deer, due to all the people opposed to controlling the deer population.

[bridgit]

4. Some people are just too stupid

[FarCenter]

5. Do they taste like veal?

[mikelgb]

6. lemme "tap" you with a shovel

:mad:

[Romulox]

7. What a disgusting woman. nt

[Dr.Phool]

107. You should see what she does when kids step on her lawn.

[derby378]

8. She said she was "absolutely" in danger from a fawn?

My faith in humanity just took another hit. Damn.

[GodlessBiker]

10. If she wasn't in danger, her hostas surely were.

[KittyWampus]

21. My hosta are all chewed up stubs.

[GodlessBiker]

41. They are like lettuce to deer.

[Hansel]

59. Spray them with 1/3 plain amonia to 2/3 water.

Get a hand held pump sprayer. It works like a charm and is cheap. Resprayed them if it rains.

[SteelPenguin]

11. She's obviously an old senile woman

At the same time why is it wrong to kill a fawn with a shovel for eating her flowers, but it's ok to kill a cow with a nailgun to the head so we can make hamburgers out of it? Or to let that fawn grow up, feed it, provide for it, and when it sprouts 8 points, kill it, skin it, put it's head on the wall and it's meat in the freezer?

Obviously you have to be a little batty to kill a fawn laying in your flower garden, but at the same time....why is it prosecutable?

[madaboutharry]

13. I think it is just a sad story of an

ignorant elderly woman not knowing any better.

[SteelPenguin]

37. I agree

I think that pretty much nails it in the head. Ignorant elderly woman who didn't know any better. I just don't understand the people who are so ready to prosecute her for it.

[Ikonoklast]

15. See the laws regarding how, where and when you can legally perform such actions.

That is why it is prosecutable.

You cannot kill wildlife OR domestic animals willy-nilly.

[SteelPenguin]

18. Fair Enough

But I don't think people are complaining about this because she broke the hunting laws.

[Xithras]

33. The "where and when" were probably legal. It's the "how" that will get her.

Most states in the nation have protections in place that permit landowners to kill wild animals, even out of season, if those animals are causing damage to property. Had she walked out with a gun and simply shot the thing, my guess is that she wouldn't be in trouble right now. It's the whole "beat to death with a shovel" part thats getting her prosecuted.

In my dads part of Oregon, deer are often considered pests and are routinely shot out of season to protect property from damage (my dad has personally shot several as they mowed through his half acre veggie garden). If the shooting is not done for sporting purposes, but for property protection, and if the shooting is properly reported, there is no danger of fines or prosecution.

[TheMightyFavog]

135. Yeah, but usually you have to get special permits from the state in those instances..

That's how it works in Wisconsin, anyways.

[Xithras]

136. True, but they can often be issued retroactively.

In California you simply call the DFG and they'll send a warden out to verify what happened (they'll also tell you NOT to touch the deer or anything else). If the warden verifies that the deer was causing damage to your property AND that the deer was shot in close proximity to where the damage was taking place, they'll issue the form on the spot. Works largely the same way in Oregon. In fact, the only differences that I know of between the states is that it's the LEO's discretion in Oregon as to whether you get to keep the deer, while California wardens will ALWAYS will take it away (to discourage abuse and poaching).

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for cleanly killing a wild animal that is actually damaging property or posing a threat to humans or domesticated animals.

[redqueen]

20. Why is it wrong to kill an animal for eating flowers,

but not in order to use it for food?

One is taking a life because you think your flowers looking nice is a more important thing than the creature's life. The other is taking a life for nourishment. Which is kind of more of a necessity than having a pretty flower garden.

[SteelPenguin]

35. We don't need to though

We choose to. Mind you, I choose to as well. I have meat in my fridge. I'm not making an argument for vegetarianism here. I'm just saying that we don't need leather couches, and a london broil in the fridge marinating, we choose it.

Why is taking a life because you like the taste of meat better than beans any better than taking a life to protect a flower garden? Neither are 'necessary', but both arguably contribute to quality of life.

[redqueen]

36. Doesn't weigh evenly on my scale.

Obviously on yours, it does. Agree to disagree.

[SteelPenguin]

39. Agreed to Disagree

Though I'd agree that the two probably don't 'weigh' the same, but at the same time I think both are optional activities, and you can't really claim that eating meat is a necessity.

[Ignis]

95. I like the way you think.

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

150. As in all things...

As in all things, the degree of overt and dramatic action versus eventual social consequence (whether through cultural mores or a legal system) tempers and tempts the decisions of most people.

One may easily profess love of animal life whilst eating a cheeseburger, but profess that same love whilst beating a fawn senseless with a shovel and the social contract kicks in and condemns it as hypocrisy.

As in all things... degrees.



(An observation, rather than a judgment on my part)

[greyl]

57. It's not about right or wrong, it's about what works in the community of life.

It is not a viable evolutionary strategy to kill whatever eats "our" flowers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Somewhere a bunch of aphids are rejoicing. n/t

[Romulox]

25. Why is OK to kill a fawn, but not a person? Of course you'd have to be a little batty... nt

[Wakingupnow]

75. if it gets in our way, KILL IT

isn't that the way we deal with what annoys us? from flies to birds to fawns to poor people who happen to live on top of ;our: oil? i remember how my late father (who thought of himself as a compassionate --although racist-leaning-- guy) proudly dealt with the bird that got into his house. his choices as he saw them were 1)let the little f#@%ker crap all over the house or 2) kill it with a broom. :banghead: choice 3) help the frightened creature to get outside wasn't on his list of options. and he felt just so proud to have done his manly duty. we really need to look within ourselves at times like this when we might not like to see how we'd be willing to kill (or stand by when the killing is done in our name without saying or doing anything.:crazy: )

[Maru Kitteh]

120. None of those are ok, imo.

[SteelPenguin]

141. personally I like a good steak

but I applaud your consistency.

