FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Lawyer Says Man Sorry for Beheading Duck





glenn83e
Quote:
ST. PAUL - The man accused of ripping the head off of a duck at a downtown hotel made "a big mistake" and is remorseful, his attorney said.

Scott Clark, 26, of Denver, was charged with felony animal cruelty after he allegedly ripped the head off of a duck that lived in an ornamental pond at the Embassy Suites Hotel. His lawyer, Michael Colich, said in Ramsey County District Court on Tuesday that Clark is "a fine young man who made a big mistake."

Clark wrote a letter of apology to the hotel and made restitution, Colich said. "He understands what he did was wrong," Colich said. "He's extraordinarily remorseful."

Police have said Clark was drunk at the time of the Sept. 22 incident. He spent four days in jail and lost his job with the federal government, Colich said.

Clark's next court date is Nov. 16.



Comcast.net Strange News

Don't people understand? According to Elmer Fudd And Daffy Duck, It is Rabbit Hunting Season, Not Duck Hunting Season
crdowner
I am not sure whether to laugh or not. It sounds like this guy just maliciously killed the duck which is awful. I could understand it if he had killed the duck for food. I also wonder if he was remorseful before charges were filed against him.
coolclay
Lol, thats pretty freakin funny! In a horrible sick twisted way. It's to bad there isn't any video of it. But yea he should be charged for it.
GSIS
I s'pose he'll be off to St Quentin if he's ever found in possession of orange sauce.
smarter
This is no laughing matter! Shocked

I am not shocked because an animal was killed (they should be used as food, put to work, used in medical experiments, etc). I am shocked that there are enough people who think this is funny.

There are many sick lowlifes who torture/kill animals just for fun. There are many more people who enjoy watching what those scums did.

Just last month in a my country 2 sickos played football on the stairs with a cat, recorded their cruel act and posted it on the internet as something to brag about.

Indeed animals have no rights, only man can have rights and duties (I am opposed to animal rights activists) but in cases of torturing animals (repeatedly) I am for a psychiatric evaluation, hefty fine and even jail time for these "humans".
Kelvin
it's quite sick how people can resort to taking a life just for fun?? What did the duck do to deserve having its head ripped out? How would he like it if a drunk came along with a sword and chopped his head off? Guess he won't feel anything since he'll be dead... ok maybe just slashed his legs off, then he'll have a lifetime to ponder over his sickness of mind. Geeezzz... stupid paramecium in a human shell.
ainieas
So this guy did it just for fun but shouldn't all meat eaters who kill their meal be charged in some way too? Its not like they wait for the ducks/chickens to die of old age. How is killing for fun cruelty & killing for food justified?
smarter
ainieas wrote:
So this guy did it just for fun but shouldn't all meat eaters who kill their meal be charged in some way too? Its not like they wait for the ducks/chickens to die of old age. How is killing for fun cruelty & killing for food justified?


Shocked if you you fail to see the difference between fun and necessity... you're completely lost!

only if you could ask your ancestors how did they survive long and cold winters... but I'd better not continue because the utter ignorance of the TV educated annoys me


PS: Even if none of your recent ancestors lived in a region with winters (highly unlikely) the point is man would not exist if not capable to eat/digest other animals.
ainieas
smarter wrote:
Shocked if you you fail to see the difference between fun and necessity... you're completely lost! only if you could ask your ancestors how did they survive long and cold winters...
Maybe you should understand that i don't see the difference between fun and necessity bcoz in this case i see both options as cruelty. Absolute truth- my ancestors were cannibals. But you see i prefer not to devour my fellow beings just bcoz my ancestors did that.
ainieas
[Moderators: Sorry about the double post but i have a word limit to my posts and i wasn't done]

Anyways taking it from my last post- just bcoz the human body CAN digest human meat doesn't mean we eat that too. Must have something to do with the years spent learning & civilizing.

Also after all these years if it is believed that meat is our no.1 way to keep warm in winters then somewhere our civilisation has gone horribly wrong.
smarter
ainieas wrote:
Maybe you should understand that i don't see the difference between fun and necessity bcoz in this case i see both options as cruelty.


That's my point exactly! To you all these cases are the same (cruelty):

1) a "primitive" tribe hunts a bear and they have food for 2 days (that means they have no nearby supermarket with veggie stuff!)
2) a amateur hunter kills bears and other animals as his hobby
3) a hunter kills a bear that is known as a threat to man
4) a cop shoots the bear that's attacking your mother (or if don't like the cop, picture a helpful neighbor with a knife in his hand!)
5) a drunk goes to the zoo and shoots (accidentally!) a bear in the feet because he likes how the bear dances on its hind feet

an extra case
6) an Indian earns his living (and feeds his numerous family) by forcing a bear to dance on hot coals

more food for thought
7) medical researchers test highly experimental drugs on bears because they can develop the same fatal disease as man (to be more realistic think of lab rats and pigs instead of bears). The only alternative is to test it directly on man!

Happily some of us see a difference!

ainieas wrote:

Absolute truth- my ancestors were cannibals. But you see i prefer not to devour my fellow beings just bcoz my ancestors did that.


Except mental cases and necessity (as Russians did in besieged St.Petersburg during WW2) I don't know of any cannibalism in the last couple thousand of years except some tropical tribes from Papua, Amazonia, etc. Therefore before accusing your ancestors of being cannibals, be sure that you didn't learn of cannibalism from TV.


Stop dreaming and learn the facts: WE USE (AND KILL) ANIMALS AS A NECESSITY: food, work, drug testing, diverse industrial products (many, ironically, for the comfort-demanding activists for animal rights). There's no cruelty there! And yes! we are CIVILIZED doing that.

