Animal abuse "crush fetish" charges dropped

[Paulinator]

Can someone explain to me why there's a statute of limitations for a crime that involves "models" crushing animals to death with high heels, or wounding them with a gun and burning them alive? These two woman (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/29/4145147/animal-cruelty-charges-dropped.html) did not have any charges pressed against them, despite video evidence and an admission.

[Asta Kask]

I assume for the same reason that there are statutes of limitation on other crimes.


The purpose and effect of Statutes of Limitation is to protect defendants. There are three reasons that support the existence of Statutes of Limitation, namely: (a) that a plaintiff with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence; (b) that a defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim; and (c) that long dormant claims have more cruelty than justice in them (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition). The general rule is that the limitation period begins when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrues or is made to be aware of the injury that might have happened a long time ago (e.g., asbestos injury).

[WarKitty]

Not really sure it's possible to talk about this without getting into politics.

[Mono Vertigo]

I don't know, but this thread's title (and content I guess) has definitely fulfilled some kind of quota for the week for me. And it's only monday. Noon.

[Themrys]

Can someone explain to me why there's a statute of limitations for a crime that involves "models" crushing animals to death with high heels, or wounding them with a gun and burning them alive? These two woman (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/29/4145147/animal-cruelty-charges-dropped.html) did not have any charges pressed against them, despite video evidence and an admission.

Why should charges be pressed against them, but not the producer of the video? I mean, they were young (not even adult, it seems) and needed the money, and one can reasonably assume that they will not do it again.

It's disturbing that are men who want to watch videos like this. :smalleek:

[Paulinator]

Why should charges be pressed against them, but not the producer of the video? I mean, they were young (not even adult, it seems) and needed the money, and one can reasonably assume that they will not do it again.

It's disturbing that are men who want to watch videos like this. :smalleek:

Probably because the creator uses an alias and it would be very hard to track the creator down. They can only work with what they have.

[Asta Kask]

We don't prosecute people because that's all we've got. We prosecute them because they broke the law. The reason we punish them is another matter, and not for this board.

[Paulinator]

We don't prosecute people because that's all we've got. We prosecute them because they broke the law. The reason we punish them is another matter, and not for this board.

And how does one establish if they broke the law? We look at the evidence. If there is little to none and the person cannot be found, then an attempt to prosecute would be a big waste of money and time. A prosecution is taken only if they believe there's enough evidence for a possible conviction.

So yes, for a prosecution case, "what they have" is going to have a huge say in it.

[Asta Kask]

And how does one establish if they broke the law? We look at the evidence. If there is little to none and the person cannot be found, then an attempt to prosecute would be a big waste of money and time. A prosecution is taken only if they believe there's enough evidence for a possible conviction.

So yes, for a prosecution case, "what they have" is going to have a huge say in it.

Yes, but what I mean is that we don't take a couple of people who aren't really responsible and charge them because of some primal desire for revenge. If these girls are not chargeable under the law then that's just the way it is. We can change the law, of course, but that's the kind of thing we shouldn't discuss here.

[Paulinator]

Yes, but what I mean is that we don't take a couple of people who aren't really responsible and charge them because of some primal desire for revenge. If these girls are not chargeable under the law then that's just the way it is. We can change the law, of course, but that's the kind of thing we shouldn't discuss here.

Not responsible? They were the ones doing the action.

I have to invoke Godwin's law, sorry, but is the SS guard who throws people into a gas chamber to get killed not responsible just because his superiors ordered him to do it?

[Asta Kask]

Not responsible? They were the ones doing the action.

The producer and the director would be the main targets of my ire.


I have to invoke Godwin's law, sorry, but is the SS guard who throws people into a gas chamber to get killed not responsible just because his superiors ordered him to do it?

Read Themrys's post again.

Anyway, you've had your answer. The statutes of limitations are there for reasons. You want to challenge that, that's political.

[Themrys]

Probably because the creator uses an alias and it would be very hard to track the creator down. They can only work with what they have.

Maybe, but it is not fair to use the women as target for your desire for revenge just because they are those who can be tracked.

The reason why you perceive that video as so extraordinary evil is the fact that it was made for titillation. That, however, is not a crime committed by those women - who did it for money, same as those who work in the meat industry - but by all those who watch such videos, and, arguably, those who invest money to produce them.