[Robb]

12. Fuck that woman. nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

14. here's an article on the story; She wanted to send a message to other deer

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=117314&catid=3

Euclid woman charged with beating fawn to death
Posted By: Kim Wendel Updated: 7/8/2009 3:10:04 AM Posted: 7/7/2009 7:09:52 PM

EUCLID -- Resident Dorothy Richardson, 76, said she was defending herself when she beat to death a 25-pound fawn that was crouched in her flower bed, then stuffed the fawn's body in a cardboard box and put it out on trash day.

A widow, she said she has been defending her garden against deer for years and this time took a shovel and beat the fawn until it died.

She said the fawn's eyes contacted hers, like he was going to jump and bite her head off.

Euclid City Councilman Christopher Gruber says Richardson told him something different.

Gruber says Richardson said she hit it once and, according to her, it screamed and she hit it two more times, then she said that what she wanted to do was put it at the end of the yard so the other deer know not to mess with her.

Gruber is now a witness in the animal abuse case against Richardson. If convicted, she faces up to 60 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

[WI_DEM]

17. What a sick old biddy.

That poor little fawn didn't understand that it was messing with her precious garden but when she killed that poor little thing she knew exactly what she was doing.

[get the red out]

27. Jail for that old monster

I whish that old monster would go to jail and her neighbors treat her like the piece of shit she is. What an old beast.

She will probably get a slap on the wrist and pity for being elderly. When I read about the fawn screaming the thoughts I had toward that woman were not civilized. If she were my neighbor I would definitely share a piece of my mind with her verbally. I hope people do. Hopefully she gets treated so badly now that she cries every day over it.

[AngryOldDem]

52. I'm sure the deer have learned their lesson.

:crazy:

Pure batshit craziness. Age is not an excuse here.

[JVS]

112. LOL! This is terrible, but the idea of sending a message to animals is so dumb it's hilarious

She obviously should be working in the pentagon with such a mentality.

[Octafish]

16. What else is she supposed to do?

Gee-whiz. Her role models all solve problems by killing them.
Consider Iraq. Bush starts a war because his bosses need oil and he kills more than a million innocent people for it --
slandering them in the process by publicly blaming them for the attacks of September 11.

Is Bush in jail? Is he even in trouble? Under investigation by Congress or Justice?

He should be: Know your BFEE: Bush has Killed a Million Innocent People for Their Oil.

PS: Sorry to sound petulant, AngryOldDem. I'm angry, too.

[KittyWampus]

19. I would never do such a think but can sympathize with the sentiment. Deer have ruined my veg garden

this is a veggie garden I EAT out of.

Finally had to pay the big bucks for an actual deer fence as endlessly restoring/repairing the deer netting was too time consuming.

Deer have devastated my landscape.

There are too many.

Yes, they are beautiful. But a part of me can get very, very angry.

And the Town Board members are useless assholes who won't do anything about the deer over-population until one of their family members gets killed in a car accident with a deer.

There are so many deer now, they are getting smaller.

[FarCenter]

23. Deer and Canada geese are basically varmints and pests -- big rats

[KittyWampus]

26. Deer are absolutely overgrown rodents

[GodlessBiker]

43. +1

[Critters2]

65. If you're going to bitch about God's creation,

please at least remove that biblical quote from your sig line. Hypocrisy smells bad.

[MercutioATC]

97. God created Republicans, too...

...we're not allowed to bitch about them?

[Atman]

114. Sure, bitch away...but you still aren't allowed to hit them in the head with a shovel.

Although, perhaps we should look into changing the law.

:hi:

.

[MercutioATC]

115. NOW you tell me...

Looks like I'll have to resort to Plan #2 for the freeper at work...

[closeupready]

138. Now that was a funny comeback

:rofl:

[Doremus]

149. They think you're an overgrown pig. nt

[Critters2]

63. They no doubt feel similarly towards you.

Except, they don't beat you to death with a shovel.

[Big Blue Marble]

126. Based on your logic,

what are humans?

[Atman]

29. You had to pay big bucks for a deer fence because deer eat vegetables.

You didn't know this when you planted a garden in an area populated with deer? What did you think would happen, they'd just eat everyone else's stuff and not yours? The fence was a cost of doing business -- or gardening -- that you should have considered in the first place. I can "sympathize" with the aggravation of seeing your veggies devastated by deer, but what did expect them to do when they found a smorgasbord in your yard? We put screens on our windows so bugs and birds don't fly in, and don't complain about the "big bucks" they cost us. You just don't go around beating baby animals to death because you find them inconvenient.

.

[City Lights]

32. +1!

Well said! :applause:

[bertman]

72. Okay, it's either a deer fence or a 12 gauge shotgun. Keep them out of the garden

or put them in the freezer.

An unfenced garden is a deer attractor. Period. Deer do not understand the concept of property lines and gardens. To them it's all open territory for food patrol.

[KittyWampus]

152. Listen A--hole, the deer have multiplied and gotten worse as the wooded areas have been developed

THEY NEVER USED TO BE A PROBLEM.

The only way to explain such obnoxious idiocy is that some DU'ers must be born and bred city or suburb people with no concept of nature.

