If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rochester Democrat and Chronicle)   Iowa court: Killing dog with bat not torture. It is a helluva way to deal with the bat problem though   (democratandchronicle.com) divider line 78
    More: Sick, Courts of Iowa, Iowa, torture, trier of fact, Scott County, Chief Judge, Polk County, Minnesota, Iowa Supreme Court  
•       •       •

3836 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2013 at 9:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-11 09:13:51 AM
militarylawyer.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-11 09:23:55 AM
Absolutely LOVE the headline Subby! 5/5
 
2013-07-11 09:24:06 AM
Iowa really is a shiatstain of a state, isn't it? This is the same state that decided it's cool for a guy to fire someone becasue he can't stop leering at her.
 
2013-07-11 09:24:09 AM
Would you want to be cornered by a killing dog with a bat? I don't think so
 
2013-07-11 09:27:52 AM
I would certainly like to use a bat to "not torture" the judges that came up with that ruling.  See if they maybe want to review their decision afterwards.
 
2013-07-11 09:29:09 AM
I wish we had a bat problem here. They could rid the area of pesky bugs that ruin outdoor summer activity.
 
2013-07-11 09:31:15 AM
growabrain.typepad.com
I will bash this puppy all the way to Iowa.
 
2013-07-11 09:31:57 AM

GoldDude: I would certainly like to use a bat to "not torture" the judges that came up with that ruling.  See if they maybe want to review their decision afterwards.

 
2013-07-11 09:32:44 AM
I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the court's opinion, but I would like to point out that the puppy was a gift-- the dumb fark could have just given it to someone else who could house-train it.
 
2013-07-11 09:32:56 AM

bdub77:


Hot damn! I never rode in a convertible before.
 
2013-07-11 09:34:03 AM
Would it be more or less cruel to let it out at the edge of a state park and drive away? I'm going to go with less. But it isn't like getting beaten to death with a bat is worse than getting eaten by a bobcat. The guy had options, he took the dick option. But taking the dick option shouldn't be a crime.

I love animals and this guy sounds like an asshole but I reluctantly agree the court made the right call. At the same time I think there should some kind of action the state can take that would prohibit him from ever owning another animal.
 
2013-07-11 09:35:54 AM
Those kids are having awesome childhoods, I'm guessing.
 
2013-07-11 09:36:42 AM
What a worthwhile human being.


GLASS POTATO FIELD
 
2013-07-11 09:38:30 AM
Killing a person with a bat wouldn't be torture either, just murder.
 
2013-07-11 09:40:58 AM

skozlaw: Iowa really is a shiatstain of a state, isn't it? This is the same state that decided it's cool for a guy to fire someone becasue he can't stop leering at her.


And the first to allow gay marriage. Go figure.
 
2013-07-11 09:41:19 AM

RembrandtQEinstein: Would it be more or less cruel to let it out at the edge of a state park and drive away? I'm going to go with less. But it isn't like getting beaten to death with a bat is worse than getting eaten by a bobcat. The guy had options, he took the dick option. But taking the dick option shouldn't be a crime.

I love animals and this guy sounds like an asshole but I reluctantly agree the court made the right call. At the same time I think there should some kind of action the state can take that would prohibit him from ever owning another animal.


This...
Except for the loving animals part. I can't stand them...
It was his dog, let him do what he wants with it...but yeah, don't let him have another.
 
2013-07-11 09:44:57 AM

RembrandtQEinstein: Would it be more or less cruel to let it out at the edge of a state park and drive away? I'm going to go with less. But it isn't like getting beaten to death with a bat is worse than getting eaten by a bobcat. The guy had options, he took the dick option. But taking the dick option shouldn't be a crime.


I don't think the only options were kill the dog and..kill the dog, could have given it away... Not sure how beating a dog to death could be anything but a crime.
 
2013-07-11 09:46:26 AM

RembrandtQEinstein: I love animals and this guy sounds like an asshole but I reluctantly agree the court made the right call. At the same time I think there should some kind of action the state can take that would prohibit him from ever owning another animal.


Same here. I don't think this guy should ever own an animal again due to his poor judgement and impulse control. It bugs me that the article states in the first sentence that prosecutors couldn't convict him do to a "loophole" in the law. But then you have this:

" . . . however, no one saw Meerdink kill the dog, and no testimony or exhibits and no reasonable inferences or presumptions from the testimony and exhibits sufficiently prove Meerdink acted with a depraved intent to cause death."

That's the "loophole?" I call it "burden of proof." You can easily kill an animal humanely with one or two blows to the head. Unless the dog is a red smear on the ground, nobody can prove anything about the guy's intent.
 
