I let this one slip by, and I'm sorry. PETA is asking Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Gerald Horne to go after two addled miscreants from the Graham area, who plucked, then killed a neighbor's duck for dinner. In a press release sub-headlined, "Community Should Fear For Public Safety," a PETA spokesperson says:
According to leading mental health professionals and law enforcement agencies, perpetrators of violent acts against animals are often repeat offenders who pose a serious threat not only to other animals, but the community as a whole."
I think these guys were just cheap. PETA should stick to fish empathy.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 27, 2005 01:21 PM | Email ThisThe request stems from an incident earlier this month in which the men allegedly attacked a neighbor’s duck by pulling out the animal’s feathers, beating her with a hammer, and encouraging a dog to attack her before they killed her and ate her remains.
I almost just lost my Chicken Teriyaki lunch!
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 27, 2005 01:22 PMI suspect the point PETA was trying to make is that these creeps did it maliciously, not just because they were hungry and that often that kind of maliciousness is a precursor to treating people violently.
Beware the armed-and-dangerous cannibals!
Posted by: Mike on January 27, 2005 02:20 PMSorry. Looney Tunes flashback.
They should be punished (severely) for treating the duck with deliberate cruelty, and for destroying their neighbor's property.
Just because PETA wants something to happen does not in itself mean it shouldn't happen.
Posted by: ScottM on January 27, 2005 02:27 PMPlus the mink farmer lost lots of $$ from their so-called humane-ness. Those people have no sense!
Posted by: Susu on January 27, 2005 02:29 PMSeriously, replace the word "duck" with "cat" or "dog" and you'll find it a whole lot more revolting. I don't care if someone has a pet cow, just because other animals of the same species are commonly slaughtered and eaten, doesn't mean that it's any less horrific to have your pet treated that way.
I'm a meat eater, and I usually disagree with PETA on nearly every position they take, but in this case the fact that this animal was someone's pet is what makes me side with them. In my thinking, pet animals have a higher standing than others, because of the emotional investment made by their owners. I lost a very dear pet cat over a year ago, and I was so emotionally distraught that I missed a day of work, and still tear up just thinking about him. And his death was due to natural causes, I can't even imagine what I'd have done if someone had killed him.
Posted by: Jason on January 27, 2005 02:53 PMThat may be true...but doesn't it change the burden of proof? (trying to remove smirk from face)
Posted by: South County on January 27, 2005 02:54 PMAnd: what IS the right way to kill a duck, assuming it's your own, not your neighbor's? Just wondering.
Posted by: Matt R. on January 27, 2005 06:58 PMHow do you kill a duck?
Possibly the same way we used to kill a chicken before we plucked it...you take it by the neck and swing it round and round til the neck is broken. That's the good old farm way. Of course, PETA would never approve. I'm sure that's cruelty in their textbook world.
Posted by: Susu on January 27, 2005 10:05 PMI think your entry says a lot more about your relationship to the truth than it does at PETA.
Posted by: D. Andersen on January 29, 2005 02:17 PM