[Atman]

154. I am so far from the city or 'burbs it's ridiculous.

I live in way out in the country. I've grazed a couple of deer with my car; I pass them regularly on my way home from work, waiting for them to jump out onto the road in front of me. Nice try. They often hang out in the yard in front of my house.

You know what? We still manage to grow a pretty nice garden, and the deer don't bother us. Because we know how do deal with them in ways which don't include bashing their skulls in with a shovel.

.

[Maine-ah]

30. use cayenne pepper in your garden.

[MadHound]

40. Rather than investing big bucks in a deer fence, simply install an electric one

A couple of hot wires, one at ankle level, one at waist level, connected either to your house current or can run off of solar. Does the trick every time, and is good for discouraging other critters like rabbits and raccoons.

Most animals can sense a charged fence and avoid it like the plague.

[Xithras]

139. At line voltage? OUCH! That would kill most small animals...or kids.

My veggie garden has an electric hotwire strung around it to keep the bunnies out, and that wire is powered by a 12 volt transformer from a landscape lighting system. It will scare off small animals and definitely gets the attention of any inattentive humans who walk into it, but it's incapable of actually causing death or serious damage.

[MadHound]

142. No, not at line voltage

I'm assuming that most people are smart enough, and compassionate enough, to get a step down transformer.

That's what I get for assuming.

[FarCenter]

145. Electric fences are typically run at several thousand volts

Commercial electric fence chargers typically run off of batteries, and have step up circuitry to deliver pulses of several thousand volts.

The high voltage is needed so that when an animal with hair or fur contacts the wire, it will spark from the wire to the animals skin. 2500 volts will spark across about a 0.1 inch gap. So 5 to 10 thousand volts would be typically used. This also compensates for variation in resistance to ground due to dry soil and for conditions like blades of grass touching the wire.

Although the voltage is high, the current is limited. Current, not voltage, is what kills. 20 milliAmperes of current from arm to feet is typically lethal, irrespective of the voltage. Which is why touching 115 volts AC with one finger while stading on tile floor in sneakers won't hurt you, but touching 115 volts while sitting in the bathtub is a really bad idea.

[KittyWampus]

153. We are a business and have many, many guests year round. That would be a lawsuit waiting to happen

[Critters2]

48. If a part of you can get very, very angry because of animals

(into whose territory you moved, btw) wanting to eat...please get some therapy.

[AngryOldDem]

50. I know..we tried to plant a garden in the back.

It was virtually destroyed by all the wildlife we had around, and we were hoping to supplement our food with homegrown veggies. But, killing the animals out of sheer rage would never cross our minds.

Once we had two fawn in the front yard while the mother left to get food, we suppose. We were amazed that she would leave them literally right up to the side of the house. But where we lived at the time was right next to a wooded area, and the deer population was becoming too crowded. Lived there for nearly 10 years, and the last year we were there we saw more deer than ever.

Massive deer population is indeed a problem...but taking a shovel to them? Don't think so. What infuriates me is that to hear the woman talk, it was attacking HER. It was no threat and everyone knows that.

[oedura]

83. There are too many people...

...not too many deer.

We've killed off all the predators that used to keep their numbers in check and we keep building more suburban sprawl in their ever-shrinking habitat.

[queenjane]

86. Word!

Thank you for stating the very obvious fact that the expanding human population is the root of 99% of our problems!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hedgehog]

24. We're dealing with a cultural gap here. This is an extension of

the "My home is my castle" philosophy that gives people the right to defend at all costs whatever is theirs. Just be glad it was only a fawn and not a neighbor's teenager. My father worried for years that the man across the street was going to come out one night with a shot gun because neighborhood fools drove their cars across his lawn.

[Fire1]

28. My castle my ass! There is no rationalization, legal or

otherwise, for cruelty.

[SteelPenguin]

42. Sure you can rationalize it

Well maybe not 'cruelty', but you can certainly rationalize this incident. An animal was destroying her property so she killed the animal. Whacking a fawn over the head with a shovel isn't in the same category as intentional cruelty like stringing up live cats or something that serial killers do to warm up.

If you look at Animals as no different from...say a tree, in that in certain situations they are simply resources and property to be used, you can rationalize whacking it over the head, cooking it for food, and making slippers out of it's skin.

The thing I don't get is when people object to doing this to cute and cuddly animals, but do so while wearing leather shoes and eating a chicken sandwich. It seems hypocritical to me. That's when I don't understand the rationalizations. It's not ok to kill a young deer who is eating your garden, but it IS ok to kill a young cow to make a suede jacket and hamburgers out of it. I just don't understand that.

[Fire1]

46. Bullshit. Tell that crap to vegetarians and see how far you get.

How about somebody bash you in the head and see how it feels. I'll tell you the difference. One is out of necessity and one is out of pure unadulterated GREED or CRUELTY. What I don't understand are dipshits that move to WOODED (animal populated) areas and then fuckin COMPLAIN! Suburban SPRAWL has TAKEN OVER EVERYWHERE! WHERE IN THE FUCK IS AN ANIMAL SUPPOSED TO GO???? Answer THAT shit!

[SteelPenguin]

56. I don't understand your point

So is there a difference whether someone bashes me over the head with a shovel a couple times or puts a bullet to the base of my brain? I'm still dead.

