Raccoon attack

[luvzgirlz]

This man had rodents (ya... i know ardvark, Procyonidae, but i like rodent better)

It's incorrect, whether you like it better or not.

...in his back yard that were destroying his property.

Absolute speculation at this point, you have no basis for this whatsoever. He claimed that was the reason, according to the article, but it's a huge assumption to assume he needed this motive to do what he did.

You may not consider his garden his property or something worth protecting, but I can assure you that there are people who have been raised on farms that wouldn't think twice about killing pests that attempt to destroy their crops. This man loved his garden, and you have no right and no basis upon which to minimize that. Quite frankly, I could see how a person would love his garden more than a raccoon.

This has fuck all to do with "this particular case", which YOU agreed we were sticking to. Just because there are people who take their gardens seriously doesn't mean they can break existing laws to protect those gardens (and whether he was protecting it is, as I've already pointed out, purely speculative at this juncture). Let's say a corporation buys a church I'm fond of. My motivation is "I loved my church, and you have no right and no basis upon which to minimize that", so when the condo replaces it, I spray it with graffiti. Have I no longer broken the law? Because I felt justified, and there are people who might agree?

The city, with it's left leaning, bleeding heart bullshit attitude towards these issues has proven that they will do nothing about it and will not help this man with this problem. Even if he were to hire pest control services, he'd pay big bucks and all they would do is trap it and release it within one kilometer so that the damn thing would find its way back.

You mean one call to Rob Ford's office wouldn't fix everything instantly? GOD DAMMIT. DON CHERRY IS A LIAR! Oh, and again, all assumptions. You don't really know they would release it. If, for example, it could be confirmed to be rabid, they'd have it destroyed.

The only way to deal with this is to kill the animal himself. Now he may not own a gun or a trap that would allow him to kill the rodent in humane way... so he grabs a shovel (Probably for self defence purposes as well) and does what he needs to do.

The following statements are things you could not possibly know to be true: 1/the only way to deal with this is to kill the animal himself. It was a raccoon, not an axe murderer. 2/He may not own a gun/trap...he may. We can't know he was unaware these methods existed. We do know he's allaged to have had a history of this kind of abuse. Maybe he could put the same energy into trapping that he does into designing weapons? We don't know that at this point. Again, it's not a rodent, and continuing to call it that is scientifically inaccurate and childish. 3/Probably for self-defense purposes as well. Again, total speculation. You say "probably" to make the man seem justified, as if to suggest he may not have been so violent if he wasn't threatened. There's more evidence at this point to the contrary, quite frankly.

So now, should this man's life be ruined over this? I can't believe that you would agree that people who lay mouse traps and kill mice (in a fairly inhumane way, by the way) should have their lives destroyed because of criminal charges. What's the difference here? Is it the size of the animal? It's cute eyes? The fact that they were baby coons? Are these really relevant?

His life is RUINED? He hasn't even been convicted. I must have missed all those people who did 17 years for animal cruelty only to be released on new DNA evidence. He won't even do time, and probably won't even lose his job. His credit won't be affected. What are you basing your belief that his life is ruined?

As for the mouse example, a mousetrap (hopefully) breaks its neck and kills it fairly quickly. If I could prove a guy stabbed a mouse with a tiny sword repeatedly, I'd be fine with him getting charged, yes. Shovel does not equate to moustrap.

 

[Sisyphus]

In Toronto it is illegal to kill Racoons regardless of them being on your property.

By the sounds of it he's also being charged with cruelty to animals. I believe he's being charged with this because it was found that the way he decided to illegally kill these animals was inhumane and cruel.

While it's not newsworthy, it really sounds clearcut that this guy broke the law.

I wonder if this is so. The Municipal Act grants no such authority to the city. Raccoons are game animals and there is a hunting season for Raccoons. It will be hard to prove even cruelty when most of the province it is legal to kill Raccoons. Granted it is out of season but there are provisions to deal with nuisance animals by landowners out of season. I will refer this to the Ontario Federation of anglers and hunters. they might coem to this guys defense. He wasn't using a firearm so it is hard to see the municiple jurisdiction.

