<font color=33FFFF> from foxnews.com:

NEW YORK — A man who threw his girlfriend's dog off her 23rd-floor balcony was sentenced Thursday to 12 years in prison for animal cruelty and other charges related to stalking the woman.


John Jefferson, 43, pleaded guilty Dec. 5 to robbery, burglary, stalking, criminal contempt and animal cruelty. The judge said two of the 12 years were for the dog, Ribsy.

"I've had pets all my life," Justice James Yates said. "I was just as sickened as anyone else when I read the stories."

The judge also ordered five years of parole supervision for Jefferson and signed an order of protection that directs him to stay away from ex-girlfriend Eugenia Miller for the next 17 years.

Jefferson tossed the 16-year-old black and white terrier-poodle mix to its death on May 26 during an argument with Miller. Ribsy landed in the concrete plaza below and died instantly.

Jefferson also barricaded himself inside the apartment and threatened Miller with a knife, police said at the time.

"I am sorry," Jefferson said in court Thursday. "I was totally messed up, emotionally disturbed. I just lost it."

Jefferson pleaded guilty to burglary in connection with his forcible entry into the apartment, and his plea to the robbery charge was for a May 22 knifepoint holdup. The stalking charge arose from his harassment of Miller earlier.

Jefferson's lawyer, Russell Paisley, said his client's actions were those of someone under the influence of drugs.</font>

He got what he deserved.

Damn, nobody wins.

He should have given him 12 dog years.

Originally posted by KingJeremy
He got what he deserved.

That's pretty fucked, considering that some people convicted of manslaughter or rape have gotten less...

Originally posted by tweedyburd
That's pretty fucked, considering that some people convicted of manslaughter or rape have gotten less...

<font color="CC33CC">Agreed. But I only think it's absurd that the ppl who commit those crimes get less, not that the person committing these crimes should get less.</font>

So you think anyone who kills an animal should not only get 2 years in prison, but much more?

Originally posted by tweedyburd
So you think anyone who kills an animal should not only get 2 years in prison, but much more?

<font color="CC33CC">I don't know much about the judicial system and what the standard penalties are, so I can't answer that. If you read the article, you'd note that there were also other charges including assault on the woman. Hmm it says stalking, but I'd think threatening with a knife is at least attempted assault. I'd like to think preventative measures are worth something, as people violent towards animals usually have no problem transferring their violence to people. The psycho needs some help though, and I have a feeling prison won't do it. Eh, but I'm a bit more than disillusioned about the whole system anyway.</font>

Originally posted by tweedyburd
So you think anyone who kills an animal should not only get 2 years in prison, but much more?

no, but if they throw a dog 23 stories, yeah, fuck them

dogs>humans anyway

dog....god

Originally posted by Travis Meeks
dogs>humans anyway

<font color="CC33CC">I'd be prone to agree with this as far as the overall scope of looking at species. Dog>humanity. But a dog>a human? I dunno about that. I don't even think of it in terms of > or < . My dogs are the sweetest things ever though.</font>

Originally posted by Undone


I don't know much about the judicial system and what the standard penalties are, so I can't answer that.

I know, but I wasn't asking about established legal standards, just your opinion.

The crux of the case is the guy killing the dog. Though they say the dog was only 2 years in factoring his sentence, it's hard to believe someone would get 10 years for what amounts to stalking and threatening. No human was injured, and the guy apparently had no past history of assault--otherwise, the article would've mentioned it.

So, back to my question, you originally said you believed people commiting these crimes didn't deserve less. Which would imply you believe the guy got what he deserved. So, even if you believe the dog counted for only 2 years in his sentencing, do you believe, as a matter of opinion, that wasn't enough for that particular part of the crime?



]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
So, back to my question, you originally said you believed people commiting these crimes didn't deserve less. Which would imply you believe the guy got what he deserved. So, even if you believe the dog counted for only 2 years in his sentencing, do you believe, as a matter of opinion, that wasn't enough for that particular part of the crime?

<font color="CC33CC">I didn't know that I had insinuated the last part of your question at all, so :confused:. I'm really hesitant to form an opinion on prison terms b/c I don't know how much good they really do as far as preventative measures and/or punitive measures. If a longer prison term would make him more adjusted and keep other ladies and cute dogs safe (which I'd hardly believe), so be it. I don't think it would. I don't know what the solution is. I'm thinking more in terms of generality than this specific case, if you can't tell.</font>

Originally posted by tweedyburd
The crux of the case is the guy killing the dog.

