Sorry about this but this will be interesting, beware it is a public poll:

Do you think it's ok to cause physical harm to the accused in an animal rights case?

Sorry but i dont get the question. :\

Tbh .. Me neither.

Quote from G!NhO :

Sorry but i dont get the question. :\

...Ok "Mike was brought to court for causing harm to a Shetland Pony, outside the courtroom a member of the public stabbed Mike in the torso, Mike died later in hospital"

Do you think Mike got what was coming to him or was this unjust, Y/N?

Ok, well i will never do it but i can understand people will do it.

I voted yes. BTW poll fails. " Yes, but i'd like to keep my privacy on this " - G!NhO

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

I voted yes. BTW poll fails. " Yes, but i'd like to keep my privacy on this " - G!NhO

keep em coming

lol ye i didnt really understand it

Quote from speedway :

Joe is later brought to court, outside the courtroom Mike's father shoots him in the face.

Do you think Joe got what was coming to him?

oh this thread can only go well lol

Quote from speedway :

Joe is later brought to court, outside the courtroom Mike's father shoots him in the face.

Do you think Joe got what was coming to him?

The line must be drawn with the human being most important, if not we go extinct, so yes Joe caused death to another human so indeed Mikes father and Joe should be given a jail sentence.(yes)

Lower yourself to their level? Nah.

Lower yourself to their level? Yah. Let them feel how it is. *muwhahaha smiley*

He's asking if you should be allowed to attack someone who attacked animals.

No, they should just be prosecuted as if it were a human being, instead of a dog/cat/hamster, whatever.

He didn't deserve to be stabbed. But he should have had shampoo and purfume tested on his eyeballs for a few years instead. Possibly instead of gaol - thus curing the problem of full prisons and animal testing in one fell swoop. I suspect (though I have no evidence to back this up) that your average shop lifter wouldn't swap the playstation relaxation of prison for Head and Shoulders in their eyes.

Quote from tristancliffe :

He didn't deserve to be stabbed. But he should have had shampoo and purfume tested on his eyeballs for a few years instead. Possibly instead of gaol - thus curing the problem of full prisons and animal testing in one fell swoop. I suspect (though I have no evidence to back this up) that your average shop lifter wouldn't swap the playstation relaxation of prison for Head and Shoulders in their eyes.

same here, Cause harm and risk being harmed. To the point befor being hospitalised is where it should stop. this is in addition to standard prosecution in my book.

No. The less violence in this world, the better.
Animal violence is too much, punishing with violence makes things even worse.

It's amazing how creative victims or owners of victim animals can be when it comes to payback to the prick that dun' it. Perhaps those (non-violent only) ideas should be polled in court and executed by the highest bidder.

Sorry but, if we can't do it when humans are involved, why would we do this with animal cases? I never saw a rule somewhere that says 'Hey this guy killed a man so go and stab him' so why would it apply to animals...

We do the right to a fair trial, and common sense rather than barbarism. We've stopped running naked around huts chopping off the genitalia of Roman invaders for a reason.

I am not sure what to think, animals has right, if they are going to die, to die a switft and painless death IMO.
There will amost certainly allways be used animals for different purposes in science, but as long as they don't get a slow and painfull death I accept that.

Quote from duke_toaster :

We've stopped running naked around huts chopping off the genitalia of Roman invaders for a reason.

They started making sports cars?

Btw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

In all seriousness, animal welfare is important in many aspects however animal testing does have its uses. If it was removed, we would end up with a lot more of these.

i dont get the question.
do you mean if its right to get violent to animals or get violent to people who get violent to animals??

i think its not right to torment animals they are just living being like us, too.
also it depends on what kind of animal it is and HOW you treat it

just my opinion

I'd say, if anyone who abuses an animal he should get same thing.

I have a small cute dog and if anyone ever hurts her i wont let him walk away.

There was this case in Norway some time ago, where two neightbours had been disagreeing for a time, about a barking dog one of them had. One day the one of them got enough, and killed the other's dog. When the other man noticed this, he ran over to the neightbour and killed him by a shot.

In the court this man did not recive any punishment / sentece, the judge or statement from the jury stated that the person could not be counted as rehaible in the moment of action, due to the loss of his dogs.

Just as a reminder.

Been a lot of ugly cases in Norway the last years about people abusing cats for entertainment, sadly police don't give a shit, even if you tell them who's the guilty is, even with pictures. In my hometown there was this gang that enjoyed killing small cars for the laught, one of the neightbours managed to get it on tape while they abused the one cat, police never did anything. I swear, if I see one of these idiots again, I'll put my finger in his eyes and hurts him/them, seriously.

Quote from franky500 :

same here, Cause harm and risk being harmed. To the point befor being hospitalised is where it should stop. this is in addition to standard prosecution in my book.

Ship 'em off to Cuba and let the American torturers sort 'em out.

If I was king I'd have a new crime of 'Proposing Stupid Punishments For Highly Emotional Offenses' which would carry the death penalty, after which the victim would be revived and re-killed as many times as possible.

Then they'd have one of their eyebrows shaved off so they look a bit silly.