Was it stupid? Sure. I don't feel bad for the guy over the negative attention he is getting.
Should the guy have to pay a $500,000 fine? No. Disproportionate punishment is wrong no matter what the circumstances.
What if it was just some 65 year old duffer who had a few too many beers in him and nailed the bird on purpose? Even if it was just a lucky one in a million shot, would he be fined $500k too? Doubt it. In fact, you never would have heard about it.
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.
Rizzo, stop being such a douchebag hippy. You act as if its the end of the world that this guy killed a stupid bird with what is the equivalent of a hole in one. How are you going to compare killing an annoying animal with running over a human??? lay off the peace pipe man.
What kind of RETARDED animal sits around for HALF AN HOUR while something is trying to kill it????? If someone is shooting a gun at me, I'm not going to think, "Hey, he's a bad shot. Why don't I tease him more and get a little bit closer?"
I don't live by those ethics, I just have more self control. That guy probably shakes his kids when they cry.
SMJO wrote:
I don't live by those ethics, I just have more self control. That guy probably shakes his kids when they cry.
Why? Why do you think that? A bird isn't a baby. Most rational people (not saying you're irrational) understand the difference. A bird is a thing, not a person. You treat things differently than persons. I might break a pencil if I get frustrated with it, but that doesn't mean I am going to break my child. Now if he just reacts angrily to anything that upsets him then he might shake a kid, but you have absolutely no evidence to base that on.
Mtn Dew wrote:
A bird is a thing, not a person. You treat things differently than persons. I might break a pencil if I get frustrated with it, but that doesn't mean I am going to break my child.
Agreed that the bird is not a person, and this doesn't mean this guy has no regard for human life.
But a bird is an animal, not a thing. Most rational people(not saying you're irrational) know that an animal is different from a thing like a pencil.
So what if this were (very hypothetically of course) a bald eagle? What if it were a puppy? Is the only animal worthy of protection in your eyes humans?
I do hold humans on a higher level than other animals, but I certainly don't agree with your implicit comparison of the hawk to a pencil...and I think if you think about it, you wouldn't either.
If it were a bald eagle it wouldn't matter to me. A bird is a bird. A puppy? Well, a puppy is not a bird, but again is a thing (or animal if you prefer - either way it's certainly not a person). I, along with most Americans, have an emotional attachment to puppies that apparently supercedes logic. So, yes, emotionally I would have a response, but logically I would be unable to justify it.
It reminds me of a little kid shooting a lizard or a small bird with a Beebee Gun and killing it. Then walking up to the bird and seeing this lifeless animal and understanding there is no taking it back and that it felt bad and wrong.
It's this case it's a grown man. He should be just as punished as a fisherman cutting a pelicans beak or stabbing a sea lion stealing his fish.
Give me a break when he says "I have to cats and am an animal lover".
The other tool bags carrying his clubs should be punished as well. They are just like the town folks in "High Plains Drifter" that sat around and watched a man die without doing anything about it. Yes it was a bird but these aren't 10 year olds were talking about! Throw the book at em!
Maybe he mistook the hawk for a tiger.They 've been unlatching their cages lately.
Isenhour allegedly said, “I’ll get him now,” and aimed for the hawk.
“About the sixth ball came very near the bird’s head, and (Isenhour) was very excited that it was so close,” Baine wrote.
A few shots later, witnesses said he hit the hawk. The bird, protected as a migratory species, fell to the ground bleeding from both nostrils.
Dude was trying very hard to hit this animal. Dude deserves whatever punishment he gets.
So if they decide to execute him he deserves it?
The same thing happened to me but the judge ruled it was the hawk's fault for being in my underwear in the first place.
Mtn Dew wrote:
A bird isn't a baby. Most rational people (not saying you're irrational) understand the difference. A bird is a thing, not a person. You treat things differently than persons.
You mean because the Bible tells you so?
I understand that many people, perhaps most, make the distinction that you are making. I also understand that many people, at least in the U.S., anthropomorphize puppies more than, for example, birds, cows, pigs, or perhaps even nonhuman primates, but don't dress up your biases (however deeply engrained in either your medulla oblongata or your childhood development) as "rational" distinctions regarding sentient beings.
I'd say that you are right on with your belief that old judeo-christian-muslim writings contribute to the inconsistent thinking going on in some people's heads. Throwing away a blob of cells in a petri dish is murder. Butchering up a cow that is walking around is not. I don't get it.
did someone get to eat the Hawk?
Red Shouldered hawks are not endangered, pinhead. They are fairly common and very numerous. As a migratory bird and a bird of prey they are protected. Hell, even songbirds like cardinals and robins are protected.
However, it sounds like it was intentional and the guy won't own it - he's an ass and deserves a fine and maybe some community service -such as 40 hours working at a bird rescue center.
It's dumb that he was trying to hit it, similar to how a kid might be mean when he tries to hit a squirill with a BB gun. Comparing to a homicide, fine im 500k ? Those are ridiculous and over the top. I'm sure hes already got what he deserves with all this bad publicity. At most he should recieve a small fine just to show that the law recognizes that what he did was wrong.
Also, hunting is not necessarily wrong (if you are eating the animal then its great..trophy hunting is a waste of resources), but population control often leads to worse problems than it started with. ie. Wolves are found to be too numerous, humans kill wolf population, carribou flourish out of control and then die after they have run out of resources.
How does wanting the guy to be responsible for being a fxxking moron make me a hippy? If anything I am taking an ultra consertive everyone is responsible for their actions approach. But you are not able to look through the fog caused by the fact the guy is white and playing a rich white guys sport; so you assume I am a hippy tree huggin PETA supporting liberal. When if fact I just want a douchebag that has by most peoples standards everything going for him to be held accountable for being well a gaint douchebag...
If you were close by I would take my so-called peace pipe and turn you into a dickheaded flavored lollypop.
Mtn Dork once again you display your true level of stupidity....
I cant begin to try and understand how difficult it must be for you to get through each day without being able to grasp the simplest concept such as someone being held responsible for their moronic actions....
jester wrote:
good post?! i'm just amazed that it took you morons 7 tries to come up with the most obvious, forehead-smacking joke known to man since i saw some chickens crossing a road.
I think you mean two eggs crosing the road.
Jesters, that look like clowns, scare me.