 

[N1ghth4wk]

You've got this guy convicted and sentenced to the extreme. I suspect he'll get quite a light sentence, possibly a fine and a conditional and it won't hinder his travel plans or his employment future much.

I hope you are right, blackrock, but the fact is that he has been charged with criminal offences. That means a criminal record if he is prosecuted. That is serious.

 

[Aardvark154]

The only way to deal with this is to kill the animal himself. Now he may not own a gun or a trap that would allow him to kill the [racoon kits] in humane way... so he grabs a shovel (Probably for self defence purposes as well) and does what he needs to do.

As stated before to defend himself against baby racoons?!

The Star truly mangled this story if the details are so different that this was a life or death situation where he couldn't borrow a firearm or get a trapper but "had" to beat two racoon kits with a shovel!

Is the man going to recieve the maximum sentence, I truly doubt it. Should he face charges - yes.

 

[N1ghth4wk]

It`s incorrect, whether you like it better or not.

It may be technically inaccurate, but it captures the essence of the animal.

Absolute speculation at this point, you have no basis for this whatsoever. He claimed that was the reason, according to the article, but it`s a huge assumption to assume he needed this motive to do what he did.

The pests were eating his garden. His garden is his property. Ergo.... they were destroying his property. That`s what`s in the article. Now if you choose to assume that these poor little rodents were just passing through on their way home and this mean old man decided he`d go kill himself some rodents... well go ahead and believe it. But, who then is it that is digressing from the facts as we know them. I believe it is you that is speculating.

This has fuck all to do with "this particular case", which YOU agreed we were sticking to. Just because there are people who take their gardens seriously doesn`t mean they can break existing laws to protect those gardens (and whether he was protecting it is, as I`ve already pointed out, purely speculative at this juncture). Let`s say a corporation buys a church I`m fond of. My motivation is "I loved my church, and you have no right and no basis upon which to minimize that", so when the condo replaces it, I spray it with graffiti. Have I no longer broken the law? Because I felt justified, and there are people who might agree?

This is the most obtuse argument I`ve ever heard? First, how can you say that this man`s love of his garden and his obvious willingness to protect it are not germane to this "particular case". As far as your analogy is concerned.... wtf?? It is ridiculous and cannot even be responded to. It`s like me arguing that this man should be set free because if I buy beans in China a butterfly dies in Mexico. wtf??

You mean one call to Rob Ford`s office wouldn`t fix everything instantly? GOD DAMMIT. DON CHERRY IS A LIAR! Oh, and again, all assumptions. You don`t really know they would release it. If, for example, it could be confirmed to be rabid, they`d have it destroyed.

Yes I do know that they would release it within one km. That is the stupid law in this city. Believe it or not. Look it up if you have to.

The following statements are things you could not possibly know to be true: 1/the only way to deal with this is to kill the animal himself. It was a raccoon, not an axe murderer. 2/He may not own a gun/trap...he may. We can`t know he was unaware these methods existed. We do know he`s allaged to have had a history of this kind of abuse. Maybe he could put the same energy into trapping that he does into designing weapons? We don`t know that at this point. Again, it`s not a rodent, and continuing to call it that is scientifically inaccurate and childish. 3/Probably for self-defense purposes as well. Again, total speculation. You say "probably" to make the man seem justified, as if to suggest he may not have been so violent if he wasn`t threatened. There`s more evidence at this point to the contrary, quite frankly.