I agree that animals shouldn't be abused, but as it is, it is completely legal to kill animals, and while causing undue pain to a vertebrate animal without sensible reason is illegal in theory, it is done all the time and almost never punished in practice. I believe those women that they didn't know it wasn't legal to kill animals in a painful way for the titillation of men.

[Paulinator]

Maybe, but it is not fair to use the women as target for your desire for revenge just because they are those who can be tracked.

The reason why you perceive that video as so extraordinary evil is the fact that it was made for titillation. That, however, is not a crime committed by those women - who did it for money, same as those who work in the meat industry - but by all those who watch such videos, and, arguably, those who invest money to produce them.

I agree that animals shouldn't be abused, but as it is, it is completely legal to kill animals, and while causing undue pain to a vertebrate animal without sensible reason is illegal in theory, it is done all the time and almost never punished in practice. I believe those women that they didn't know it wasn't legal.

Not fair?

Perhaps they should have thought about attracting the ire of people before torturing animals to death. They deserve all the criticism they get.

Don't pretend to know my reason please, fundamentally it's because they painfully tortured them to death. The sex aspect just makes it worse. Considering they were 17-18, and coming from a first world country, it is unlikely they did not know this was not legal (or wrong). Rabbits and rats from the pet store - here's $XX to burn them alive and slowly step on them to death. And you believe they didn't know? Quite frankly, anyone who works as a model but deliberately chooses to make their money this way are well aware of what they're doing. It's not like they didn't have a choice, or had no other options. A niche of something that specific suggests to me they have no qualms involving themselves with it, just a quick buck. To be "manipulated" into torturing animals in a porno flick is either a lie to absolve personal responsibility, or they are one of the dumbest people on earth who can't think for themselves. Which one is most likely here?

To suggest they are innocent victims is completely ridiculous, and to say that it's not fair to point scorn at these woman and deserving of legal punishment is even more ridiculous.

[Paulinator]

Read Themrys's post again.

This person is painting them as victims.

They are not victims, they are complicit mindless savages who chose to do something that they did not have to do.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Well it looks like Orson Lannister is safe...

[Asta Kask]

This person is painting them as victims.

They are not victims, they are complicit mindless savages who chose to do something that they did not have to do.

Not so much victims as human beings. We can rationalize a surprising amount of horribleness. Look at the Milgram experiments, for instance.

[Paulinator]

Not so much victims as human beings. We can rationalize a surprising amount of horribleness. Look at the Milgram experiments, for instance.

They are hardly human.

At this day and age, these girls have access to a world of knowledge. They live in a first world country with many resources at their disposal. They have their own Facebooks, so are aware of social media. And somehow they can't put 1 and 1 together when a person is asking them to mutilate and burn cute cuddly pet store animals in a porn flick? Apparently being involved in all the other sub-fetishes that didn't involve animal torture (or even applying for ****-end jobs) was just too much for them.

[Aedilred]

Rule of law, ain't it. If it's limitation-barred, it's barred. You can't uphold the law by breaking it.

Plus, like Themrys said, the people available for prosecution are sufficiently low on the food chain of the crime committed here that it raises a question of motive in the prosecution and public interest, all things considered. Even if there were a prerogative available to suspend the limitation period, there'd be a question-mark over whether it would be appropriate to use it in their case.


They have their own Facebooks, so are aware of social media.
They do now. They almost certainly didn't when the video was made, given that it was over ten years ago.

[Paulinator]

It only shows that the legal system has some gaping holes in Florida. I wonder if you can appeal to a higher court and make an exception. Better yet, change the legislation.

Regardless, their reputations are forever sullied.


“We were manipulated and convinced that these things were alright,"


“The truth always comes out. I wasn’t guilty from the get-go,” Hird added. “Those were other models.”

"I didn't know it was wrong to torture animals" and "it wasn't me it wasn't me it was someone else" (despite the fact she's in those videos and her friend confesses it's her). But apparently it's not fair to point the finger at them. :smallannoyed:

[Asta Kask]

They are hardly human.

