Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3847 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2013 at 9:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2013-07-11 12:16:03 PM  
I know just what to do with that guy!

/Prefer a crowbar to a bat though
 
2013-07-11 12:16:55 PM  

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.


The boy who beats his dog grows up to be the man who beats his son.
 
2013-07-11 12:32:00 PM  

nickerj1: If he had hanged the dog, would it have been better? What about cutting its throat? Guillotine? Cattle nail gun? Regular gun? Poison?


People react to visualizations of violence.

if he choked the dog to death, most people would find that disturbing.  The imagery is terrible... being throttled to death.  It's vicious and brutal.

Beating the thing to death by a solid iron club to the head would be instant and fatal, but the image of brains being splattered in a violent attack terrifies people.  Because of this, they will cry about how inhumane this is.  Choking would be better, but still wrong.

Gassing it to death seems humane.  Slow, quiet.  Never mind that the gas may burn, or cause strange reactions.  Never mind that the dog feels like it's slowly suffocating, it can feel itself being smothered, and the idea that you just "get tired and go to sleep" is a fantasy.  You feel like you're choking.  This is terrifying.  The dog is dying slowly and it knows it, it's horrified.  But this is okay, it's humane.

This is the same reason we don't execute people with a bullet to the head.  Think about lethal injection:

* Walk you in.  You know you're going to die.
* Strap you down.  You can't escape.
* Here come the doctors.  They're going to kill you.  Their every motion brings your death nearer.
* The needle goes in.  Maybe you're afraid of needles.  This is going to kill you, by the way.
* You know the drug is coming next.  This will be your death.  You are strapped to a table, they are going to inject you with poison, and you will die.  You can see and hear them preparing your end.
* The drug starts coming.  You can feel it starting to drain the life from your body.  You are dying.  In 10-15 seconds you will be gone.
* You finally pass out.  Peace comes before death.
* In a few minutes, you are gone.

Now how about death by bullet to the head:

* Walk you in.  You are going to die here.
* Raise gun.  You will die soon.  You're staring down an instrument of death.  Terrifying, but all is at a standstill; you are not progressing toward death.
* It's over before you know they pulled the trigger.

Now how about electric chair?

* Walk you in.  You are going to die here.
* Strap you down.  You can't escape.
* They move to the panel.  That switch is your death.
* SCREAM MOTHERFARKER!
* Life is pain.
* Death comes.

Marginally better than lethal injection.
 
2013-07-11 12:43:21 PM  
I'm a tiny 100lb woman and I'm pretty sure that if I saw a man clubbing his dog I would have gone completely batshiat-no-mercy on him.

If you don't want to kill your dog, you really do not have to. There's breed-specific rescue groups who help foster and rehabilitate dogs with problems. There are dog behavior specialists. If really desperate, speak to your vet as they usually will help in some way.

Sorry, that dog did not deserve that.
 
2013-07-11 12:47:34 PM  
Oh, yes, a puppy bites a kid who was probably being a dumbass around it because dad can't be bothered to train the dog, and the dog deserves it.

Anyone here who is ok with dog killing because you are annoyed at it for being an animal should never own one. Hell, you shouldn't have kids either.

Disgusting. How a nation treats its animals is how they treat each other.
 
2013-07-11 12:52:29 PM  
What the fark is WRONG with you sadistic mofos in this thread??? Jesus, the anonymous-kill-sucking assholism in this place is farking disgusting. Yeah, yeah, "welcome to fark", ha ha, we are bloated death-suckers, get used to it". Take your blood lust to Reddit or something. FOCK.
 
2013-07-11 12:55:21 PM  

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?


Not today, farkstick. Eat shiat you farking loser. Really. Go die.
 
2013-07-11 01:02:42 PM  

MintyBurns: I'm a tiny 100lb woman and I'm pretty sure that if I saw a man clubbing his dog I would have gone completely batshiat-no-mercy on him.

If you don't want to kill your dog, you really do not have to. There's breed-specific rescue groups who help foster and rehabilitate dogs with problems. There are dog behavior specialists. If really desperate, speak to your vet as they usually will help in some way.

Sorry, that dog did not deserve that.


It was just a PUPPY.  Obviously nobody took time to work with it or nurture it.  I've had lots of pets and I've never had problems with any of them, even when they came from the regular old dogpound because I took the time to do it right.
 
2013-07-11 01:11:35 PM  
A bunch of scumbags, the perp and the judges.
 
kab
2013-07-11 01:14:46 PM  
Is bashing Meerdink's skull in with a bat torture?

