Manchester Woman Kills Cat With Crossbow

[Rooster]

Lovely story of a drunk woman who killed a cat because she was an idiot getting what she deserves. Stupid cow.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... s_sentence

[Comrade K]

Durr this'll be awesssssome guys.

I hate it when people think they can just kill sentient animals for shits and giggles.
Is it threatening you or other people or other animals? No?
Is it still destroying property after attempts to fend it off? No?
Are you intending to eat it? No?

Then don't pantsless kill it.

[Gecko]

I nearly began crying. ;_;

It's redundant to even say it, but people are so pantsless stupid.

[Bocaj Claw]

Dodongo dislike animal violence.

[Foxchild]

I'm not really against the idea of hunting, but if you're gonna take the life of a wild creature, at least make use of the kill out of respect for the sanctity of life. Don't just kill it and leave it, or kill it for trophy.

Killing a domesticated animal for the hell of it? Even worse.

[Cactus Jack]

If the cat was in her yard then she should get no worse a punishment then if she killed a wild animal like a squirrel or raccoon. Its a pet owner's responcibility to protect their pets and if they are the kind of irresponcible cat owner who lets it wander around without supervision on other people's property then they should be the ones getting punished.

[Æron]

If the cat was in her yard then she should get no worse a punishment then if she killed a wild animal like a squirrel or raccoon. Its a pet owner's responcibility to protect their pets and if they are the kind of irresponcible cat owner who lets it wander around without supervision on other people's property then they should be the ones getting punished.

I disagree vehemently. That's a terrible idea.

[MuffinSticks]

I'm gonna go duck hunting. Maybe kill a few beloved domesticated house pets, like dogs and cats on the way.

[Gecko]

If the cat was in her yard then she should get no worse a punishment then if she killed a wild animal like a squirrel or raccoon. Its a pet owner's responcibility to protect their pets and if they are the kind of irresponcible cat owner who lets it wander around without supervision on other people's property then they should be the ones getting punished.

Alright.

So the next time your grandma visits, and you have to leave the door open for her to shuffle in with her walker, your cat (if you don't have one, you do now) just might run out the front door.

When he runs onto my yard, I'll shoot him with my crossbow while drunk because he's clearly trespassing on my yard.

Then, while your cat desperately crawls back toward your home, its innards in a bit of a mess, dying in a confused haze of fear and pain, I'll make sure to walk up to you and inform you that I'm suing you for letting him wander onto my property.


Please never suggest anything involving the law again. Pleeeeaaaase.

[Cactus Jack]

I've been in situations where I've been on the recieving end of crap because of people too lazy to properly take care of their pets. If you're animal isn't trained well enough to not run out the door when you use it then stick it in a spare room while Grandma apparently takes half an hour to come in the house.

I do not agree with that lady who shot the cat, but I wouldn't shoot any animal with my crossbow. However she shouldn't be punished any differantly because it happens to be a pet. As far as she knew it could have been ferel. She should be punished for shooting an animal and the fact that it is a pet should make no differance, and the pet owners should be taught a lesson about how you can't just let your pet do whatever it wants without regard to danger or neighbor's wishes.

[Gecko]

I've been in situations where I've been on the recieving end of crap because of people too lazy to properly take care of their pets. If you're animal isn't trained well enough to not run out the door when you use it then stick it in a spare room while Grandma apparently takes half an hour to come in the house.

I do not agree with that lady who shot the cat, but I wouldn't shoot any animal with my crossbow. However she shouldn't be punished any differantly because it happens to be a pet. As far as she knew it could have been ferel. She should be punished for shooting an animal and the fact that it is a pet should make no differance, and the pet owners should be taught a lesson about how you can't just let your pet do whatever it wants without regard to danger or neighbor's wishes.

First of all, I'm immediately going to note that you've "been on the recieving end of crap because of people too lazy to properly take care of their pets." I'm assuming that your ridiculously harsh stance is due to your extended family being violated by a gang of housecats, or somesuch similarly traumatizing event. I don't see any other reason for seriously lending support to the idea of a hilariously terrible law like this.

An owner's pet needs to die for them to be taught a lesson? How about, you know, it being taken to a shelter until the owners are identified and them then being charged with a fine? Rather than allowing people to kill pets wandering onto their property.

I simply find it hilarious that you believe it's alright to kill a pet animal on your property, regardless of whether or not it is actually causing any sort of harm to your precious fence or garden or whatever.

Please, give me an example of where it's justifiable to kill a pet because it's harming your property in some way. I would love to hear your logic.

[Cactus Jack]

I don't believe you should be allowed to kill an animal on your property without a reason, I just don't see why it matters if it is a pet or not.

Please tell me why pet owners can let their pets run wild and do whatever on other people's property? How is that fair?

[Comrade K]

Please, give me an example of where it's justifiable to kill a pet because it's harming your property in some way. I would love to hear your logic.

Ok, if an animal is causing real damage to my property, I'm going to shoot it. I consider my immediate property my territory, and I'll defend it if need be. I don't even remotely agree with what this woman did, but I've had random dogs around here before, and if they had chosen to start wreaking havoc, I probably would've shot them. They didn't, so I didn't. Protection of property is legitimate, within reason. If a dog is digging up your garden, you shouldn't kill it, but if it repeatedly tears the shit out your lawn and topples your garbage and is constantly just a pain in your ass, then I don't disagree with your choice to destroy the trouble maker.
Like I said, my property is my territory, and I'll defend it like any other animal would. I'm just better armed.

[Bocaj Claw]

Skipping straight to shooting? Aren't you even going to beat it with a crowbar first?

[Æron]

I just don't see why it matters if it is a pet or not.

It matters because a pet is someone else's property. At the very least the owner should be entitled to compensation, unlike in the case of wild animals in which there is no 'owner'.

On the other side of the coin, if an animal has caused property damage, then the property owner should of course be entitled to compensation. If a (domestic) animal is causing you problems, you should contact the relevant authorities, and take care of the matter legally, not through violent means. Lethal force is completely uncalled for unless the animal is threatening the safety of anyone or your own pets or animals. Physical objects can be replaced. An living being's life cannot.