At this day and age, these girls have access to a world of knowledge. They live in a first world country with many resources at their disposal. They have their own Facebooks, so are aware of social media. And somehow they can't put 1 and 1 together when a person is asking them to mutilate and burn cute cuddly pet store animals in a porn flick? Apparently being involved in all the other sub-fetishes that didn't involve animal torture (or even applying for ****-end jobs) was just too much for them.

You realize they might not have had access to Facebook when the movies were made? If I read correctly, this was made in 2004 when Facebook was just being started. Social media was in its infancy in 2004. There was no YouTube and no Twitter. You know nothing about these girls' background, yet you think they're exactly like you and therefore should have the same values as you do. Maybe you should learn a little more about them before you condemn them.

[Frozen_Feet]

Gee, I thought I'd lighten things up by noting that "pretty young women are higher on the endangered species list than some squirrels" (or whatever animals they tortured to death), but to see Themrys defend them along those exact lines with apparent sincerity just kills the joke, man.

Seriously, the only reason they got away with it because the case was cold. It's a technicality, but it's a technicality that keeps courts from being swamped with obsolete charges and lets people move on with their lives, instead of worrying about enacting or being targeted by vengeance.

[warty goblin]

They are hardly human.
And we hit the point where the animal rights argument vaults the ocean-going apex predator. Deciding that humanity is conditional is a very appealing, very self-deluding, and very dangerous way to think.


At this day and age, these girls have access to a world of knowledge. They live in a first world country with many resources at their disposal. They have their own Facebooks, so are aware of social media. And somehow they can't put 1 and 1 together when a person is asking them to mutilate and burn cute cuddly pet store animals in a porn flick? Apparently being involved in all the other sub-fetishes that didn't involve animal torture (or even applying for ****-end jobs) was just too much for them.
I don't think anybody said they should have done it, merely that at this point in time prosecuting them for it would, in fact, be illegal. Breaking the law to uphold the law is not generally a sensible course of action.

[Paulinator]

Maybe you should learn a little more about them before you condemn them.

What, that they are animal torturing sadists?


You know nothing about these girls' background, yet you think they're exactly like you and therefore should have the same values as you do.

I don't need to know their backgrounds to call them scum. Much like I don't need to know the background of a serial rapist to call them scum either.

Yet I think - thank you for magically putting thoughts into my mind. Of course they're not like me: I don't torture animals in extremely brutal ways for sexual pleasure, or for a quick buck. I actually have values. Yes, they're not the same and thank god for that!

Their "behaviour" speaks volumes. It reflects on them as human beings. What kind of person wilfully tortures small animals for money? They're abhorrent people... and you seem to be defending them from criticism and/or scorn.

[Paulinator]

And we hit the point where the animal rights argument vaults the ocean-going apex predator. Deciding that humanity is conditional is a very appealing, very self-deluding, and very dangerous way to think.

Not quite. I said barely human, that meaning lacking humanity. I did not call them sub human.


I don't think anybody said they should have done it, merely that at this point in time prosecuting them for it would, in fact, be illegal. Breaking the law to uphold the law is not generally a sensible course of action.

Would it?

Can't a supreme court or a higher body overrule it, or make an exception?

[Theoboldi]

Not quite. I said barely human, that meaning lacking humanity. I did not call them sub human.


And what is the difference between those two?

[Paulinator]

And what is the difference between those two?

The difference is that they're still considered human beings.

Still scumbags though.

[Asta Kask]

So what do you know of their backgrounds? Their personalities? Their loves, their losses?

I do not defend their actions. I defend the rule of law. You asked a question, it has been answered. The statute of limitations is there for a good reason. At least I think so.

And I'm not one to cast any stones. I eat meat, I eat eggs, I drink milk, I use leather. And I don't care overmuch where the animals come from unless there's a highly publicized scandal going on. And I wring the neck of small animals my cats bring in - unless they are in a condition to be released, in which case I do - and give the carcasses to them to eat. Which they sometimes do, and sometimes leave decapitated mice in the kitchen. I value humans above other animals.

[Theoboldi]

The difference is that they're still considered human beings.

Still scumbags though.

And what difference does that make? I'm failing to see the point of insisting on this specific terminology.

[Fragenstein]

I don't need to know their backgrounds to call them scum. Much like I don't need to know the background of a serial rapist to call them scum either.