It'd be simply terrible if something like that happened to him.
 
2013-07-11 01:47:28 PM  
I'm going to disagree with the judge on this one.  IMHO, killing for any reason but self-defense/defending someone else (something is currently trying to kill you/somebody else), survival (food) or mercy (something is already fatally wounded and suffering) is inherently sadistic.

/no things with more than 4 legs don't count
 
2013-07-11 01:54:10 PM  
the ruling is accurate; the prosecution failed to satisfy its burden of proving an essential element of the offense.

the criminal statute requires that the prosecution prove that the defendant acted with a "depraved or sadistic intent to cause death"

FTA:

"Here, the state proved Meerdink killed the dog; 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."

since no evidence was given to support the allegation that the act was conducted with a depraved or sadistic intent to cause death, the prosecution failed to prove that element of the offense.

this case boils down to an issue of basic criminal law.  you must prove all the essential elements of the crime in order to find someone guilty.  here, the prosecution did not make any showing for an essential element of the crime.  therefore, the prosecution failed to meet its burden.  it's not the court's duty to do the prosecution's job. plus, the court couldn't if it wanted to; there was no evidence to show intent.

while it may be argued that this sucks.  too bad.  write your congressmen for writing a law that is too strict to easily convict people for animal torture.  where the language of the law is clear, a judge should not avoid the written letter of the people's will because it's hard for a prosecutor to prove.

there was an animal killing, and probably would have been animal abuse, had the state pushed for that offense, but the state went for the big felony conviction, animal torture, and failed to bring the proof.

just another example of a lazy prosecutor blaming the judiciary for his failure.  and, instead of doing anything about it, just going to the media to cry about the loss.*

* though, this might actually be an instance of going to the media to encourage people to write their congressmen to change the law masquerading as an instance of going to the media to cry about it.
 
2013-07-11 01:58:09 PM  

kab: Is bashing Meerdink's skull in with a bat torture?

It'd be simply terrible if something like that happened to him.


it would probably not be torture.

it would be battery, perhaps aggravated battery (or battery with a deadly weapon, or whatever iowa calls it)... maybe attempted murder.  torture has its own specific elements of offense.  you would need to prove those elements as well, if you wanted to convict for criminal torture (if such a criminal statute exists in iowa).  without more facts, striking someone in the head with a bat would not meet the required elements for a torture conviction.
 
2013-07-11 02:58:38 PM  

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.


THIS
 
2013-07-11 03:01:43 PM  

Cold_Sassy: MintyBurns: I'm a tiny 100lb woman and I'm pretty sure that if I saw a man clubbing his dog I would have gone completely batshiat-no-mercy on him.

If you don't want to kill your dog, you really do not have to. There's breed-specific rescue groups who help foster and rehabilitate dogs with problems. There are dog behavior specialists. If really desperate, speak to your vet as they usually will help in some way.

Sorry, that dog did not deserve that.

It was just a PUPPY.  Obviously nobody took time to work with it or nurture it.  I've had lots of pets and I've never had problems with any of them, even when they came from the regular old dogpound because I took the time to do it right.


I have a 1 year old Frenchie with behavioral issues, so I understand "trying your best" and "doing everything right" like early training/socialization and still having a dog who might bite a kid. In our case, our vet has us keep a "rage journal" so we can figure out his triggers and we're reinforcing training where if he is unsure what to do in a social situation, he turns to us to lead. It's going better, but some breeds (like bulldogs) are REALLY stubborn. We just adore the little fella and would never give him up for love or money.

Our dog trainer adopts ultra-aggressive dogs (like former fight dogs) and is pretty successful with that. There are people who will adopt a dog knowing they have behavioral issues or need a childless home. Anyone who kills their dog with a bat over it is worth less than my dog's poop-vomit.

Tiny rant: But I hate how some idiot parents just let their SCREAMING toddlers run towards my dog because he looks like a cute little pig or Disney's Stitch. I sternly tell them "My dog is iffy. Your children really shouldn't approach dogs they do not know."
 
2013-07-11 03:39:22 PM  
MintyBurns:

Tiny rant: But I hate how some idiot parents just let their SCREAMING toddlers run towards my dog because he looks like a cute little pig or Disney's Stitch. I sternly tell them "My dog is iffy. Your children really shouldn't approach dogs they do not know."

Well...I have to agree with you 100% here.  My dog is not small either.  She's 8.5 years old and has never bitten anyone but I always get nervous when clueless parents allow their children to charge the dog and stick their face in hers (which is a sign of canine aggression) and hang onto her around her neck.  Actually it really p*sses me off, but I'm afraid if I start yelling that the dog will get upset and perhaps nip.