2013-07-11 09:47:06 AM

RembrandtQEinstein: Would it be more or less cruel to let it out at the edge of a state park and drive away? I'm going to go with less. But it isn't like getting beaten to death with a bat is worse than getting eaten by a bobcat. The guy had options, he took the dick option. But taking the dick option shouldn't be a crime.

I love animals and this guy sounds like an asshole but I reluctantly agree the court made the right call. At the same time I think there should some kind of action the state can take that would prohibit him from ever owning another animal.


From TFA:

Court records show Meerdink, 31, of Scott County killed his 7-month-old Boston terrier with a baseball bat in December 2011 after the dog repeatedly made messes on the floor and bit his girlfriend's children.

So what's the over/under on when we read an article about him using the bat on his girlfriend's kids?

Animal cruelty laws aren't in place for the welfare of animals.  They're in place to weed out the psychopaths among us.
 
2013-07-11 09:57:25 AM
Cujo died because of a bat
 
WGJ
2013-07-11 10:03:28 AM
The bat must of had rabies.
 
2013-07-11 10:05:51 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

I had to google to see what a boston terrier looks like. Seems like one good blow would crack its skull and kill it. I'm not seeing anything wrong here. Do people think the only way that is ok to kill an animal is with a vet and a needle?
 
2013-07-11 10:09:15 AM

neversubmit: GoldDude: I would certainly like to use a bat to "not torture" the judges that came up with that ruling.  See if they maybe want to review their decision afterwards.


it wouldn't be torture.  just assault, perhaps with a deadly weapon, and depending on some other things, maybe attempted murder.  no torture though.

ruling makes sense, the prosecution didn't meet its burden of showing sadism or depraved intent.  they might have shown it if they did their homework, but they didn't.

FTA:
Sarcone said. "I think what the court is saying is you can't just show the death, you have to show more than that.":

if you have a problem with this ruling, take it up with the legislature (or blame the prosecution for failing to meet their burden).  legislature wrote the elements of the offense.  and, while the court implied this, the people who really said it was the legislature (which is the closest branch to the will of the people).  death is not enough.  if it were, every hunter, rodent exterminator, rat trapper, etc would be an animal torturer.
 
2013-07-11 10:09:28 AM

WGJ: The bat must of had rabies.


Yeah. He should of given it away. He could of found somebody that would of like to of a dog.
 
2013-07-11 10:10:09 AM
He clarifies the thinking by explaining that it's not bad because it's the same as clubbing a seal.

"I mean, in Canada, they beat baby seals over the head and club them to death, and I don't hear anybody but the PETA people saying that's torture. It's 'harvesting fur.'"

Piece of shiat deserves to die.
 
2013-07-11 10:16:23 AM
The description of the killing is maddeningly vague, and detail actually matters here.  If the dog died after two dozen blows because the first 23 were deliberately aimed at the back half, it's torture.  If all it took was one good whack, it's certainly preferable to the myriad ways a lot of pets die.
 
2013-07-11 10:17:39 AM
Clubbing your dog... not cool man

what is cool is my Boston Terrier i587.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-11 10:20:50 AM
But it's wrong to hit a baby with a bat for doing the same thing but ok to hit a dog?  Why? And the "because it's a human" reason is total horseshiat.
 
2013-07-11 10:20:57 AM

Tigger: He clarifies the thinking by explaining that it's not bad because it's the same as clubbing a seal.

"I mean, in Canada, they beat baby seals over the head and club them to death, and I don't hear anybody but the PETA people saying that's torture. It's 'harvesting fur.'"

Piece of shiat deserves to die.


Yeah, I don't think that was the best comparison to draw. Most people I know, none of which are PETA people, find clubbing seals pretty disturbing, especially if it just for fur.
 
2013-07-11 10:25:23 AM

Mirandized: I would like to point out that the puppy was a gift-- the dumb fark could have just given it to someone else who could house-train it.


He could have, but the type of person who would beat a pet dog to death over something so inconsequential is the type of person who is just generally malicious. The subtext of his actions are that he's a scumbag in general and that he probably behaves cruelly to everyone around him, not just the dog.

I would not be the least bit surprised if this guy eventually winds up in court again, next time over something he does to people.
 
2013-07-11 10:25:28 AM

RembrandtQEinstein: Would it be more or less cruel to let it out at the edge of a state park and drive away? I'm going to go with less. But it isn't like getting beaten to death with a bat is worse than getting eaten by a bobcat. The guy had options, he took the dick option. But taking the dick option shouldn't be a crime.

I love animals and this guy sounds like an asshole but I reluctantly agree the court made the right call. At the same time I think there should some kind of action the state can take that would prohibit him from ever owning another animal.