What about a falsely accused one? Have you seen the videos in question? Do you know for an absolute fact that their involvement hasn't been exaggerated by the media? We should all know by now that reporting will happily inflate the apparent guilt in a person if they make for a good ratings target.

They don't seem like great human beings to me, no. I'm guessing that the 1-year-old will have plenty to be embarrassed by while growing up, but that's only a guess. Just like I'm also guessing that some amount of shameful revenge will be seen in the next 15+ years once that daughter begins to star in her own videos, if she even waits that long.

I can dig that you feel personally invested in this story. You're passionate about justice and protecting the innocent. Just try not to forget that all the facts are needed before really putting someone in your crosshairs.

Without reviewing the actual evidence, for all we know their real level of involvement may be no more than saying a few lines while a stand-in foot or hand performed the real atrocities.

Or have you actually seen the videos? I don't have much urge to track them down, to be honest.

[Paulinator]

So what do you know of their backgrounds? Their personalities? Their loves, their losses?

As much as anyone who can glean from reading about them. Doesn't absolve them of such a disgusting act. Just because they can love and lose, doesn't mean they are not sadistic d-bags. Even the worst monsters of human history still love and lost. As far as personality goes, I ask you this: what kind of personality would wilfully torture small critters to death for sexual pleasure?


I do not defend their actions. I defend the rule of law. You asked a question, it has been answered. The statute of limitations is there for a good reason. At least I think so.

Should be on a case by case basis. I still think it's wrong that they are let off the hook. Five years is too short. What if they were caught five years and a day after the act, do you really think a day should determine the difference? The "rule", at least Florida's rule, is a joke. That you can't convict someone of brutal animal cruelty with evidence that is crystal clear, after five years from the fact is also a joke. Yes, I am saying the rule of law in this instance is a joke!


And I'm not one to cast any stones. I eat meat, I eat eggs, I drink milk, I use leather. And I don't care overmuch where the animals come from unless there's a highly publicized scandal going on. And I wring the neck of small animals my cats bring in - unless they are in a condition to be released, in which case I do - and give the carcasses to them to eat. Which they sometimes do, and sometimes leave decapitated mice in the kitchen. I value humans above other animals.

None of these are even remotely close to what they did and you know it.

[Shinken]

They are hardly human.

At this day and age, these girls have access to a world of knowledge. They live in a first world country with many resources at their disposal. They have their own Facebooks, so are aware of social media. And somehow they can't put 1 and 1 together when a person is asking them to mutilate and burn cute cuddly pet store animals in a porn flick? Apparently being involved in all the other sub-fetishes that didn't involve animal torture (or even applying for ****-end jobs) was just too much for them.

Was facebook around 10 years ago?

[Paulinator]

What about a falsely accused one? Have you seen the videos in question? Do you know for an absolute fact that their involvement hasn't been exaggerated by the media? We should all know by now that reporting will happily inflate the apparent guilt in a person if they make for a good ratings target.

Did you not read the article?


“What’s that? Don’t kill you? Hahahaha. That’s not gonna happen,” Hird says in one video before she squishes a minnow between her fingers.


While investigators say the proof the Miami models tortured and killed animals is clear to see, there was a major problem with their case: The videos were filmed so long ago that prosecutors said the crimes could not be punished.


In video clips posted on the site SOSBarn.com, police said Zamora, who went by the alias Gloria Shynez, karate-chopped screaming bunnies and mutilated chickens, sometimes wearing sexy outfits or engaging in sex acts with men amid the carcasses of animals.

These are statements directly from the police, and what was on the video. Do you think these were fabricated out of thin air, that they can just publish anything willy-nilly? In reporting legal cases they'd have their own lawyers giving them the green light, else they'd be sued for defamation. You don't accuse people in news reports for doing something terrible if you don't have anything to back it up with.


Without reviewing the actual evidence, for all we know their real level of involvement may be no more than saying a few lines while a stand-in foot or hand performed the real atrocities.

Their real level of involvement was actively torturing animals on film. This is what the police say, what the court documents say and what the video shows. The media reporting this would have access to this information.

Unless you're telling me that the news reports are all one big lie and everything was made up to sully their reputation?

[Theoboldi]

Was facebook around 10 years ago?

Yes. But by then, it had only existed since about 4 months.