1- Well I guess his other option would have been to turn around and go inside and let these critters have at his garden. But, that assumes that he does not care for his property.
2 - I`m not speculating here at all... all i`m saying is that "he may not have"... I`m not saying "he does not have". that would be speculation. All I`m doing is trying to present you with possible reasons as to why he might use a shovel. The other reason of course is that if he does have a gun and decides to use it, there`s a whole other set of laws he`d be breaking. And as far as speculation is concerned... how can you say you "know he`s alleged to have had a history of this kind of abuse". Sounds like speculation to me. Stick to "this particular case".
3 - I do say "probably" because we cannot know for sure. But I will say that if I was to approach a raccoon with it`s young litter in tow, I`d arm myself with something.

His life is RUINED? He hasn`t even been convicted. I must have missed all those people who did 17 years for animal cruelty only to be released on new DNA evidence. He won`t even do time, and probably won`t even lose his job. His credit won`t be affected. What are you basing your belief that his life is ruined?

As I said to Blackrock, the fact is that he has been charged with criminal offences. That means a criminal record if he is prosecuted. That is serious.

As for the mouse example, a mousetrap (hopefully) breaks its neck and kills it fairly quickly. If I could prove a guy stabbed a mouse with a tiny sword repeatedly, I`d be fine with him getting charged, yes. Shovel does not equate to moustrap.

How ridiculous can you be? really? So are you saying that Jennifer should be facing criminal charges because the mouse trap she used to catch a mouse was inhumane. Really? Do you really believe your own drivel?

How would you advise lamgos on this thread? https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?338817-Getting-Rid-of-Ants-in-the-Yard Leave those ants alone or I`m going to call 911 and have you arrested? If you say your advice to him would be anything different, then you are a hypocrite!!

 

[stinkynuts]

I think that we must respect all life, and to minimize the pain and suffering whenever possible.

To debase raccoons by categorizing them as disease-ridden, worthless rodents is a way to rationalize the use of inhumane treatment against them. The fact of the matter is that we humans have no right to judge the worthiness of any other creature. We ourselves are descendants of the "lowest" kind of life. We have merely evolved with much stronger mental capabilities. This is all that separates us from the other animals. Take this away from us and we are just as "worthless" as them.

Imagine a world in which a super smart species regarded us as inferior and could dispose of by spearing us to death. Imagine your child being speared to death while you try to protect it. All you are trying to do is survive in a world in which that species has taken up all the land and claimed it for themselves, leaving nowhere for you to live. You and your family are forced to go through the garbage bins of this species and to "trespass" on their land, since virtually every square inch has been selfishly proclaimed as theirs. Where is the fairness in this?

If you think about all the terrible things that humans have done throughout the course of history, what raccoons have done is nothing in comparison.

The humane way that any person with a drop of compassion would get rid of these animals is to simply trap them and release them far away, or to put a fence around the garden. There are many other solutions.

After reading the comments of those who have no moral qualms about the man's actions, and who resent the arrest of the man, I can only shake my head, and hope that some day they realize the worthiness and value of all living things...

 

[userz]

If you don't see bludgeoning a raccoon with a shovel as an issue you're probably the type who doesn't see a problem with putting out bear traps for stray dogs or leaving some antifreeze out for those pesky cats that shit in gardens.

 

[N1ghth4wk]

I think that we must respect all life, and to minimize the pain and suffering whenever possible.

To debase raccoons by categorizing them as disease-ridden, worthless rodents is a way to rationalize the use of inhumane treatment against them. The fact of the matter is that we humans have no right to judge the worthiness of any other creature. We ourselves are descendants of the "lowest" kind of life. We have merely evolved with much stronger mental capabilities. This is all that separates us from the other animals. Take this away from us and we are just as "worthless" as them.

Imagine a world in which a super smart species regarded us as inferior and could dispose of by spearing us to death. Imagine your child being speared to death while you try to protect it. All you are trying to do is survive in a world in which that species has taken up all the land and claimed it for themselves, leaving nowhere for you to live. You and your family are forced to go through the garbage bins of this species and to "trespass" on their land, since virtually every square inch has been selfishly proclaimed as theirs. Where is the fairness in this?

