Golf pro kills hawk with ball, faces animal cruelty charges...

Mtn Dew wrote:

So if they decide to execute him he deserves it?

No, No, Find someone even more cold blooded than the A hole golfer , and take your vengance out on his wife or his children.

He should he held down while a hungover John Daly clambers bare-assed atop him, plants that huge zitty buttcruck right on his face, and lets loose with the kind of gassy, searing assburst that only a drunken pig can produce. If he lives through about five doses, he should be publicly sodomized by an ostrich wearing a John Holmes strap-on on one of its formidable talons, and all in attendance should make loud CAW! CAW! CAW! noises while flipping (what else?) the bird.

wow. nice.

He was only hitting golf balls at the bird because it was inconvenient for the bird to be in the way, much like abortion kills innocent humans because they too are inconvenient.

His brother billy-bob-ray-jethro-festus has his own history with fowl deeds.

http://www.animalfreedomfighters.org/BirdInMouthJPG25-60.jpg

rabbittruns wrote:

i agree... i mean if he shot it with a gun i could see pressing charges since it IS engangered, but hitting it with a golf ball??? freakin awsome shot! that is about as sporting as it gets... people like to talk about evolution and crap, but if a bird doesn't have the common sense to fly away after having numerous balls land in its vicinity, then good riddance i say!..

So, if I throw a baseball at your head and kill you while you're sitting on a bench, that's cool because it's "sporting"?

When did people start thinking they each get to decide the punishment for every controversial act performed by a human? There are LAWS governing what we can and can't do. And while some might object to it, hawks are protected animals, which means it is ILLEGAL to kill them. Since he admitted to purposely hitting balls at the hawk, he is guilty and will be punished according to the LAW, not according to what you think, or I think or what anyone else thinks. After all, if he aimed his car at a pedestrian and hit and killed him, his defense that he was only trying to scare him away wouldn't hold.

Moron deserves what he gets. This is like shooting a gun at it from "impossibly" far away and then claiming it was an accident and you didn't expect to hit it when you do. Stupid.

I second the dumbass city boy sentiment. Deer cost my family over $15,000 last year and there are 20X more of them now than before the area was originally settled.

Rizzo wrote:

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....

First you have to demonstrate that it's moronic. You haven't. At best he destroyed someone else's property. People kill chickens every day in much more gruesome ways and don't get punished at all as long as they own the chickens.

Avocados Number wrote:

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.

Have you ever heard of the theory of natural rights of man? It's not Bible based. Are you saying Murray Rothbard and all other libertarians are fundamentalist Christians?

How would you punish a lion that mauled an adult? How would you punish a human that assaulted an adult? Most people (some rational, some not) would treat the two different because a human is able to use logic to think through options while a lion is purely driven by instinct. See the difference?

It is possible to use logic to come to the conclusion that humans are different than other animals without using the Bible. So please don't try to bring that up because you make yourself look silly since I haven't made any reference to it. You want to inject it into the discussion because you can't make your point without setting up a straw man argument.

except that killing a hawk and a human are two totally different things.... dumbass.

Rizzo, stop calling people dorks, it makes you look like a fool.

I think I know the point you're trying to make but in your scenario...I think the Tiger would be put down after mauling a human while the human who murdered the adult would be imprisoned (more common for an animal to get the death penalty after killing a human than for humans killing each other).

Mtn Dew wrote:

At best he destroyed someone else's property. People kill chickens every day in much more gruesome ways and don't get punished at all as long as they own the chickens.

No, at best he killed a protected migratory bird. Why do you keep bringing up property rights?

Not the point wrote:

No, at best he killed a protected migratory bird. Why do you keep bringing up property rights?

The fact that it's migratory has no bearing in my eyes. A bird is a bird. The fact it migrates doesn't change anything in my eyes, it doesn't make it any more valuable. The fact that it's protected doesn't either. To me those things aren't legitimate things that make a difference. I wouldn't say a person is any more valuable just because it moves around a lot and I wouldn't say a person was any more valuable just because he is part of a rare ethnicity.

That's what I thought you'd say. You're still missing the point.

HE BROKE THE LAW. THAT'S WHY HE'S BEING PUNISHED.

I remember one thread about the students at Colorado who got busted for smoking at the big outdoor weed party...

You said: "I personally think marijuana ought to be legalized, taxed and anyone caught doing it in public or driving with ought to face very, very stiff punishment. I still would call people that did it losers. However, these morons that were caught on tape are so absolutely stupid that they deserve whatever they get."

You also said: "If I went to CU I'd point out as many of those pricks as possible. Buncha losers. Bully for CU."

So in the marijuana case, the law-breakers are "losers," "morons," pricks," and "absolutely stupid." Pretty venomous words. So why are you defending Tripp? He broke a law, blatantly, with intent, and with cameras present. Seems to me you're not applying your standards very equally.

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.

Avocados Number wrote:

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.

Avocado - great point. That is the same justification I use for eating people and making my shoes out of their skin. Afterall, we're all just animals...

No, they are pretty similar since both are ILLEGAL. And that was my point, you hollow-headed nitwit. YOU do not get to decide what is appropriate in this case. The LAW does. Just like if you killed a human, you'd be subjected to the laws governing such an act, this guy is now being subjected to the laws governing what he did.