Anyway parents, please teach your children to have respect for strange dogs.  Any dog, really.
 
2013-07-11 04:36:49 PM  
rummage.files.wordpress.com

You Wouldn't Hit a Bat with Glasses on, Would You?
 
2013-07-11 05:27:02 PM  
Was it just me who thought it was one of these?

imageshack.us
 
msP
2013-07-11 05:32:14 PM  

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 just... I don't understand... it's not like his ONLY two option were dog gets eaten by bobcat or dog gets beaten to death my bat (which could arguably be more painful, depending on how fast that bobcat devoured him). He could have taken it to a shelter, a vet, posted on Craigslist about getting rid of it, any number of options. In this case, the "dick option" SHOULD be a crime because he had other, NON-DICK options available.

It kind of makes me sick that you can try and justify his behavior when it is so obvious he could have done so many other things instead...
 
msP
2013-07-11 05:33:55 PM  
It was his dog, let him do what he wants with it...but yeah, don't let him have another.

So if I have a child and it pisses me off to the point I don't want it anymore, I get to beat it to death with a bat because it's mine?

/I BROUGHT YOU INTO THIS WORLD, I CAN TAKE YOU OUT OF IT.
//But seriously, that's farked up.
 
2013-07-11 06:20:47 PM  

Lars The Canadian Viking: Do people think the only way that is ok to kill an animal is with a vet and a needle?


I use a suppressed .22, personally.
 
2013-07-11 06:26:51 PM  

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


Most of what I've seen is that, done properly, a hit with a bat could be a humane death.  Most doubt it was that, but feel that the court decided that the prosecution failed to prove that it was done inhumanely.  They think it was, but it wasn't proven.

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

You're assuming it was done slowly.  I'd also argue that the bear/bobcat would most likely be predated by a period of thirst and/or starvation.  A 7 month old puppy or child isn't going to know where to go to get water or food in a strange area.  Sure, sometimes they survive, but it's actually fairly rare and involves a dog closer to being an adult.

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.

Personally, I keyed in on 'Bit the children'.  There's very little wiggle with that in my mind.

4. It's quite alright that this guy has or is around children. Totes.

See #3.  He may have priorities.

My answers would change with the court's.  If they actually proved torture/abuse, THEN you can charge him with all that and take away the kids.
 
2013-07-11 06:40:16 PM  
jesus christ, who let all the sexually repressed, 14 y/o sociopaths into this thread?
 
2013-07-11 07:16:54 PM  
It seems like his real crime here was being cheap. If he'd just paid to have the dog euthanized by a vet, this would be considered a non-issue. The only pertinent question here is whether the dog suffered more from this than it would have from accepted legal means of putting an animal down. So we have the bat... while it's an impractical method, it might not be inherently cruel. A terrier is pretty small, so it's possible a single crack to the head ended its life. Without a witness or the examination necessary to determine how many times the man had to strike the dog, there's no case.
 
2013-07-11 08:07:26 PM  

you have pee hands: Killing a person with a bat wouldn't be torture either, just murder.


Begs to differ. (NSFW)
 
2013-07-11 09:14:32 PM  

kronicfeld: No, it's just reflective of a f*cked-up brain.


Cold_Sassy: Fark off, jackhole.


Allen. The end.: Not today, farkstick. Eat shiat you farking loser. Really. Go die.


None of you have obviously lived on a farm where you eat what you raise.

I can only imagine how "inhumane" slaughtering animals was prior to the invention of firearms or electrocution.  For pigs they would literally beat them unconscious and then cut their throat and bleed them out.
 
2013-07-12 03:00:51 PM  
HERE'S THE FUGHKIN LOSER!!!!!   I LIVE IN A NEARBY STATE - GONNA FIND YOU - GOT A BAT WITH YOUR NAME ON IT!!!!

thumbs.mugshots.com

cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2013-07-12 03:18:54 PM  

bluefoxicy: This is the same reason we don't execute people with a bullet to the head. Think about lethal injection:


My preference for execution today would be Nitrogen asphyxiation.  Humans don't have an O2 sensing system, we have a CO2 one.  So if you flush all the oxygen out of the room(with Nitrogen, for example), you'll asphyxiate without knowing it.  The signs of insufficient oxygen is something we have to train pilots to recognize, and it's not even always successful then.

So the deal is:
You're put in a sealed room.  You know you're going to die.  You 'suddenly' get tired, go to sleep, and never wake up.
 
Displayed 78 of 78 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report