NationStates Jolt Archive

More evidence Minnesota has gone insane.

Minn. woman gets probation in pig abuse case

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_us/pig_abuse;_ylt=AlRbDEQxo0hl3HcC0QpA6EtvzwcF

their is a distinction between pets and food animals. the pig here was a pet. the pigs having their heads cut off were food animals.

The insanity being...?

The insanity being...?

You dont arrest people for overfeeding breakfast.

I don't know, if you let your pet get that overweight when you, as the responsible adult, are supposed to be looking after its welfare, I think you should be held accountable for its care or lack thereof.

And anyone who could let a collar get so embedded that the skin grows around it and it needs to be surgically removed is at the very best neglectful and shouldn't have anything to do with the care of an animal, and at worst abusive.

You seem to be missing that part.

Since there is a similar custodial relationship between kids and pets (insofar as, as their source of food, shelter, and medical care you are similarly responsible), please take a look at this. (This is not meant to equate kids to pets; just that this is the closest analogy that can be made.)
http://www.cwla.org/voice/0807obesity.htm

Recent Court Cases
In recent years, as a result of the obesity epidemic that has swept the nation, several state courts have had to grapple with deciding cases of first impression. Specifically, state courts in California, Indiana, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas have had to determine whether morbidly obese children whose parents are unable or unwilling to control their children's weight against medical orders are properly considered abused or neglected.

The California case, decided in 1998, involved a 13-yearold girl named Christina Ann Corrigan* who weighed more than 680 pounds; the Indiana case, decided in the late 1990s, involved a 4-year-old boy named Cory Andis who weighed 111 pounds; the New Mexico case, decided in 2000, involved a 3-year-old girl named Anamarie Martinez-Regino who weighed 131 pounds; the New York case, decided in 2007, involved a young adolescent girl named Brittany who weighed 261 pounds; the Pennsylvania case, decided in 2002, involved a 16-year-old boy named D.K. who was just over five feet tall but weighed in excess of 451 pounds; and the Texas case, decided in 2002, involved a 4-year-old boy named G.C. who weighed more than 136 pounds. All these courts, except the California court, adjudicated the children to be neglected and reached this conclusion by expanding their states' statutory definition of medical neglect to encompass morbid obesity. In the California case, the child died before the case was heard. The court did, however, ultimately charge her mother with misdemeanor child abuse through inaction.

A second issue that state courts have struggled with in cases involving dangerously obese children is determining the proper mode of state intervention to help these children and their families prior to and after adjudication. The New York court ordered nutritional counseling and cooking classes for the obese child and her mother and also required the parents to purchase a gymnasium membership for their morbidly obese daughter and take her there two or three times per week; several state courts ordered that state-commissioned homemakers be sent into the households to model appropriate cooking and feeding techniques; and the Pennsylvania court ordered the child be taught how to exercise. In each of these cases, except the California case, the child was removed from the home at least temporarily and placed in foster care.

In the Texas case, parental rights were terminated, and in the California and Indiana cases, criminal charges were filed against the parents. It should be noted, however, that in the California case, the charges were ultimately reduced, and in neither the California nor the Indiana case were the parents sentenced to prison. In the California case, the mother was originally charged with felony child abuse and endangerment, but she was eventually convicted only of misdemeanor child abuse through inaction. In the Indiana case, Cory Andis' parents plead guilty to criminal child neglect. The court ordered Cory's mother to serve one-and-a-half years probation and perform 100 hours of community service for endangering Cory's health. Cory's father was placed on probation for three years.

So yes, there ARE legal ramifications for "overfeeding breakfast".

You dont arrest people for overfeeding breakfast.
You most certainly do.

For a start, the pig wasn't 'breakfast', it was a pet. Further, abuse of animals, even those destined for the slaughterhouse, is still a criminal act.

You most certainly do.

For a start, the pig wasn't 'breakfast', it was a pet. Further, abuse of animals, even those destined for the slaughterhouse, is still a criminal act.


Pet as defined by who? Are you telling me I couldn't have a pig as a pet then next week completely change my mind and decide its going to be breakfast?


Overfeeding and a tight collar on potential breakfast does not constitute a reason for a human being to be detained by the State. And then we wonder why we have more criminals per capita then any other nation in thew world. Its because we make crimes of stupid shit like this.

If overfeeding constituted abuse then there are about 100 million housewives that also need to be arrested.

Pet as defined by who?
By the people who kept the pig as a pet.

Read your own source.

Are you telling me I couldn't have a pig as a pet then next week completely change my mind and decide its going to be breakfast?
No (though as a vegetarian I'd object).

What I am telling you, however, is that feeding a nonhuman animal to the point at which you are endangering its health is unacceptable.

Overfeeding and a tight collar on potential breakfast does not constitute a reason for a human being to be detained by the State.
So at what point does animal abuse become a punishable crime for you?