If you think about all the terrible things that humans have done throughout the course of history, what raccoons have done is nothing comparison.

The humane way that any person with a drop of compassion would get rid of these animals is to simply trap them and release them far away, or to put a fence around the garden. There are many other solutions.

After reading the comments of those who have no moral qualms about the man`s actions, and who resent the arrest of the man, I can only shake my head, and hope that some day they realize the day will come when they realize that they themselves are worth no more than the raccoons they despise so much...

So should lagmos kill his ants? https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?338817-Getting-Rid-of-Ants-in-the-Yard

Someone please tell me!!!! where is this line that delineates animals that can be killed (in any manner) and those that can`t! You are all hypocrites!!!

 

[N1ghth4wk]

If you don't see bludgeoning a raccoon with a shovel as an issue you're probably the type who doesn't see a problem with putting out bear traps for stray dogs or leaving some antifreeze out for those pesky cats that shit in gardens.

That's just plain stupid.... read the thread and try to get a handle on what people are saying.

 

[stinkynuts]

So should lagmos kill his ants? https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?338817-Getting-Rid-of-Ants-in-the-Yard

Someone please tell me!!!! where is this line that delineates animals that can be killed (in any manner) and those that can`t! You are all hypocrites!!!

This is not an easy question to answer. All I know for certain is that spearing a live raccoon and its babies to death is inhumane and goes against everything I believe in.

Boiling some hot water to kill bacteria so I have sterile cleaning water does not bother me in the least.

The two are completely different scenarios, and anyone with common sense can see so. There is a grey zone in between. Everything is not black and white, nighthawk.

 

[Aardvark154]

Someone please tell me!!!! where is this line that delineates animals that can be killed (in any manner) and those that can't! You are all hypocrites!!!

So I'm a hypocrite. I support hunting with hounds, I have no problems with eating meat, I don't have a problem with shooting racoons.

However, if you can't see that short of mama racoon having gotten "pissed off" because you cut down the tree with her den and instead of running away heads straight for you, I fail to see the excuse, for beating a racoon with a shovel. Further from the article it does not appear that he "brained" the racoon kits killing them straight off, seeming he was repeatedly beating them and the last time he stabbed them with a pitch fork or spading fork!

 

[userz]

That's just plain stupid.... read the thread and try to get a handle on what people are saying.

I read it and didn't see much apart from people who are quite comfortable with wanton cruelty to animals.This isn't a case of Old MacDonald getting his gun to shoot a coon because it got into the henhouse and was about to have a chicken dinner or lunge at the farmhand. This is about someone torturing an animal with blunt force because it was traipsing on his prized petunias.

 

[james t kirk]

Mr. Kirk... before you use a term like "mutually exclusive", you should try to understand what it means. You are correct in stating that there are two issues here... first the hypocrisy of bleeding heart self-professed animal lovers who say there is "no justification" for killing an animal, yet eat meat. that is the first issue. The second and totally unrelated issue (therefore, by definition, not mutually exclusive) is animal rights. Do you get it?

I was trying to point out to Jennifer that she was being hypocritical in her "no justification" statement. So now if we can agree that there might be justification, then where is that justification line? It is very subjective.

I will even go one step further and agree that the way this animal was killed was unfortunate, but what were the options? There were none.

I understand exactly what is meant by mutually exclusive.

Your misguided belief that "we eat beef, ergo it is ok to bash a baby raccoon over the head with a shovel is OK" is warped beyond reason. By your same twisted sick logic, there is no such thing as cruelty towards animals.

There is NOTHING hypocritical in what Jennifer is saying, there is only your twisted logic comparing the eating of animals to the torture of animals. "We eat animals, therefore, it's ok to be cruel to animals."

Sorry, that's a child's logic.

By the way, I may be a bleeding heart city boy animal lover - that's fine by me. Better that than a fucked up twisted phsychopath with not an ounce of sympathy towards anyone or anything other than himself.