<font color="CC33CC">I'm not sure about this either, but it does make for much better news headlines, doesn't it?</font>

Originally posted by Travis Meeks


no, but if they throw a dog 23 stories, yeah, fuck them



The article notes that the dog was killed instantly, in other words painlessy, or quickly. The dog did not suffer. What is the difference between this guy throwing the dog out a window and someone sucking out a cow's brains before it's butchered? The only difference is in what the people who did the deed were thinking at the time.

So, the only difference between the guy who slaughters the cow and this guy--and the two years he got tagged on to his sentence--is what he was thinking at the time. The result is the same--two animals that were killed instantly.

Now that I think about it, this has similar ties to hate crimes legistlation, in a warped kind of way.

Originally posted by Undone


<font color="CC33CC">I'd be prone to agree with this as far as the overall scope of looking at species. Dog>humanity. But a dog>a human? I dunno about that. I don't even think of it in terms of > or < . My dogs are the sweetest things ever though.</font>

the dogs I know seem to at least enjoy life more than humans. They don't bitch and moan about how cold it is and shit and then jump of a cliff or something. *shrug* maybe we live too long

+ 1

Originally posted by Undone
I didn't know that I had insinuated the last part of your question at all, so .

By saying you don't think they should get less, that's saying you believe what they got was, at the very least, efficient. Since it clearly states that killing the dog was 2 years in figuring his sentencing, I would just assume that factored into your saying that.


Originally posted by Undone

I'm really hesitant to form an opinion on prison terms b/c I don't know how much good they really do as far as preventative measures and/or punitive measures.

But you said earlier: "But I only think it's absurd that the ppl who commit those crimes get less, not that the person committing these crimes should get less."

You just commented there on prison terms, relative to another one. So, humor me:) Relative to general prison standards, what do you think?

Originally posted by Undone


I'm not sure about this either, but it does make for much better news headlines, doesn't it?

True, but do you seriously believe the guy would've gotten 10 years for threatening and stalking, with apparently no previous assaults?

he got off easy with 12 years, they should have thrown him off the 23rd floor.

I wish I hadn't read that. Words can't describe the vileness of such an act.

TRAVIS MEEKS? MORE LIKE TRAVIS GEEKS? HAHAHA

Originally posted by Best Looking Boy
TRAVIS MEEKS? MORE LIKE TRAVIS GEEKS? HAHAHA

huh?

Originally posted by tweedyburd


True, but do you seriously believe the guy would've gotten 10 years for threatening and stalking, with apparently no previous assaults?

It wasn't just threatening and stalking. There were five separate charges, which individually would have racked up a considerable amount of time. I don't know the average prison term for each of those crimes, but 12 years does not seem incongruous for the many things he seemed to put her through. Also, nowhere in the article does it mention him not having a previous criminal record. Unless you know something I don't?

You seem to feel that he didn't deserve his sentence. Why?

Originally posted by pastor


It wasn't just threatening and stalking. There were five separate charges, which individually would have racked up a considerable amount of time.

I said what he did basically amounted to stalking and threatening. But regardless, breaking and entering sentences of domestic conflict generally do not exceed 5 years.

Originally posted by pastor
Also, nowhere in the article does it mention him not having a previous criminal record.

Any crime that gets reported generally notes any previous behavior that is similar to the commited crime at hand. Journalism 101...

Originally posted by pastor

You seem to feel that he didn't deserve his sentence. Why?

I don't, especially relative to many other sentences. I also find it disturbing that he got two extra years for tossing a dog out the window. I'm the first to say that's cruel, but the moral line rests on what he was thinking, not the actual result of what happened.
12 years is a bit much--I'd think 8 would've been sufficient.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
The article notes that the dog was killed instantly, in other words painlessy, or quickly. The dog did not suffer.

<font color="CC33CC">I'm not sure why you brought this up- as far as I know, the reasoning doesn't go over well in homicide cases, so why should it apply here? "But your Honor, it was point blank! He died instantly!"


What is the difference between this guy throwing the dog out a window and someone sucking out a cow's brains before it's butchered? The only difference is in what the people who did the deed were thinking at the time.