[Paulinator]

Was facebook around 10 years ago?
MySpace did as well. It was big back then.

[Fragenstein]

Did you not read the article?

Inflate? These are statements directly from the police, and what was on the video. Do you think they can just publish anything willy-nilly? In reporting legal cases they'd have their own lawyers giving them the green light, else they'd be sued for defamation.

Their real level of involvement was actively torturing animals on film. This is what the police say, what the court documents say and what the video shows. The media reporting this would have access to this information.

Unless you're telling me that the news reports are all one big lie and everything was made up to sully their reputation?

Nah, not all of it. I just have my doubts when I start seeing jazzed-up lines like "karate-chopped screaming bunnies". That whole thing read like the worst kind of yellow journalism. I'm also not a big fan of "the police say", "investigators say", or "prosecutors claim", without actually naming a source.

I dislike the two just from that Instagram post. But I'm not willing to hang them based on a single article I've only read today.

[warty goblin]

As much as anyone who can glean from reading about them. Doesn't absolve them of such a disgusting act. Just because they can love and lose, doesn't mean they are not sadistic d-bags. Even the worst monsters of human history still love and lost. As far as personality goes, I ask you this: what kind of personality would wilfully torture small critters to death for sexual pleasure?

Presumably the sort who's turned on by it. Or, in the apparent case of these women, got paid. Rather like the people who work in hog confinements and slaughter houses, really.


Should be on a case by case basis. I still think it's wrong that they are let off the hook. Five years is too short. What if they were caught five years and a day after the act, do you really think a day should determine the difference? The "rule", at least Florida's rule, is a joke. That you can't convict someone of brutal animal cruelty with evidence that is crystal clear, after five years from the fact is also a joke. Yes, I am saying the rule of law in this instance is a joke!
No it absolutely should not. Justice needs to strive for fairness, and it's pretty hard to argue a system is remotely fair when one person gets tried under an entirely separate law code because they really pissed somebody off. Deciding the law on a case by case basis is the absolute opposite of justice and the rule of law; it's vengeance on the whim of whomever happens to be in charge this week.

[Paulinator]

Nah, not all of it. I just have my doubts when I start seeing jazzed-up lines like "karate-chopped screaming bunnies". That whole thing read like the worst kind of yellow journalism. I'm also not a big fan of "the police say", "investigators say", or "prosecutors claim", without actually naming a source.

I dislike the two just from that Instagram post. But I'm not willing to hang them based on a single article I've only read today.

Or perhaps that's actually what's on the video? Why would they make a reference to a karate chop if it didn't exist, they would have just used another expression, like "hit" or "clobber"?

Various articles also say she shot rats to wound them, then set them on fire. Do you think that's an exaggeration too?

[Paulinator]

Presumably the sort who's turned on by it. Or, in the apparent case of these women, got paid. Rather like the people who work in hog confinements and slaughter houses, really.


No it absolutely should not. Justice needs to strive for fairness, and it's pretty hard to argue a system is remotely fair when one person gets tried under an entirely separate law code because they really pissed somebody off. Deciding the law on a case by case basis is the absolute opposite of justice and the rule of law; it's vengeance on the whim of whomever happens to be in charge this week.

The people who work in slaughterhouses needn't bash and hit the animals unnecessarily. I wouldn't say all of them are like that.

Where is the fairness of allowing these people off scott free, when the evidence clearly shows them of wrongdoing? They got away with it. That isn't fair, it's ridiculous and pisses me right the hell off. In the UK I'm not even sure there's a statute of limitations for crimes like this. Do you think the statute should be upheld if they were caught doing this five years and a day after the fact? A day is the difference between punishment for a wrong, and getting away with it. Do you think that's justice? To be quite frank, there should be no statute of limitations of a crime of animal cruelty where the evidence is strong enough to show it beyond doubt. They had the evidence to convict them, all on video. Then... "sorry, happened 10 years ago, you're free to go". THIS is where I don't agree with such a statute!

[Asta Kask]

Or perhaps that's actually what's on the video? Why would they make a reference to a karate chop if it didn't exist, they would have just used another expression, like "hit" or "clobber"?

Why? To sell newspapers, of course. To get hits on their website. Is that so difficult to understand? Anyway, clobbering a rat or a mouse on a head is a very quick way to kill them.