I was outraged at first, but after reading the article, I'm just slightly angry. It seems to me a good solid whack to the head would be an instant kill and not torture. But at the same time you shouldn't be allowed to just go killing animals because you don't know how to train them. It bitting his kids? Were they farking with it while it was trying to eat or pulling it's tail? Train the kids not to fark with dogs while they are eating and train the dog to allow you to fark with it while it's eating. I had my hand in my two dogs' food since I first got them to show them I am the boss and can reach in there. If one of the dogs tries to steal food, it will get nipped, but I can stick my hand right in the bowl while the dog is eating and she will stop and patiently wait for me to remove it.

Now was the dog attacking the kids for no reason? That's different. If it was a pup that can be corrected. If it was an old dog that had gotten violent, I might be inclined to put it down. I've had to put down a very sick cat once (.22 to the head) and it sucked. I grew up with it. It really hurt me to do it, but the cat was really bad off. But to just kill an animal without a good reason should be a hefty fine at the very least and a ban on owning animals unless you can show good cause that you're not a total dick bag anymore.
 
2013-07-11 10:26:23 AM
This case is mostly attributable to unprepared prosecutors.   One line stands out, "It almost makes it look like you have to do an autopsy on the animal to show the extent of the injuries"

No shiat.  And it's done, very often, for both academic and court cases (although with animals it's called a necropsy).   My wife is a vet and just completed another yesterday on a police related shooting of a dog.
 
2013-07-11 10:28:28 AM
PETA approves.

Des Moines attorney Roxanne Conlin should be ashamed of herself not killing all those cats she enslaves.  Terrible, terrible woman.
 
2013-07-11 10:29:50 AM
Looks threatening.  Do they have the same stand your ground laws as Florida?

static.tweentribune.com
 
2013-07-11 10:30:47 AM
Colvin said Meerdink's case illustrates the need to change another law. He wants to broaden Iowa's definition of animal abuse - a crime that doesn't currently require depraved intent but that also doesn't apply to someone who owns the animal he or she is accused of abusing.


Face f*cking palm
 
2013-07-11 10:37:05 AM
I got nauseous while reading TFA... Saying that "It's his dog, he can do what he wants" is (to me) the same as saying "It's his kid. If he wants to beat it to death with a baseball bat, that's his right". I don't expect anyone else to agree, that's just my personal opinion.

If you can't deal with a pet, take it to a shelter. There are so many around and puppies get adopted quickly. My suspicion is that this guy wasn't much for training, and of course an untrained puppy is going to bite, piss and shiat all over your house.

/Got my dog from a shelter.
//Was the last of his litter left because people though he looked stupid because his ears were so big.
///He grew into his ears. One of the handsomest looking dogs I've ever seen.
 
2013-07-11 10:39:34 AM
static.tweentribune.com
It's coming right for us!
 
2013-07-11 10:47:11 AM

nitefallz: But it's wrong to hit a baby with a bat for doing the same thing but ok to hit a dog?  Why? And the "because it's a human" reason is total horseshiat.


Because it is human.
 
2013-07-11 10:47:58 AM
I have to go to Iowa in a few weeks to visit the in-laws.
I will continue to live in Florida as long as it keeps me from living in Iowa.

/the devil you know
 
2013-07-11 10:49:14 AM
Man, I learn so much on sociopath Thursdays.

1. Lots of experts in here declaring what is more or less humane. How the fark do you know, animal whisperer?

2. Getting slowly beaten to death by your father is somehow more humane than being attacked and killed by a bear. Got it.

3.If you "try other measures to change behavior, and there's no evidence of happiness or eagerness to please",   then it's quite alright to beat the holy fark of its skull.

4. It's quite alright that this guy has or is around children. Totes.
 
2013-07-11 10:56:29 AM
Since I happen to live in Davenport I checked his facebook page for mutual friends... yeah he's the typical tapout shirt wearing MMA wannabe you could see beating his puppy to death with a bat.
 
2013-07-11 10:58:13 AM

Mirandized: I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the court's opinion, but I would like to point out that the puppy was a gift-- the dumb fark could have just given it to someone else who could house-train it.


Yes.  Why the fark was it such an issue the 'owner' just couldn't take it to the pound?  I think he should have been punished.
 
2013-07-11 11:17:28 AM
Ruling sounds like it was made by PETA Adoption Center workers.
 
2013-07-11 11:27:58 AM

Kveld: Ruling sounds like it was made by PETA Adoption Center workers.


derp
 
2013-07-11 11:31:49 AM
I think it was the correct decision.  Even if someone did stand next to him and witness the entire thing go down.  If his intent had not been to kill the dog, then it might have been torture.  But here it seems his intent was to quickly kill the animal, in which case everything he did appears fine.  I suppose you could put in a clause that says something like "the best-reasonable means for killing an animal must be used to effectuate its death" but then you're going to get a lot of subjective humane vs non-humane, or "what the fark is 'best'?" going on.   Not to mention if you require the best-available means is something like lethal injection, then an issue arises as to how poor people will afford it.