And I'm REALLY unsure why you brought this point up. Unless you meant it wouldn't make sense to sentence someone for animal cruelty if the judge/jury ate meat? I mean, that's the only reason I can see for you bringing it up, and I don't know WHY you brought it up especially discussing the situation with me? Btw I had no idea cows' brains were sucked out :think: I thought usually they had a voltage gun and then had their throats cut? That's sorta a funny Egyptianesque thing to do. (sucking a brain out) Oops, tangent. But that has little to do with what we're talking about, and I'm still confused. Obviously, people are relative in their relationship with animals (and we see how dangerous that can get when the mindset is applied to people ie in Social Darwin type situations), and the slaughter of livestock is a more mechanical thing than a case of someone showing general violent tendencies.</font>

Originally posted by tweedyburd
By saying you don't think they should get less, that's saying you believe what they got was, at the very least, efficient. Since it clearly states that killing the dog was 2 years in figuring his sentencing, I would just assume that factored into your saying that.

<font color="CC33CC">I'll definitely give you this, as earlier, for some odd reason, I didn't think about how I generally discredit the legal system anyway.

You just commented there on prison terms, relative to another one. So, humor me:) Relative to general prison standards, what do you think?

Basically, you can completely x out the term I gave before as it was a reactionary response--so excuse me on that one, please. If I thought prison terms were effective in both preventing and punishing crimes, I would actually seek the lowest effective term possible. But that would be a bit idealistic. As far as I see it, this person has proven his tendencies towards being a dangerous and violent individual. If those 12 years will help him (doubtful) and keep others safe from similar acts by setting him as an example (also doubtful, to me), I'd think they were appropriate.</font>

Originally posted by tweedyburd
True, but do you seriously believe the guy would've gotten 10 years for threatening and stalking, with apparently no previous assaults?

<font color="CC33CC">You forgot burglary and robbery ;). The article also claims that he participated in a May 22 knifepoint holdup. I don't see where you get no previous assaults out of any of this b/c that situation was mentioned (though I think it's a bit easy to miss in the article) plus there was no mention of his criminal record aside from that. And, to me it looks like the thing with the woman was a hostage situation as he barricaded himself and her in the apartment. You say that 5 years is standard for threatening and stalking, but I don't know what is standard for this whole bundle o' crimes.</font>

fuck that, dogs dont deserve to die, that guy's ex needs to throw his ass out the window. if anyone killed my dog, i'd fucking destroy them.

Originally posted by Ihaman
fuck that, dogs dont deserve to die, that guy's ex needs to throw his ass out the window. if anyone killed my dog, i'd fucking destroy them.

I know, I'd kill anyone who touches my dog. I considering him one of my best friends

that's pretty fucking twisted.

at least he chose a fake dog to chuck.

Originally posted by killed radio star

at least he chose a fake dog to chuck.

i have poodle mixes.

Originally posted by Undone


I'm not sure why you brought this up- as far as I know, the reasoning doesn't go over well in homicide cases, so why should it apply here? "But your Honor, it was point blank! He died instantly!"

But humans aren't killed for meat. I was just pointing out the double standard at work. Why does this guy get two years for killing a dog that died instantly when you can shoot animals for sport. They both die the same way. As I said, same result, just different intentions. So the guy is being ultimately punished an extra 2 years not for the dog being dead, but for what he was thinking (i.e. his anger) at the time. Granted, this guy showed general violence and intimidation, but punish him for those other charges, not killing a dog.



Originally posted by Undone

And I'm REALLY unsure why you brought this point up..and I don't know WHY you brought it up especially discussing the situation with me?

I was replying to Travis Meeks on that one, not you. I was just throwing out ideas:)

Originally posted by Undone

the slaughter of livestock is a more mechanical thing than a case of someone showing general violent tendencies.

So if the courts want to increasingly move animals to a more equal level with humans when one is killed (i.e. sentencing people to prison for killing an animal in anger), why the double standard? Would the mechanical slaughter of humans be any different than a generally violent person killing one?

Why show favor to household pets but not to other animals dying in the same way? The result is the same. It's the same with this case. This guy is being punished two years for doing something people do all the time to other animals--he just happened to be in a violent mindset and he took it out on the dog. It's like a warped version of the Thought Police. He's being punished two years not for what he did in that particular part of his crime, not for the result, but for what he felt when he did it.