By the people who kept the pig as a pet.

Read your own source.

So using the exact same powers i used to bequeath the original title "Pet" i now withdraw that title. It shall be done. Its new name is stock #2856295. Or Bacon. I cant decide.



No (though as a vegetarian I'd object).

What I am telling you, however, is that feeding a nonhuman animal to the point at which you are endangering its health is unacceptable.


So at what point does animal abuse become a punishable crime for you?

For food production animals, a bare minimum.

A commercial chicken coop for example, is a mass murder yard. Chickens are mean things and attack and kill each other all the time, Should you be required to put each chicken in a padded room because you have a supposed obligation to separate them or you should go to jail for allowing animals to fight? How ridiculous do you want to get?

So using the exact same powers i used to bequeath the original title "Pet" i now withdraw that title. It shall be done. Its new name is stock #2856295. Or Bacon. I cant decide.
Do you have a point to make?

How ridiculous do you want to get?
Not as ridiculous as your 'arguments'.

What exactly are you objecting to? Do you feel that the actions of Ms. Beesecker are valid?

EDIT: You seem to be suggesting that because the animal is of a species that is commonly consumed by humans, abusive treatment towards it is acceptable.

Would you object, for example, to a women feeding a dog so much that it gained 100 pounds over its normal weight and had to have its collar removed surgically?

Valid isnt the proper term. Not guilty is.

Do you have a point to make?


Yes, you were affording protections to "Pets" and i was explaining how easily the term "pet" can be changed so those specific protections shouldnt apply.

Valid isnt the proper term. Not guilty is.
Wait, so you don't think that enabling an animal to gain a dangerous amount of weight is abusive?

Yes, you were affording protections to "Pets" and i was explaining how easily the term "pet" can be changed so those specific protections shouldnt apply.
So you do think that because the animal is of a species that is commonly consumed by humans, abusive treatment towards it is acceptable?

That makes no sense.

Intestinal fluids, this was animal abuse, whether it was a pet (it was) or food (it wasn't)......you don't get to abuse food animals. It's not legal or moral. When you grow animals for food you are charged with treating them humanely right up until it's time for slaughter and even then you are supposed to kill them in the least painful/traumatizing way. If you fail to care for/kill an animal properly you can get into trouble.

Wait, so you don't think that enabling an animal to gain a dangerous amount of weight is abusive?


So you do think that because the animal is of a species that is commonly consumed by humans, abusive treatment towards it is acceptable?

That makes no sense.

Commercial harvesting of meat is inherently cruel. Its unavoidable and one of those oh well thats how nature designed it sort of things and I accept it as part of life just like I accept the sun. You cant prevent animal cruelty in food production animals period and to give a million dollar contract to one and jail to another makes little sense, ESPECIALLY for feeding it too much and a tight collar? Are you serious? Lets use our limited court resources on real criminals and real problems shall we?

Intestinal fluids, this was animal abuse, whether it was a pet (it was) or food (it wasn't)......you don't get to abuse food animals. It's not legal or moral. When you grow animals for food you are charged with treating them humanely right up until it's time for slaughter and even then you are supposed to kill them in the least painful/traumatizing way. If you fail to care for/kill an animal properly you can get into trouble.

The concept is silly to me, thats like saying make sure you give the animal a nice meal before we electrocute it. It might make your conscience feel better that it was well treated before we committed the ultimate cruelty but its still hypocritical. Its still a death sentence and nothing can top that on the cruelty list no matter how you try to adjust the window dressings. As a pig, too much food rates way down here on my scale of cruelty, and chopping my head off no matter how nicely i was treated prior is WAYYYYY up there.

Pigs are a commodity not a pet.

Commercial harvesting of meat is inherently cruel. Its unavoidable...
No it's not; we can stop commercially harvesting meat.

But this is not the issue. If you object to the hypocrisy of condemning a women for animal abuse while supporting an industry that abuses animals, I can only support you. But you seem to be saying that the animal abuse of overfeeding the pig is a non-issue. You haven't a clear position.

Furthermore, as Smunkee has rightly said, this particular kind of animal abuse is illegal, even within the meat industry.

Lets use our limited court resources on real criminals and real problems shall we?
Is the inherent cruelty of meat processing/animal abuse a problem or not?

Pigs are a commodity not a pet.
They clearly are; the unfortunate animal featured in the article was both a pig and a pet.

The concept is silly to me, thats like saying make sure you give the animal a nice meal before we electrocute it. It might make your conscience feel better that it was well treated before we committed the ultimate cruelty but its still hypocritical. Its still a death sentence and nothing can top that on the cruelty list no matter how you try to adjust the window dressings.

Pigs are a commodity not a pet.Quick and painless death at the end of a good life is not the same as tortured every day up until it is killed in whatever way possible.

I'm confused why you can't see that distinction. Putting an animal through unnecessary pain is abuse.