I agree that motiviation can be seen as a key part, but I'm saying that there seems to be a sliding scale of what constitutes necessity and what constitutes greed. How do we define necessity? What is necessary? Are hamburgers necessary? If so, why not just eat black bean burgers and not kill an animal in the process? We're perfectly capable of surviving healthily and well on a vegetarian diet, without wearing leather....so why is killing cows ok for shoes and hamburgers just fine? It's not necessary by strict definition. We do it because we LIKE hamburgers and how they taste. We LIKE a good london broil marinated overnight. We like the feel of our leather sofas and car seats. They're not necessary though. WE could just eat black bean burgers, cheese enchiladas, and have a cloth sofa and car seats. All are available in the same places we purchase the cow derived products.

The woman was batty, but she was in her head protecting her flower garden, which from the sound of it is pretty central to her mental wellbeing. Why is the fact we like the taste of meat more necessary, than the emotional or mental need for a nice looking house and flower garden? Why not just let our lawns and gardens go to shit, why make them pretty at all? Because it gives us something non-physical when we come home to a beautiful house and flower garden, or pride in the beauty of it? something more emotionally benefiting? How is that different from the taste of meat versus a black bean burger (which can actually be good too)? How does that provide for us any more benefit than something that is emotional really. It's not a purely chemical reason, we don't really NEED to eat meat, but we like it. Some people feel better when they eat it. How is that different?

I agree though about the people who complain about animals in their yards when they've moved into the woods. Not sure what they were thinking would happen. Still I get Deer, Turkeys and Groundhog in my yard all the time and I'm in an urban area. I just happen to back onto a 40 yard wide strip of forest, and it's like a miniature nature preserve. We've stopped trying to plant stuff in our backyard because the deer eat it all up. So it's not just rural areas that would suffer from deer eating their flowers and gardens.

[Fire1]

71. How necessary is shelter, meat and clothes? History

indicates that American Indians killed buffalo out of NECESSITY and ONLY KILLED WHAT THEY NEEDED!! It was the 'europeans' who killed OUT OF GREED and contributed to the damn near extinction of the animal. That's the problem with most people. They have a problem co-existing with ANYTHING OR ANYBODY that doesn't COMPLY with their fuckin standards, be it ANIMAL, VEGETABLE OR MINERAL!! That bitch is a MENACE and should be put out of her fuckin misery.

[SteelPenguin]

I"m not questioning the necessity of shelter and food and clothes

I'm questioning the necessity of us to make shelter food and clothes out of other animals, and wondering if that isn't necessary then why isn't THAT cruelty as well.

[Fire1]

88. Again, revert back to 'history.' If, indeed, it is deemed

necessary, IT CAN BE CONTROLLED! In this day and age of vast varieties of synthetics and chemicals that are ALREADY in our food and clothing, I, personally don't find it necessary to kill animals for food, shelter or clothing. Hunting, as a 'sport' is cruel AND stupid, imo. It only serves to assert one's 'manhood,' under the guise of 'thinning out the herd.'

[AngryOldDem]

58. There IS nowhere for them to go. But you knew that.

Therefore, they get hit on the road; they crash through plate glass windows and have to be put down; they feed off people's gardens; the adults bed down their young in places like bushes and other secluded areas around houses and the young get bludgeoned.

The answer is more responsible animal management and control, and more thought put behind development in suburbs and rural areas. We have to share the land with animals and we can't complain when they begin to compete with us for basic food and shelter. We are shrinking their habitat. Can't be any more obvious.

The answer is not wanton cruelty. All that fawn was doing was resting, because its mother thought it had found a safe place for it. The mother probably would have come back for it in short order, had the crazy bitch left it alone.

[Fire1]

74. THANKYOU! THAT was an intelligent answer to a problem

WE, MAN, created and it is up to US to come up with a solution like putting CAPS ON DEVELOPMENT!

[redqueen]

47. You said upthread that you agree these things don't weigh the same.

But here you again repeat that you don't see the difference.

Which is it? Do you or don't you?

[SteelPenguin]

51. They do and they don't

They're the same shade of Red. Different shades to be sure, and that's what I meant by they don't weigh the same...but at the same time they're still both red. they're both unnecessary actions we do for no other reason than we enjoy our flower gardens or our hamburgers. They weigh differently in that hamburgers provide actual physical sustenance rather than something a bit more esoteric as the mental life improvement of a nice flower garden...

so that's why I say they weigh differently.

Yet I still think it's hypocritical to say one is fine, but the other is somehow over the top wrong.

[redqueen]

55. So there's the crux.

Nuance.

[SteelPenguin]

61. I agree with that

It is Nuance. I think that's what it is maybe. Different people have different definitions of what is cruel, as well as what is necessary. It's the fact that these two lines vary independently is probably what throws me. The extremes are easy. Kidnapping a neighbors cat to take it apart piece by piece while it's alive just to hear it scream is obviously wrong (at least to me) while say killing a wolf as it's attacking you to save your own life is obviously right (again at least to me). The question of where protecting your flower garden, and whether it's ok to wear leather shoes falls on that line in between and whether you think it's moral, ethical, justifiable, or none of the above seems to be highly personal however.

[redqueen]

69. In addition to the issue of necessity, there is the issue of cruelty.

It was a fawn.

Not a snake, not even a mean-looking dog. A fawn. She could have just scared it away.

Surely you can see how the undeniably unnecessary violence of her actions further unbalances the scales.

I'm surprised that anyone would be surprised by the reaction to this act of abject cruelty, let alone try to claim it's somehow hypocritical.

[SteelPenguin]

85. I'm not claiming the action is hypocritical

I'm claiming the reaction to the action is the hypocritical part. People seem to have quite arbitrary definitions of what is and what is not cruelty. The tendency seems to come down to three areas. How the person kills the animal, Why the person kills the animal, and what type of animal it is.