PS: THIS world is wonderful! Very Happy
ainieas
smarter wrote:
That's my point exactly! To you all these cases are the same (cruelty):

1) a "primitive" tribe hunts a bear and they have food for 2 days (that means they have no nearby supermarket with veggie stuff!)

2) a amateur hunter kills bears and other animals as his hobby

3) a hunter kills a bear that is known as a threat to man

4) a cop shoots the bear that's attacking your mother (or if don't like the cop, picture a helpful neighbor with a knife in his hand!)

5) a drunk goes to the zoo and shoots (accidentally!) a bear in the feet because he likes how the bear dances on its hind feet

an extra case

6) an Indian earns his living (and feeds his numerous family) by forcing a bear to dance on hot coals

more food for thought

7) medical researchers test highly experimental drugs on bears because they can develop the same fatal disease as man (to be more realistic think of lab rats and pigs instead of bears). The only alternative is to test it directly on man!

Happily some of us see a difference!


For some reason you are assuming just cause i don't believe in consuming meat, i don't THINK at all. Maybe you should accept that we are conditioned by the things we believe in. You don't belive in animal rights - fine with me. I believe consuming meat is not acceptable to me - should be enough for you. We can carry on with this debate but we'd only keep on going round in circles. No use in that, is there? So let up just accept that each of us is different/unique and move on.

Quote:


Except mental cases and necessity (as Russians did in besieged St.Petersburg during WW2) I don't know of any cannibalism in the last couple thousand of years except some tropical tribes from Papua, Amazonia, etc. Therefore before accusing your ancestors of being cannibals, be sure that you didn't learn of cannibalism from TV.



Don't you think i'd know about my origin more than you do? In this case, you know, you are the one who's quoting defective TV knowledge because less than three generations away it was a different story with my ancestors compared to our civilized world. Papua, Amazonia? Way off the mark mate!

Quote:
Stop dreaming and learn the facts: WE USE (AND KILL) ANIMALS AS A NECESSITY: food, work, drug testing, diverse industrial products (many, ironically, for the comfort-demanding activists for animal rights). There's no cruelty there! And yes! we are CIVILIZED doing that.

Okay! What about killing animals for ornamental reasons? Necessity?



Quote:
PS: THIS world is wonderful! Very Happy

At least we agree on something!
RubySlasher
Poor duck. It must've been a tame, pet-like one that didn't stand a chance for him to be able to grab it and do that to it. :C
smarter
ainieas wrote:

For some reason you are assuming just cause i don't believe in consuming meat, i don't THINK at all. Maybe you should accept that we are conditioned by the things we believe in. You don't belive in animal rights - fine with me. I believe consuming meat is not acceptable to me - should be enough for you. We can carry on with this debate but we'd only keep on going round in circles. No use in that, is there? So let up just accept that each of us is different/unique and move on.


No, I don't assume that you don't think at all. After all you can use a computer. You may be different but not unique. ... and after all I am allowed to doubt you intellectual abilities.

Quote:
Quote:
Except mental cases and necessity (as Russians did in besieged St.Petersburg during WW2) I don't know of any cannibalism in the last couple thousand of years except some tropical tribes from Papua, Amazonia, etc. Therefore before accusing your ancestors of being cannibals, be sure that you didn't learn of cannibalism from TV.


Don't you think i'd know about my origin more than you do? In this case, you know, you are the one who's quoting defective TV knowledge because less than three generations away it was a different story with my ancestors compared to our civilized world. Papua, Amazonia? Way off the mark mate!


I NEVER denied that some of your ancestors may have been cannibals. I only draw your attention to speak about known facts because social-accepted cannibalism is limited to remote/isolated places. Read my comment again! ..and learn what "etc." means!

Quote:
Quote:
Stop dreaming and learn the facts: WE USE (AND KILL) ANIMALS AS A NECESSITY: food, work, drug testing, diverse industrial products (many, ironically, for the comfort-demanding activists for animal rights). There's no cruelty there! And yes! we are CIVILIZED doing that.

Okay! What about killing animals for ornamental reasons? Necessity?


Once again you don't understand plain sentences. There's no ONLY there! "WE USE (AND KILL) ANIMALS AS A NECESSITY!" This is the usual case. Of course there are exceptions: for money, according to religious beliefs, in anger, for fun, mercy killing, etc

Because you don't get it let me spell it out for you:
Killing animals
-for fun = always cruelty
-in anger = usually cruelty
-for money and according to religious beliefs = sometimes cruelty
-as a necessity and mercy killing = never cruelty
.... of course sometimes it can be multiple reasons (necessity+money and so on)

just FYI:
Quote:
cru·el /ˈkruəl/ –adjective, -er, -est.
1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2. enjoying the pain or distress of others.
3. causing or marked by great pain or distress.
4. rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.
—Synonyms 1. bloodthirsty, ferocious, merciless, relentless. Cruel, pitiless, ruthless, brutal, savage imply readiness to cause pain to others. Cruel implies willingness to cause pain, and indifference to suffering: a cruel stepfather. Pitiless adds the idea of refusal to show compassion: pitiless to captives. Ruthless implies cruelty and unscrupulousness, letting nothing stand in one's way: ruthless greed. Brutal implies cruelty that takes the form of physical violence: a brutal master. Savage suggests fierceness and brutality: savage battles.
—Antonyms 1. kind. 2. sympathetic, compassionate.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Related topics
islam is...
Family Guy
Eminem impersonator faces life in prison
sms jokes
sms jokes
The lies they tell you and you accept
USA Army...
Do you have Quicktime installed?
Teaching respect...
Some funny jokes here!!!
No Tie!
UEFA Champions League Prediction.
few jokes
Twin Sisters
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.