If you're going to give anyone prison time for killing a living being, animal or human, then it shouldn't matter why they did it, it should matter that it happened at all. It's an illogical and inconsistent method the way it is now. Last year a guy got about 8 years for throwing a woman's dog into traffic, while thousands of men in slaughterhouses did basically the equivlant minus the tempor. That's nuts. The guy is spending time in jail not because of the dead dog, but because of the woman's grief and because of his rage. It's a warped way of addressing a problem if you ask me. Punishing people with prison time (or anything else) for their rage rather than the result of the rage is perpetuating that rage. That's why I think hate crime legislation is in some ways counterproductive. Rather than address a social problem and look it in the face, it shelves it away and only lets it build.

(awaits the "I have NO idea what that has to do with ANYTHING" response for the last few sentences) :)

Originally posted by Undone


You forgot burglary and robbery ;). The article also claims that he participated in a May 22 knifepoint holdup. I don't see where you get no previous assaults out of any of this b/c that situation was mentioned (though I think it's a bit easy to miss in the article) And, to me it looks like the thing with the woman was a hostage situation as he barricaded himself and her in the apartment. You say that 5 years is standard for threatening and stalking, but I don't know what is standard for this whole bundle o' crimes.

Yeah, you're right, I missed that part, though it seems to be just in connection to the crime in question--harassing his girlfriend. It's not like it's an entirely separate case. But it is a poorly written article from that point of view.

I guess the whole dog thing just irks me.

<font color="CC33CC">I said what you said in much fewer words ;) by bringing up the relativist manner in which animals are regarded (and in quite a few examples, humans [migrant workers, mentally ill, etc]). People choose their relationship with animals b/c they have the power to do so.

As far as intent goes, don't forget involuntary manslaughter. Intent does matter, legally.</font>

<font color="CC33CC">I am now reminded of this (I wonder if you got the argument from here or not) tv show that I only read the summary for. Maybe it was Law & Order? Anyway, a man sacrificed a goat for religious purposes, and he was taken to court for animal cruelty. I'll cut to the end and say that he was found not guilty b/c the defense brought out the argument about slaughterhouses and how he raised and killed the goat in a more humane way than factory farms and slaughterhouses do. So if he was guilty, the jury would mainly be discriminating against his religion.

I think it comes down to the actions being shown as a threat to humans. Violent intent to animals carries over easily to violent intent to humans. While sacrificial or food slaughter may not.</font>

Originally posted by Undone


As far as intent goes, don't forget involuntary manslaughter. Intent does matter, legally.

Yes, dear, but that's when humans are involved :)

But on a human level, intent is often measured out in ridiculous standards, but this is just another tangent. A few years ago, a woman was dragged into the woods in Wyoming and stabbed 17 times by her boyfriend who was mad that she would not have an abortion. A few weeks later, Matthew Shepard was killed in the same area. The guy who did the stabbing was sentenced to 22-29 years, while Shepard's killers were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. This sort of hate crime legislation gives some people special privledge in the eyes of the law that others are not afforded, yet both crimes involved killers who acted in great malice and rage. The result is the same--one group just hated for a different reason. That's insane. Not that Shepard's killers deserved less, but that the other guy got so much less. And in a similar way, this case with the dog is equally crazy because it punishes the guy with two extra years for doing something others do and do not get any time for.

Originally posted by Undone


I think it comes down to the actions being shown as a threat to humans. Violent intent to animals carries over easily to violent intent to humans.

These cases aren't about that, they're about the animals. Some courts are seriously being lobbied to push animals to be given the same rights as humans. And punishing a guy who throws a dog out the window with two extra years in jail is just a small step toward achieving those ends, in some small way.

Besides, if it's the case that the action was being punished because of the threat to humans, aren't you sort of punishing someone for something they haven't done yet? That's like Minority Report, in a way. Just because someone takes out their anger on an animal doesn't mean they're going to take the next step and do the same to a human--that's a big step in most everyone's mind. I mean, obviously they're MORE prone than those who aren't violent towards animals, but as a general rule I don't see how it could be so cut and dry because most people separate the two in their mind on a large scale. And even if it is the case, the law shouldn't tag on an extra two years for showing behavior that MIGHT show he would do something similar to humans.

btw--I recently saw you on this CD-ROM that Sarah (crashingdown) made for me a while back--you were standing in front of the Metro talking about how crazy you were or something:)

Originally posted by tear stained glass
I wish I hadn't read that. Words can't describe the vileness of such an act.

amen.

and i didn't even read it. i read like the first paragraph and had to stop. and i'd been avoiding reading it but i ketp looking at your fucking topic title and it was jus tas bad.