Since the woman killed the animal in a very similar way to how we kill the animals which we factory farm, I think an argument that it was cruel because she bashed it's head in is hypocritical unless you also oppose the methods used to slaughter cows, turkeys, pigs, etc.

Then looking at the reason the woman killed the animal, destruction of her property, is both legal in most areas, as well as perfectly acceptable in most cases. If bugs were eating her flowers, most people wouldn't object to her spraying them with insecticide, or swatting them off the flowers and stomping them with her foot, or even the shovel.

The only reason I can see is that it was a cute little fawn with big eyes, and I can't quantify that. while I agree that it wasn't a snake, or a bug, or a mean looking dog, and that it was a cute little fawn...I don't see how that alters the equation simply because the animal is cute. That seems incredibly subjective.

[redqueen]

87. Not cute... non-threatening.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand. It's not that the fawn was cute, it's that she was in absolutely no danger, and yet violently attacked the defenseless animal.

[SteelPenguin]

89. So if it was a garden snake it'd be ok?

You mentioned before that it wasn't a snake. What if it was a garden snake? Would it be more or less wrong, or the same, if she killed a garden snake eating her flowers with a shovel?

What if it was an aphid or swarm of aphids eating her flowers? She'd be in absolutely no danger. If she crushed 20 aphids at once with a shovel, would that be the same as killing the fawn, or different?

If those are different, then it's not the action, or the fact that she was not in danger, which makes it wrong, but what type of animal it was, no?

[redqueen]

91. This has gone from strange to downright frickin ridiculous.

Take care. I'm done.

[SteelPenguin]

92. k thanks for talking

I'd have been curious to your answers to those questions, but once again on topics of this nature people seem to lock up rather than discuss it logically.

[redqueen]

93. Logic?

That's funny.

You've already admitted the issues you want to call people hypocrites about aren't even equal... but you're twisting yourself into knots trying to somehow justify your desire continue to call people who don't have your approval for their reaction hypocrites.

You admit it's nuance, but then go on to continue this nonsensical argument, seemingly desperately trying to somehow convey that it's really black and white, and people who agree with you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Hilarious, really.

[SteelPenguin]

99. I think you've misread me

I've stated that things are NOT black and white, and that seems to be the issue. I'm simply trying to understand why one thing people call cruelty but another they don't. I'm not saying I'm right, or other people are wrong. If someone claims it's cruel I'm not saying they are wrong to say it's cruel, simply that most of the poeple who seem to be saying that are using hypocritical reasoning.

For instance people seem to be upset because she killed a fawn with a shovel and hit it over the head twice with it bashing it's skull in. They say that is cruel, but if you say that they do the same thing to animals in factory farms then they bring out the necessity card.

They shift to claiming that it wasn't a necessary killing to save her flowers, but that killing a cow for food or clothing is necessary. If you then point out that eating meat and wearing leather isn't strictly necessary either, they then pull the non-threatening card.

They say it wasn't threatening her in any way. It wasn't a ravaging wolf, or a rattlesnake, but an innocent fawn. If you then point out that they would have no problem with that same woman obliterating hundreds of insects in the same location which posed her no danger, they pull the you're freaking ridiculous card.

Look, I'm not saying 'hey lets all go kill baby fawns!' and I'm not saying the woman isn't batty, or that I myself am hypocritical in this area since in my gut I wouldn't want to kill that fawn, but I'd have no problem killing aphids in it's place. I'm not making any claims of moral superiority, or that my idea is right or wrong. I'm just trying to understand the thought process of people who would swat a mosquito, eat a hamburger and then call for the death of a woman who smashes a fawn's skull in.

If the answer is "it's wrong to kill cute and fuzzy mammals like deer because they're cute and fuzzy mammals, and I think they are cute and fuzzy" then I'm cool with that response. It's just interesting that it's rarely ever put that way.

[redqueen]

101. Drop the "cute and fuzzy" schtick.

That kind of ignorant oversimplification is tired and beyond played out. Did you miss the part where I said "non threatening"? A mosquito spreads disease. Aphids aren't threatening to a human, but you also don't use a shovel to brain them. (There's that cruelty thing again.) If she caught the aphids and somehow tortured them, I'm sure some people would call her a sick asshole for doing that, too.

As for hamburgers... again... you have already said that you do see that killing for food is not the same as killing for flower gardens. Since you have agreed with that, yet keep acting as if there really is no difference, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

Good luck.

[SteelPenguin]

102. Now I feel like your're intentionally misreading me

You're very good at avoiding answering questions about your own arguments.

Obviously I didn't miss the part where you said non-threatening as I specifically address it, and you respond to it in this post. You admit Aphids aren't threatening, and granted you don't use a shovel to brain them, but if you saw some and smashed them with a shovel, would that be cruelty? What about my point that we smash the brains of cows in similar ways when we farm them? That isn't cruelty? Why? Because it's necessity? If it isn't necessity, then how is it not cruelty?

You've misunderstood me multiple times on the hamburgers issue, so I'll clarify again. Eating hamburgers and having flower gardens are different shades of red. They are both quality of life issues, and both are unnecessary. I'm sorry that I stated that they are slightly different in that hamburgers provide the additional benefit of physical sustenenace because apparently that's something that has completely derailed you.

I've stated time and again that both are not necessary, period, and that both are quality of life issues. My statements of them being different are more equivalent to saying that a honda and a cadillac are both cars, yet different.