 

[N1ghth4wk]

This is not an easy question to answer. All I know for certain is that spearing a live raccoon and its babies to death is inhumane and goes against everything I believe in.

Boiling some hot water to kill bacteria so I have sterile cleaning water does not bother me in the least.

The two are completely different scenarios, and anyone with common sense can see so. There is a grey zone in between. Everything is not black and white, nighthawk.

You are correct stinkynuts... everything is not black and white, except for those bleeding hearts at city hall who draw the line at raccoons for some reason. It just seems so arbitrary to me. Why raccoons? Why not mice? or snakes?

Don't get me wrong.... I'm not suggesting that it be open season on raccoons or squirrels or rabbits. All I'm saying is that it is unfair to place criminal charges against this man for killing these raccoons. To me, that is just common sense. And, i suspect that when this does get to court, it will be seen for the travesty that it is and it will be thrown out.

 

[N1ghth4wk]

I understand exactly what is meant by mutually exclusive.

Your misguided belief that "we eat beef, ergo it is ok to bash a baby raccoon over the head with a shovel is OK" is warped beyond reason. By your same twisted sick logic, there is no such thing as cruelty towards animals.

There is NOTHING hypocritical in what Jennifer is saying, there is only your twisted logic comparing the eating of animals to the torture of animals. "We eat animals, therefore, it's ok to be cruel to animals."

Sorry, that's a child's logic.

By the way, I may be a bleeding heart city boy animal lover - that's fine by me. Better that than a fucked up twisted phsychopath with not an ounce of sympathy towards anyone or anything other than himself.

Not only do you not know the meaning of the words you use, but you can't read either. Find me one statement in this thread that is attributable to me and states that "we eat beef, ergo it is ok to bash a baby raccoon over the head with a shovel is OK". You put quotes on that statement and suggest that those are my words. Not only are you illiterate, but you are a liar too!!

I've said it before many times and I'll say it again for you Mr. Kirk because you strike me as one of those special needs terbites..... "It is unfortunate that the animal had to be killed this way, but the man does not deserve to be charged as a criminal over it." Just like Jennifer does not deserve to be criminally charged for catching a mouse in an inhumane way. Do you understand? Now if you believe that there is something different between this man's and Jennifer's cases, please explain to me what it is. Is it that the life of a mouse is worth less than the life of a raccoon?

 

[GG2]

It's a pest that needs to be dealt with. Beating one with a shovel probably isn't an ideal method but, so what, it happened that way. It's what he had available.

Embrace what the country boys in the thread have said because they know better than you do: city folks are timid and don't know what they speak.

We build cities that push animals out of their habitat to die but killing those that plague the city is worthy of a criminal record? That is twisted psychopathology. The law in Toronto concerning killing raccoons is wrong and needs to change so that it's legal.

 

[GG2]

I will never forget when that mouse got stuck. I will never forget sitting in my bedroom listening to the mouse scream while it was struggling, crying my eyes out because I felt so horrible for inflicting pain on that creature. My father literally had to drive across the city to help me dispose of him. I've never felt so guilty in my life. Now to think of someone being capable of inflicting pain on a family of raccoons and hearing those screams is beyond my comprehension.

Wow, you're strange. Go see a shrink.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

And make monkeys our equals.

In your case, that's an insult to monkeys.

Troll.

 

[GPIDEAL]

That situation is BS

He killed an animal.

he shouldnt go to jail.

its an animal

its fucking food before its prepared.

Because he broke the law.

We're the highest order of animal on this planet, who live under the rule of law. We're beyond being barbaric with lower species (or should be).

 

[GPIDEAL]

It's certainly the law. I'm not convinced, though. Animals don't have any rights. On the other hand, I understand the argument that someone who is cruel to animals may eventually be cruel to people. Still, I'm unconvinced.

Yes, technically they don't have rights, except those bestowed upon them by humans to protect them.