Quick and painless death at the end of a good life is not the same as tortured every day up until it is killed in whatever way possible.

I'm confused why you can't see that distinction. Putting an animal through unnecessary pain is abuse.

As a pig, too much food rates way down here on my scale of cruelty, and chopping my head off no matter how nicely i was treated prior is WAYYYYY up there. If the greater cruelty is socially accepted how can over feeding not be?

As a pig, too much food rates way down here on my scale of cruelty, and chopping my head off no matter how nicely i was treated prior is WAYYYYY up there.
Ever seen Se7en?

It's arguable that the pain and discomfort of overfeeding vastly outweighs that of the pain of a quick death. If you're going to discount abuse of animals less than death, then you seem to be heading down a road of condoning all manner of horrific animal abuse.

As a pig, too much food rates way down here on my scale of cruelty, and chopping my head off no matter how nicely i was treated prior is WAYYYYY up there.One is quick pain, the other is slow, drawn out pain.

And I thought your argument was they are food, so why do you care about the head chopping? Should we just take the bits we want to eat off a live pig?

As a pig, too much food rates way down here on my scale of cruelty, and chopping my head off no matter how nicely i was treated prior is WAYYYYY up there. If the greater cruelty is socially accepted how can over feeding not be?

Thankfully your scale of cruelty isn't the legal standard. A long, painful, drawn-out death is far worse than a quick, neat, relatively-painless death. One qualifies as torture. One qualifies as execution. Even amongst humans, one is completely illegal while the other is legal in a very limited sense.

One is quick pain, the other is slow, drawn out pain.

Should we just take the bits we want to eat off a live pig?

It wouldnt be commercially viable, but if pigs regenerated like a star fish you can bet if it made commercial sense we would.

Pet as defined by who? Are you telling me I couldn't have a pig as a pet then next week completely change my mind and decide its going to be breakfast?Are you saying some one couldn't have a pig for the purpose of food, but change his mind and keep it as a pet?

Irregardless of whether it is a pet or for food, treat the animal humanely up until its death. Seems cut and dry.

Yes, you were affording protections to "Pets" and i was explaining how easily the term "pet" can be changed so those specific protections shouldnt apply.

Pet or breakfast it don't matter. There are laws regarding animal welfare, you disagreeing with them makes no matter at all. The woman broke the law and so is being punished. *shrug*

The concept is silly to me, thats like saying make sure you give the animal a nice meal before we electrocute it. It might make your conscience feel better that it was well treated before we committed the ultimate cruelty but its still hypocritical. Its still a death sentence and nothing can top that on the cruelty list no matter how you try to adjust the window dressings. As a pig, too much food rates way down here on my scale of cruelty, and chopping my head off no matter how nicely i was treated prior is WAYYYYY up there.

Pigs are a commodity not a pet.

Those on death row have to be treated humanely.

But I am vegetarian against the death penalty.

Overfeeding and a tight collar on potential breakfast does not constitute a reason for a human being to be detained by the State. And then we wonder why we have more criminals per capita then any other nation in thew world. Its because we make crimes of stupid shit like this.

If overfeeding constituted abuse then there are about 100 million housewives that also need to be arrested.

There are laws about the way even animals designated for slaughter must be cared for and how they may be killed. The fact that many big industry farms don't follow these rules does not invalidate their existence.

Humane slaughtering of an animal for food is legal. Torturing animals is not legal. If you can't see any difference between the two, I don't think any amount of debate can help you.

Our prisons are not crowded with people who were mean to their pets. They're crowded with drug addicts and the mentally ill. But that was a good try.

Overfeeding CAN be considered child abuse in extreme cases, where the child's health is severely impacted. People have had their children taken away by the state for it.

Pigs are a commodity not a pet.

In many places, dogs are seen the same way. However, if someone came to my house, tortured my dog, killed her and ate her, would you consider that a simple case of theft? Hey, dogs are commodities, we could probably settle out of court if they just gave me a new dog, right?

Or I could introduce them to the rear bumper of my car. Repeatedly.

In many places, dogs are seen the same way. However, if someone came to my house, tortured my dog, killed her and ate her, would you consider that a simple case of theft? Hey, dogs are commodities, we could probably settle out of court if they just gave me a new dog, right?

Or I could introduce them to the rear bumper of my car. Repeatedly.

What made me laugh at that insane sentance is the fact that any animal kept as a pet is by definition a pet. And no amount of disagreement changes that.

Rather like the umm disgreement I had with one of my brothers last night, I explained to him that his disbeliveing that Newtons 2nd law of motion is true in no way makes it not true.

Pet as defined by who? Are you telling me I couldn't have a pig as a pet then next week completely change my mind and decide its going to be breakfast?


Now I'm not farmer but I am pretty sure the only use of pot-bellied pigs is as pets of some sort.