You're the one who seems to be thinking in black and white terms.

[Wakingupnow]

155. How "necessary" are burgers?

Twenty years ago I wouldn't believe that I could "survive without meat", but it's been 20 years without it(except a couple of fish/seafood meals a week.) But, becoming aware of what cheap burgers actually cost in water use, energy use, animal manure, food taken out of the food chain (9 lbs of grain for each pound of meat)before you even begin to deal with the health consequences of eating meat (heart disease, colon cancer, etc. etc.). We're finding more and more alternatives to meat and can still know WE ARE NOT STARVING!

In the movie "POWDER," a very unique sensitive adolescent goes out with townies and the town sheriff who is going to teach the boys the "manly art of hunting." He shoots a deer and is crouching proudly in front of the boys with the dying deer. Powder puts his hand on the deer's neck and takes hold of the sheriff's arm. The sheriff turns ashen white as he experiences the terror being felt by the deer. The next day the sheriff turns in his badge and gun to the town mayor saying that he didn't think he could ever do his duty with deadly force if he were called on to do it.

It makes me sad that this woman was so disconnected from the web of life that the appearance of some flowers and a garden were of value and the life of the fawn had none. However, in so doing, we are all given the opportunity to think about this and consider some of the substantial changes we can--and need--to make to create and maintain a world that can support and sustain life for us, our children and grandchildren.

[Big Blue Marble]

127. So being beaten to death by a shovel is not cruelty? N/T

[SteelPenguin]

140. I think different people have different definitions

Physically there isn't a tremendous amount of difference between braining an animal with a shovel to the head with a sturdy blow, and using a captive bolt pistol which is considered a 'humane' way to slaughter cattle. Would it have been considered less cruel if she had restrained the fawn first and then put a bullet in it's brain from close range? (also considered acceptable in this country for cattle)

If you consider both cruelty, then I won't argue that with you. Not saying I'd agree with it, but you'd have at least a consistent position. If you think using the shovel is more cruel, I'd be curious as to why.

The way I see it, cruelty is defined by intent, than means. If a person is harming an animal for the singular reason of hurting that animal, whether it's quick or prolonged pain, then it's cruelty. If the person isn't doing it specifically out of malice, but has a specific reason to kill the animal (using it for food, protecting property, protecting self, etc), then I wouldn't necessarily deem it cruelty. If, however, a person has a specific reason to kill that animal, but intentionally prolongs that animals suffering for their own pleasure, I would go back and say that it was cruelty.

Still that said I wouldn't kill a baby fawn with a shovel to the head no matter what the damn deer were doing to my garden. I just can't quantify why, other than baby deer are cute.

[Big Blue Marble]

158. Cruelty may be inflicted without intent or sadism.

Often, far too often, it is inflicted with indifference. The level of suffering the victim experiences far more defines the level of cruelty than the intent
of the perpetrator. I fear that in this case the animal was injured and struck multiple times prior to losing consciousness. It, most likely, experienced great
pain and suffering as it died. Whatever this person's intent, she inflicted cruelty.

I agree with you about the cruelty that cattle at slaughter endure. Often times the bolt gun does not kill or leave the animal unconscious. It is hosted by
its back leg and its throat is cut while it is fully awake. I do not think the slaughterhouse workers intend to be cruel. Yet our slaughterhouses are bastions
of cruelty and suffering every single day.

[FarCenter]

31. There's a difference between killing humans and animals

We kill humans infrequently.

We kill animals for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[Fire1]

34. Tell that to vegetarians. Personally, I favor animals over most

people.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. +1

:thumbsup: So do I.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. Everyone I've ever heard say this means only *fuzzy* animals.

The heirarchy of life;
a) Marine mammals
b) fuzzy, cute animals, especially immature ones
c) endangered ones
d) people
e) birds
f) fish and other slimy stuff
g) bugs

It's okay to kill animals which are eating your flowers, provided they have more than four legs. Or if the animal is grown up and they are in season.

[Fire1]

81. Sorry, but PEOPLE are down there with 'bugs,' on MY list.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Don't have kids. n/t

[oedura]

125. +2

Not that I'm any great shakes, but in general people really suck.

[oedura]

124. "We kill humans infrequently."

Not really. We just don't eat them.

[FarCenter]

146. The number of humans deliberately killed by other humans is very small

At least it is small compared with the number of animals killed by humans. Even if you consider only mammals and birds, and not the billions of insects, etc, that we kill. Consider the number of insects on your windshield the next time you drive a rural highway on a summer night.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

45. i'm guessing that woman doesn't listen to DeBussy

[FarCenter]

96. I think fauns are off limits

Satyrs too.

[LeftinOH]

49. I live in the same area- and I would be delighted if a fawn entered my yard -it could eat anything

it wants, too. Stupid old hag.

[AngryOldDem]

53. It's a delightful surprise when you find one...so delicate and yes, cute...n/t

[closeupready]

104. Except when you discover they are covered in hundreds of ticks, carry lyme disease and

God knows what else.

[AngryOldDem]

128. Yes...as are most animals in the wild.

I'm not looking to tame it and make it a pet. I let it alone. I observe it from a distance. Eventually, it will go away. If I have a garden, I either find a way to deal with it, or not. Given that the animal and I have to coexist, I let it be. I don't kill it because it's an inconvenience to me.

Like I said to you elsewhere in this thread, this is why responsible culling of herds is needed during a specific hunting season, with specific guidelines and harvesting numbers. Prudent management is one of the ways to keep this from happening -- not picking up a shovel and hitting an animal over the head. Hell -- she just should have taken a gun to it. Would have been quicker and more humane.