If he had hanged the dog, would it have been better?  What about cutting its throat?  Guillotine?  Cattle nail gun?  Regular gun?  Poison?
 
2013-07-11 11:35:13 AM

Cold_Sassy: Mirandized: I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the court's opinion, but I would like to point out that the puppy was a gift-- the dumb fark could have just given it to someone else who could house-train it.

Yes.  Why the fark was it such an issue the 'owner' just couldn't take it to the pound?  I think he should have been punished.


Because you're an idiot and meddling in other people's business. It's completely legal to kill your own animals.  While I agree he could have easily given it away, opting to kill your own animal rather than give it away is not a crime.  The question at issue here was whether his method of killing the animal rose to the level of "torture" or "sadistic intent".  All he had to say was that he was trying to kill it as quickly as possible and his only reasonable way available was with a bat.
 
2013-07-11 11:37:02 AM

nickerj1: It's completely legal to kill your own animals. While I agree he could have easily given it away, opting to kill your own animal rather than give it away is not a crime.


No, it's just reflective of a f*cked-up brain.
 
2013-07-11 11:50:39 AM

MythDragon: It bitting his kids? Were they farking with it while it was trying to eat or pulling it's tail?


It was a Boston Terrier.  It's be a real trick to pull it's tail; they're normally docked and even if not it's generally about 1" long.

I was all ready for outrage until I read about it biting the kids.  "Jaywalking and Murder" indeed.  Messes on the floor?  To be expected.  Biting the kids?  My parents used to raise Bostons.  The really young puppies would suck on your fingers, but other than that it was pretty much restricted to licking, at all ages.  You could stick your hand in their mouth and their reaction would be to move their head back, backing up if necessary, turning their head to the side, to get your hand out of their mouth before closing them, not biting.

That being said, we actually knew how to handle puppies even as little kids, and it wasn't a 'bite' unless it drew blood.  Note:  Boston jaws are strong enough to hold onto a 'tug toy' while you lift them up and spin them in a circle.

Lastly, well, I guess it depends on the breeding of the Boston - the puppies my parents had were had by the daughter of a couple show champions(she wasn't marked quite well enough for competition, thus sold as a pet), and the sire was a champion himself(cost a hundred bucks or so).  So they were just under 'the best of the best' breeding wise.  Momma, being a house dog herself, would house train them, and they were socialized for most of the day, every day, with humans.  Not all puppies get that.

Cold_Sassy: Yes. Why the fark was it such an issue the 'owner' just couldn't take it to the pound? I think he should have been punished.


Because 'the pound' generally isn't there for unwanted dogs.  It's for lost/abandoned dogs, and if it can figure out who owns it the result is often fines even if you don't want the dog.

Even if they will take 'no longer wanted' dogs, a dog that is known to bite humans(as mentioned in the article) is likely to be put down anyways.  Then there's the education issue, did it even occur to him?

Personally, I think my outrage depends on the end result - 1 hit kill = humane, literally beat to death (IE head trauma not the fatal blow) = torture.  I'm still not happy because, being familiar with bostons, I know they're typically a hard headed breed, a legacy from the bulldogs used to create the line.
 
2013-07-11 11:59:59 AM

nickerj1: I think it was the correct decision.  Even if someone did stand next to him and witness the entire thing go down.  If his intent had not been to kill the dog, then it might have been torture.  But here it seems his intent was to quickly kill the animal, in which case everything he did appears fine.  I suppose you could put in a clause that says something like "the best-reasonable means for killing an animal must be used to effectuate its death" but then you're going to get a lot of subjective humane vs non-humane, or "what the fark is 'best'?" going on.   Not to mention if you require the best-available means is something like lethal injection, then an issue arises as to how poor people will afford it.

If he had hanged the dog, would it have been better?  What about cutting its throat?  Guillotine?  Cattle nail gun?  Regular gun?  Poison?


Nah bra, stare it in the eyes as you beat it with a cudgel. That's how a man does it. A frustrated man.
 
2013-07-11 12:01:27 PM

nickerj1: Cold_Sassy: Mirandized: I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the court's opinion, but I would like to point out that the puppy was a gift-- the dumb fark could have just given it to someone else who could house-train it.

Yes.  Why the fark was it such an issue the 'owner' just couldn't take it to the pound?  I think he should have been punished.

Because you're an idiot and meddling in other people's business.


Fark off, jackhole.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report