Various articles also say she shot rats to wound them, then set them on fire. Do you think that's an exaggeration too?

I don't know. Watch the video and find out.

Anyway, if you do away with the rule of law for this then you are a greater threat to your fellow humans than any of these girls. You are protected by the principles you loath, the principles of equality before the law, the principles that we do not make laws against particular people but base them on principle. And if you can't understand that I recommend that you study some philosophy of law.

[Fragenstein]

Or perhaps that's actually what's on the video? Why would they make a reference to a karate chop if it didn't exist, they would have just used another expression, like "hit" or "clobber"?

Various articles also say she shot rats to wound them, then set them on fire. Do you think that's an exaggeration too?

Could be. It depends on the editing involved. I'm not trying to give them a pass for deplorable behavior. I just don't care much for lynching.

[Paulinator]

Why? To sell newspapers, of course. To get hits on their website. Is that so difficult to understand? Anyway, clobbering a rat or a mouse on a head is a very quick way to kill them.

You can't dismiss everything you read on a news story just because you think there might be a marketing zing to it. Whether it was a "karate chop" or some other form of chop isn't important, the important bit is the act of torture. And not necessarily, it depends on the force of the clobber. She clearly hit the animals with the intent to prolong its demise. These are rabbits, mind you, which would be a tad harder to clobber due to their size.


Anyway, if you do away with the rule of law for this then you are a greater threat to your fellow humans than any of these girls. You are protected by the principles you loath, the principles of equality before the law, the principles that we do not make laws against particular people but base them on principle. And if you can't understand that I recommend that you study some philosophy of law.

I'm not "doing away" with anything. I loathe the fact these people are going to get away with it because of a technicality. There is no statute of limitations regarding animal cruelty where I live, so saying "I am protected by this principle and that" isn't relevant. Even if there was, it would be a lot longer than five years. When it comes down to it, at this very core, these disgusting people got away with such heinous animal torture. That's what I'm pissed off about, statute or no statute. If Florida's legal system wasn't such a joke, then these people would be in jail for some months or heavily fined with an animal cruelty conviction under their name.

[Aedilred]

The rule of law can't be altered on a case-by-case basis to take account of specific facts. That is, in fact, a large part of what the rule of law is all about.

The statute of limitations is in place for a good reason. Unfortunately, sometimes cases will slip through the cracks, because it's impossible to craft such statute to take account of all eventualities. Sometimes prerogative powers are available to suspend it, but those powers need to be used very sparingly and in absolutely exceptional circumstances, which I'm not sure that this case, and this prosecution, is.

[Fragenstein]

You can't dismiss everything you read on a news story just because you think there might be a marketing zing to it.

I know. But I don't like seeing someone convicted in the media when the courts have allowed them liberty. Even if it's a stupid and ignorant legal system such as you claim Florida to have.

PETA is probably going to eat them alive anyway, whether their personal involvement is real or exaggerated. That might be a level of vigilante justice that'll satisfy you.

Right now, though, there's an ad at the top of the page I'm looking at that's making me uncomfortable. Apparently some guy is advocating the act of feeding rocks to dogs. Are you okay with that?

[aberratio ictus]

You guys are right in emphasizing the importance of the principles of law.

Still, Paulinator has every right to be furious about those women torturing animals and getting away with it. Everyone with a heart should be.

The law isn't a perfect machine, and sometimes its consequences don't sit well with us. I agree with some of the previous posters that those statutes are in existance for a reason. Still, this doesn't make this specific case feel any better.

[warty goblin]

The people who work in slaughterhouses needn't bash and hit the animals unnecessarily. I wouldn't say all of them are like that.

I am unsure of why jamming a hook up a pig's rectum so it catches on the pelvis and you can drag it around - occasionally disemboweling the creature in the process - or keeping a sow in a pen so small she can't turn around to make it easier to artificially inseminate her is not cruel, but cutting the head off a chicken while giving a guy a handjob is.

But what do I know. Maybe there's some missing quantum of cruelty in the first, because it's necessary to keep the price of double bacon cheeseburgers down under $4, but present in the second because adding an orgasm somewhere makes the whole thing somehow unnecessarily cruel in a way the first is not. I'm not an expert on animal psychology, but I doubt very much they distinguish.