[FarCenter]

147. A hard blow to the head is more humane than a gunshot to the chest

A hard blow to the head renders the animal unconcious immediately.

A gunshot to the chest, even to the heart, results in a fair amount of thrashing about before the animal dies.

[LanternWaste]

151. I imagine that should you tempt one to enter your domicile

I imagine that should you tempt one to enter your domicile, sleep on the couch for a few days, eat from your plate, and rough-house on the shag carpeting, that may indeed be a problem.


However, if the context is merely watching and admiring them from a distance of say, a normal house plot, ticks and lyme disease seems wholly irrelevant.

[closeupready]

159. That's not true.

http://www.dhpe.org/infect/Lyme.html

[bullwinkle428]

54. The report showed a statue of Jesus in front of her house -

I'm sure he would have wholeheartedly approved of her actions against the fawn!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Sebastian Doyle]

60. Let the punishment fit the crime.

Anybody got a shovel? :grr:

[maxsolomon]

64. my elderly neighbor wants to kill my cat

she says he craps in her garden.

i told her that if he does (he might, he's 1 of 10 cats loose in the immediate area), he buries it, and it feeds the flowers.

[marions ghost]

66. deer may be pests but what a sicko

we have deer around coming out of the woods from time to time...last week I watched an adult deer who's leg was hurt limp through the yard, foraging on one leg. A spotted fawn has also been hanging around. This week it came bounding into the yard, stopped and looked through the back door, then bounded away again. So cute. Last week a neighborhood dog tried to attack it and it scared that dog off. Spunky fawn. Maybe it will survive.

Humans are brutal to animals. How could anyone beat a fawn to death? :shrug:

[Wakingupnow]

156. Who are the pests?

Respectfully disagree. Isn't it us who are the pests? Gobbling up land, resources in unsustainable way, endangering not only the other life forms but creating a declining environment for ourselves and future generations. Talk about a legacy! Setting a part of the garden aside and sending a message to the animals that this is for them and the other veggies,etc. are for us. Sounds crazy, but when we respect the other animals, they respect us and we co-exist. Maybe that's what God--and Jesus-- and all the world's great religions and spiritual traditions have in mind.

[closeupready]

68. This story doesn't bother me. It's an animal destroying property, not a person.

And she didn't go out of her way to kill it. Further, there is a serious deer overpopulation problem in the Midwest, due to lack of predators (you know, like wolves and bears), so it isn't as though deer are endangered.

[Critters2]

79. A person who lacks empathy for a living creature to this degree,

is a danger to all living creatures, including humans. I live in the Midwest, and have never beaten a deer to death with a shovel. What am I doing wrong?

[closeupready]

103. Except that she is a 76 year old woman.

Hard to believe this makes her some kind of serial killer or something like that.

[Maru Kitteh]

121. She's a 76 year old asshole. I hope she goes to jail.

[AngryOldDem]

133. Sorry, that's a cop-out.

Maybe back in the day this was an acceptable way to handle nuisance animals. My dad, who was born in 1916, for instance, had no problem disposing of kittens the cat had one time. Put 'em in a bag and the bag came back empty. He grew up in a different time, as has this old woman. But that does not excuse what my dad or she did to defenseless creatures. I'd like to think we've evolved just a bit over the last six or seven decades.

There is such a thing as a moral and ethical compass.

[AngryOldDem]

98. I doubt the fawn was doing much of anything.

The mother, however, was most likely out foraging and she thought she had left the young one in a safe place. They tend not to leave their fawns for long, especially in daylight; as I said upthread she probably would have been back for it soon. Also, I have startled a fawn and it can jump up and try to get away on its own (it's a little unsteady, but it does have the sense to flee danger). So she could have just as easily scared it off, rather than going into her garage, picking up the shovel, and killing it.

For a long time I have been a proponent of responsible deer hunting in the fall to keep the herd adequately thinned out and healthy. (I know that's not a popular opinion to hold around here, but nevertheless.) But I also think man sharea a great deal of the blame here as well. I have lived in mostly urban areas of the Midwest all my life, and I am seeing more deer (and other wildlife that some see as pests) in more unusual places than ever before, because apparently every last acre of open land has to be developed. There's a price to be paid for that.

To me killing something -- be it running over a goose that won't get out of your way in the road or a deer that is doing only what it knows to do -- is just wrong and there are other ways to solve the problem. Until urban planning and natural-resource types address this issue, there will be two more deer or geese to take the place of the one that dies.

[Big Blue Marble]

130. You are very sad person.

I am glad I do not know you.

[Dappleganger]

70. She went too far but

I wonder if she has dementia, too.

[Paladin]

76. All Of You People Supporting This Woman's Actions Can Kiss My Ass.

n/t

[Fire1]

78. Mine too! n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

122. add my voice to that sentiment as well

[Marr]

77. There's something very funny here.

Woman cultivates garden to enjoy some natural beauty in an unnaturally ordered setting... bashes in skull of wild animal to keep it pristine.

There's something there... my humor sense is tingling.

[bertman]

80. If I showed that video to my wife, she'd buy one of those $39 airline tickets to Cleveland.

Then when she arrived in Cleveland, she'd buy a shovel, take a taxi to that woman's house, and beat her to death. Well, maybe not. But she'd want to.