WHY did you post this strange one? i can handle all your other shit about people getting blown up with dynamite, i don't fucking know, all that ogrish shit you post, but this really. you shouldn't have fucking posted this. dammit.

dammit. 16 fucking years old just for that? the dog gets to live 16 hyears only to die like that? that's fucking horrible. fuck you strange one. i'm not going to stop crying any time soon.

Originally posted by Samsa
dammit. 16 fucking years old just for that? the dog gets to live 16 hyears only to die like that? that's fucking horrible. fuck you strange one. i'm not going to stop crying any time soon.

<font color="CC33CC">Yeah, it's horrible, but if you read John and I's discussion, the thread is really pretty interesting imo. ;) </font>

Originally posted by Samsa
i'm not going to stop crying any time soon.


Haw haw!:rofl:

<font color="CC33CC">Originally posted by tweedyburd
Yes, dear, but that's when humans are involved :)

Comment: I like discussing things with you. You're good for a learning type debate minus the drama and flaming. Then again, I'd hardly even call this a debate b/c it is rather confusing. So I guess we're both trying to figure this out.

Yeah that was for when humans are involved, but they're treating it like the dog was murdered (except the sentence is shorter), so it's almost like a crime against a human.

That was an interesting comparison between murders that you gave. Is there a standardization of sentencing that I don't know about that is routinely ignored? Or are judges really allowed to draw the number from a hat according to what they're feeling at the time?

These cases aren't about that, they're about the animals. Some courts are seriously being lobbied to push animals to be given the same rights as humans. And punishing a guy who throws a dog out the window with two extra years in jail is just a small step toward achieving those ends, in some small way.

Once again, it's a relativist outlook. A dog is a friend. A pig is food. A pig is equally, if not moreso, intelligent, sensitive, and affectionate as a dog is. It usually cracks me up when people get uptight about certain Asian countries eating cats and dogs, while they finish down the last bites of a pork chop.

So I'd say the cases are only about the animals to a point, while it's really about the human relationship to an animal. If a person is killed, it is a crime b/c that person lost their own life independent of if that person was 'important'. If the dog is killed, and it's a pet, like you said, the punishment is there b/c of the woman's loss. And I still think the Minority Report sorta thing exists as well, but I'm not sure what to think of that right now.
If a dog is killed, it's legal and ok in the name of medical testing or sport (greyhound racing et al) b/c in those examples, the animal has a different relationship to humans. If a pig is killed, no one cares, as their relationship is strictly as a food animal. Unless it's a pet pig. :p

btw--I recently saw you on this CD-ROM that Sara (crashingdown) made for me a while back--you were standing in front of the Metro talking about how crazy you were or something:)

Oh god! I was so tired and cold that I may as well have been intoxicated. Here we are from this Xmas Eve! :o </font>

Originally posted by Undone


That was an interesting comparison between murders that you gave. Is there a standardization of sentencing that I don't know about that is routinely ignored? Or are judges really allowed to draw the number from a hat according to what they're feeling at the time?

The way I understand it is that courts are allowed to interpret the hate crime laws as they see fit, so long as it's within the boundaries of the legislation. The flaws lie not so much with courts/judges as it does the law itself. It's inherently discriminative toward victims. In other words, some humans' deaths are worth more prison time for their killers than others. If you're gay or a Jew and you're killed because of those traits, your killer will recieve about 5 times as much time than someone who is stabbed 17 times because they wouldn't agree to an abortion.

Funny, seeing as how the law was written in the vein of anti-discrimination.

Originally posted by Undone

Oh god! I was so tired and cold that I may as well have been intoxicated. Here we are from this Xmas Eve! :o

Cute!

Originally posted by Undone


<font color="CC33CC">Yeah, it's horrible, but if you read John and I's discussion, the thread is really pretty interesting imo. ;) </font>

no it's not. i don't want to read this fucking thread. listen a lot of times an animal is worth what people invest in it. i guess that's why peopel are atrociously horrified by the death of a 16 year old doggie :cry: and not necessarily by a pig. by murdering this woman's dog he traumatized her. i don't know if this was mentioned before and i am not going to go on to argue about this but goddam. i mean some things. you know. i could draw comparisons to murderers of pregnant women being tried for a double murder nevermind. i don't want to talk about this. goddammit. people who pull shit like this are such jerks. pft.