Where is the fairness of allowing these people off scott free, when the evidence clearly shows them of wrongdoing? They got away with it. That isn't fair, it's ridiculous and pisses me right the hell off. In the UK I'm not even sure there's a statute of limitations for crimes like this. Do you think the statute should be upheld if they were caught doing this five years and a day after the fact? A day is the difference between punishment for a wrong, and getting away with it. Do you think that's justice? To be quite frank, there should be no statute of limitations of a crime of animal cruelty where the evidence is strong enough to show it beyond doubt. They had the evidence to convict them, all on video. Then... "sorry, happened 10 years ago, you're free to go". THIS is where I don't agree with such a statute!
It's fair in the sense that if somebody came up next week on the exact same charges stemming from a crime ten years ago, they would (hopefully) be let off for exactly the same reason. If they weren't, that would be a miscarriage of justice.

A day is also the difference between statutory rape and consensual sex. I don't think anybody considers some strange magic to happen on somebody's whateverith birthday that fills them with mystical consent particles, but that's how it goes. Laws that have any notion of time rather need to have hard cutoffs, which leads to some weird crap around the boundaries. The alternative is either no statute of limitations on anything, which is basically ridiculous, or somebody needs to figure out a sliding scale for these sorts of things. Deciding things on a case by case basis in the manner you are suggesting is, frankly, terrifying.

[Kalmageddon]

Gee, I thought I'd lighten things up by noting that "pretty young women are higher on the endangered species list than some squirrels" (or whatever animals they tortured to death), but to see Themrys defend them along those exact lines with apparent sincerity just kills the joke, man.
Best part is, she's nowhere to be found in the thread when somebody confronts her.
Too bad for the joke though, it was a good one.

Seriously, the only reason they got away with it because the case was cold. It's a technicality, but it's a technicality that keeps courts from being swamped with obsolete charges and lets people move on with their lives, instead of worrying about enacting or being targeted by vengeance.

Also, this.
You can run circles with morality and who's actually to blame all you want (altough I find the idea of these two womens claiming that "we didn't know torturing animals was bad! :smallfrown:" absolutely hilarious) but it's simply a matter of timing with the case.

[Paulinator]

I am unsure of why jamming a hook up a pig's rectum so it catches on the pelvis and you can drag it around - occasionally disemboweling the creature in the process - or keeping a sow in a pen so small she can't turn around to make it easier to artificially inseminate her is not cruel, but cutting the head off a chicken while giving a guy a handjob is.

Of course these are cruel. Though I am not particularly sure how common the former is, a practice like that seems unnecessarily barbaric and illegal.


A day is also the difference between statutory rape and consensual sex. I don't think anybody considers some strange magic to happen on somebody's whateverith birthday that fills them with mystical consent particles, but that's how it goes. Laws that have any notion of time rather need to have hard cutoffs, which leads to some weird crap around the boundaries. The alternative is either no statute of limitations on anything, which is basically ridiculous, or somebody needs to figure out a sliding scale for these sorts of things. Deciding things on a case by case basis in the manner you are suggesting is, frankly, terrifying.

Why should there be a statute of limitations on brutal and excessive cruelty to animals?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Why should there be a statute of limitations on brutal and excessive cruelty to animals?

Because there should be for everything. There should also be a statute of limitations for caring about this sort of thing.

[Paulinator]

Because there should be for everything. There should also be a statute of limitations for caring about this sort of thing.

Even for murder? Why?

[Aedilred]

Even for murder? Why?
Because the longer ago a crime occurred, the less able a defendant is to defend themselves effectively against any given charge. They are less likely to remember any alibi or the details of any activities undertaken, witnesses are likely to have died, forgotten or dispersed to the point of untraceability, additional evidence will have decayed, etc. That goes for prosecution evidence too: older evidence is generally less likely to be reliable.

In many such cases there will be enough reasonable doubt by default that conviction should be impossible anyway, but juries can be fickle beasts and presumption of innocence only goes so far.