Yesterday our lab ran up to the edge of her electrically-fenced territory and barked at three does who were in our back yard. Of course, the does ran off. My wife was furious at the dog for doing what dogs do. She was pissed at her for going after poor helpless forest creatures. Never mind that she did not chase them because she couldn't get past the hidden electric fence.

My wife has a misguided, anthropomorphic view of deer in the first place. Deer are not helpless. If they were they'd be extinct long ago. They have great survival mechanisms and utilize them well. So well, in fact, that they're EVERYWHERE in our town and in the countryside.

it's the Bambi syndrome. Thank you, Walt Disney, for turning an animal into a symbol of maudlin human focus.

Deer are like rabbits. They're the Chicken McNuggets of the food chain. Fortunately for deer they're big enough that hawks and owls and smaller predators like foxes can't eat them--even though they do eat the fawns. Nowadays, some of their primary natural enemies, wolves and people, are either not around, or have other more convenient food sources, like packaged beef at the supermarket, so the deer population explodes.

They're beautiful, graceful creatures, but they are part of the web of nature. Something that a lot of us don't understand very well.

The story about the old lady and the fawn is a sad one. Ignorance, frustration, and anger are a bad combination.

[Blue Diadem]

82. Crazy isn't it. Add the nut who shot his dogs because he was going on a cruise

and it makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with people.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/08/firefighter.kills.dogs/index.html

People who do that kind of stuff scare the hell out of me.

[Highway61]

84. That is one

sick woman. I hope she gets the book thrown at her. Evil, pure evil.

[fascisthunter]

94. sick... I could never do such a thing out of inconvenience

what a sociopath

[aikoaiko]

105. My only problem with this is that she didn't butcher and eat it.

Bambi burgers.........mmmmmmmmmm.

[closeupready]

106. Venison is actually quite tasty.

Can be gamey, but can also be just like steak, filet mignon.

[fascisthunter]

117. yeah... I have had plenty of it and plan on eating it again

so you don't need to tell me what it tastes like, but I wouldn't equate murdering an animal out of inconvenience with hunting to eat it. I hope you understand the difference.

[closeupready]

118. But you don't 'murder' animals. I mean obviously, you have people like that kid in Miami who

killed those cats or others who kill animals just because they enjoy it. I condemn that 100%.

But where I used to live, you'd have raccoons, coyotes, deer, skunks - and some of them can be rabid and nasty. I know deer can carry lyme disease and ticks, and can spread disease to humans.

Apparently, deer were eating up her garden - personally, I wouldn't have killed this fawn, but before condemning this woman, in light of what else I know from personal experience, I'd really have to now more about why she did it, and the circumstances surrounding it.

[fascisthunter]

123. seems pretty straight forward to me

[chaska]

108. Why the hell does everything have to a damned video? Can people not read?

[AngryOldDem]

129. I don't know.

CNN did not have a story, just a video link. Sorry.

[kestrel91316]

109. Disgusting ignorant old crackpot. She claims she though it was gonna

jump out and bite her head off.

She needs to be locked up for the safety of the community. Some kid's gonna be next.

[chatnoir]

110. She says she was "defending herself"???

From a FAWN?? Are you freaking KIDDING me? I don't buy that BS one bit, no regard for life at all is prob more the ticket.

I hope the she is prosecuted to the max.

This has made me so sad...I think this planet is doomed. Beyond disgusted at humanity at this point.

[HarvardMed]

111. poor fawn

http://images-2.redbubble.net/img/art/size:large/view:main/2240654-3-whitetail-newborn-fawn.jpg

[Vinca]

113. What kind of evil person could do something like that?

A couple of weeks ago there was a tiny fawn in the grass at the edge of the yard and since I couldn't see the doe anywhere around, I went out to check on it. It was one of the sweetest, most beautiful little creatures I've ever had the privilege to get close to. It scampered away when I leaned over to touch it and was seen with the momma deer a few days later (much to my relief). Whoever this woman is, I'd love to beat her with a shovel.

[timeforpeace]

116. Turn the TV off.

[Maru Kitteh]

119. Fucking asshole psycho BITCH.

must not hate people
must not hate people
must not hate people


IT'S NOT WORKING.........:nuke:

[Beavker]

131. Yep. We were made in Gods Image

To kill, abuse, control and make extinct all his other creations. Hell, some humans are even better than other humans, and it's our God given right to kill, abuse, control...you get the idea.

One persons small way at making the world just that much more of a violent, hateful, ugly place. You landscape does not take precedent. Sorry.

[mkultra]

132. utterly ridiculous

[TheMightyFavog]

134. If this woman did this in Wisconsin...

If the precident set by the snowmobile asshats holds up, she'd be ineliglbe for felony cruelty charges because she was "hunting." albiet, out of season.

[Fire1]

144. In Michigan she would have been fined and jailed. That's if I

didn't get to her first.

[Deja Q]

137. Well, it could be worse...

She could have been fawning over it, and when it comes to bestiality, it's usually men who are hoisted by their own petard...

[BreweryYardRat]

148. Lock her in a group home somewhere.

Crazy old bat.

Grown deer can be a serious problem when they're overpopulated -- they're like locusts in large numbers, and they can bound out in front of cars, getting themselves and drivers killed -- and they can carry lots of ticks. Hunting the adults is an acceptable method of population control.

Beating a harmless fawn to death with a shovel is cruel and unnecessary. Her attempts to justify this prove that she's insane. By doing this, this woman has proved that she is a potential danger to neighborhood pets and children. She needs to be removed from society.

[Life Long Dem]

157. It's obvious she doesn't look like she is all there

Don't know if she ever will be.