He was a golf pro so im assuming he was some club pro.... they dont have 500,000 to just throw around. Its not easy to hit a bird, hell its hard enough getting it on the green sometimes. Maybe if he had posted it on youtube or something i could see punishment. people are just upset that they cant get the ball off the tee and this guy is trick shotting balls into supergame.
So could this be considered 'assault with a deadly weapon?' If a pro boxer punches a guy it is considered assault with a deadly weapon. Just curious if the punishment will be harsher on this guy then it would on your avg summer weekend warrior.
It's a bird. A half million dollar fine is completely asinine. You shouldn't fine people according to their ability to pay.
It's a bird. Just because there aren't a bunch around doesn't make it any more special in my eyes. A chicken dies a much more gruesome death and this happens thousands (millions?) of times a day, and yet because it's a hawk people freak out.
stupid - deserves what he gets.
Avocados Number wrote:
If I were king, I'd jail the guy. But I'd do the same to "sportsmen" who kill creatures without exercising the same amount of skill that the golfer did.
As king, what would you do with the motorists who kill about as many deer as the hunters?
we're talking about a bird right? Ohhhhh- a bird died- big news. I eat birds and hippies for breakfast.
I think deer ought to be required to carry insurance.
The severity of crime involves intent and the nature of the act--his intent was to hit the bird knowing a direct hit would kill an animal of that size. The nature of his moronic act was cruel and reckless both should be considered when sentencing him. He was the being that is supposedly of a higher level of evolution but it would be hard to tell from his actions.
The motorist and deer comment is stupid; people driving down the road dont intend to kill deer--this moron and thousands of hunters go out of thier way to kill animals every year.
Bottomline is the guy is a moron and deserve whatever the authorities throw at him. His adopted cat story was lame.
The 15 people on the crew should have to kill up bird shit in a nearby park for 100hours of community service.
Rizzo wrote:
The severity of crime involves intent and the nature of the act--his intent was to hit the bird knowing a direct hit would kill an animal of that size. The nature of his moronic act was cruel and reckless both should be considered when sentencing him. He was the being that is supposedly of a higher level of evolution but it would be hard to tell from his actions.
The motorist and deer comment is stupid; people driving down the road dont intend to kill deer--this moron and thousands of hunters go out of thier way to kill animals every year.
Bottomline is the guy is a moron and deserve whatever the authorities throw at him. His adopted cat story was lame.
The 15 people on the crew should have to kill up bird shit in a nearby park for 100hours of community service.
So... what do you suggest we do with all those moronic people that work at Tyson? The gallows?
Wow, our moral compass has gone seriously askew. It's a bird. If we continue to humanize animals to this extent we will continue to de-humanize people.
Mtn Dork
Read the first paragraph--intent and nature.
The people at Tyson are supplying food--Tripper "Moron Washed up" Golfer dork's intent was to harm a defenseless animal. Humans should be held to a higher standard.
Not humanizing animals; just expecting a higher order of behavior from what is supposedly the most involved creature on the planet....
So if Tripper ate the bird it would be okay? Right?
people in glass houses wrote:
He was a golf pro so im assuming he was some club pro....
Nope, he used to be on the PGA tour, I think he still plays some events on the Nationwide tour.
any guy that calls himself ,Tripp must be punished.
No, whether he ate it or not doesn't change the nature of his actions. What are you not grasping? Moronic, senseless, useless act = deserves punishment.
"I didnt mean to runover someone over when I was driving drunk..... it was only a homeless guy with a terminal illness." Still a moronic, senseless, useless act of studpidity.
The bird moved closer after Tripp's initial attempts to scare it away failed. Appears like the bird was taunting him, and only got what it deserved.
Rizzo wrote:
No, whether he ate it or not doesn't change the nature of his actions. What are you not grasping? Moronic, senseless, useless act = deserves punishment.
"I didnt mean to runover someone over when I was driving drunk..... it was only a homeless guy with a terminal illness." Still a moronic, senseless, useless act of studpidity.
So if it's wrong to kill and eat a bird for a golfer, why is it wrong to kill and eat a bird for Tyson chicken?
The only meaningful difference is ownership, since Tyson owns the chickens they kill and the golfer did not. In that case its a destruction of property issue.
There are lots of moronic, senseless and useless acts in the world that go unpunished. Those words are pretty useless. I mean, he had a purpose - to get the bird out of his sight and out of earshot so it wouldn't bother him, that makes senes to me and isn't moronic and for him is quite useful.
So really, the only issue is that he killed a dumb bird that wasn't his. For that he ought to pay a small fine.
This is also to be contrasted to that scumbag marine who threw the puppy over the cliff.....
That is the only US soldier that I could care less what happens to over there.
It probably had a nest. Hawks are known for being aggressive or at least stubborn in giving up an area they might hold for 20 years or more.
It was idiotic any way you look at it. Pretty sure everyone knows you can't even pick up a raptor feather without going to jail.
The move was practically as blatant as a golfer smacking a crying baby.
Probably everyone has killed a protected bird with a slingshot or bb gun as a kid but an adult should know better.
Killing a bird = smacking a crying baby? What kind of ethics do you live by?!?