In exceptional cases: generally, crimes that are terrible (murder, sex attacks, terrorism, certain forms of treason, possibly arson) and the prosecution case is watertight or new evidence has emerged (usually something like DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time) then in some jurisdictions prerogative powers exist to circumvent the limitation period and press a prosecution anyway. That's usually up to the relevant minister or the attorney-general or equivalent. But such powers need to be used sparingly and only when it's absolutely in the public interest that a prosecution go ahead. Pressing charges where a crime is not of utmost seriousness, where a defendant can no longer be considered to be a threat to society or reoffending risk, or the case is much weaker than open-and-shut even taking into account the evidence problems above - is just not in the public interest: it's a waste of time, money, valuable resources and in some situations could even be damaging to the judicial system itself.

For those who like their controversy: this is currently relevant in the UK in some of the post-Savile underage sex investigations in the UK (there's no limitation period on sex crimes here). Many of the offences took place so long ago (~40 years or more, in some cases) there is very little evidence either way, and it largely boils down to he-said-she-said, which is not conducive to doing justice either for the plaintiff or defendant.

[warty goblin]

Of course these are cruel. Though I am not particularly sure how common the former is, a practice like that seems unnecessarily barbaric and illegal.

My understanding is that it's a pretty common way of getting a recalcitrant hog up a ramp. It takes an exceptionally strong person to win a shoving match with a slaughter weight pig, let alone a couple hundred a day. Thanks to the demands of industrial meat production, pretty much the only thing that matters is raw throughput, so it's not like treating the animals (or the workers) in a remotely kind fashion is anywhere on the agenda.

(I live in Iowa, a state where hog confinements occasionally explode from the fermenting sewage, which is currently leaching into our water table, and the ammonia emissions show up on satellite spectral analysis. There are about seven times more hogs than humans in the state, but you can drive from one end of the state to the other without seeing a single pig, since they're all shoved in confinement operations. It's basically a porcine hell on earth, even when hooks aren't getting jammed up rectums. Worrying about what two young women did ten years ago to a couple of rabbits for a kinky website is rather like expressing concern that Mr. Hitler cheated on his wife.)



Why should there be a statute of limitations on brutal and excessive cruelty to animals?
What public good is served by prosecuting people this long after the fact? The risk of repeat offense seems pretty minimal, and if the charge is a felony the penalties are very stiff even after the sentence. Loss of voting rights, serious difficulty finding (legal) work. Frankly it seems rather extreme to ruin two people's lives over.

[Spiryt]

What public good is served by prosecuting people this long after the fact? The risk of repeat offense seems pretty minimal, and if the charge is a felony the penalties are very stiff even after the sentence. Loss of voting rights, serious difficulty finding (legal) work. Frankly it seems rather extreme to ruin two people's lives over.

They and the rest of the staff can always keep on shooting disgusting underground videos. :smalltongue:

Not that interested in seeing what they may vote on either. :smalltongue:

Seriously, if they didn't want their lives 'ruined' they could think before...


Because people change. Anyway, this happened 10 years ago. As disgusting as the video and its contents may be, it hardly matters now.

Uh, so I've, say, crippled someone, but it was 10 years ago, and I have changed, so it hardly matters? :smallconfused:

The harm, the scars, the turmoil, etc. continues.

Evil that men do lives on.

In case of those poor animals there's obviously noone to 'remember' them or avenge them, because they are well, random animals, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

[Fragenstein]

I live in Iowa

Hey! Me too. I'm with you on the Hog Confinement lots, but they still seem more humane than RAGBRAI.

[Theoboldi]

Uh, so I've, say, crippled someone, but it was 10 years ago, and I have changed, so it hardly matters? :smallconfused:


No one's saying that what these girls did doesn't matter. Don't even pretend that it is that what people are saying. What they are saying is that there is no point to punishing them. They've changed. They are highly unlikely to ever do anything like this ever again. What point is there in ruining their lives now, ten years later? What point is there in creating additional misery that will not serve to change their character for the better?

Of course, one could argue that such a thing would be a display of the inevitability of justice that could discourage other possible criminals, but I stand by my point that the chance of slightly discouraging other criminals is not worth the price, especially given that the media coverage caused by this is already going to do its part to make sure these girls will never live a normal life again.

[warty goblin]

Hey! Me too. I'm with you on the Hog Confinement lots, but they still seem more humane than RAGBRAI.

The real beast of it is that it's perfectly possible to raise lots of hogs relatively humanely, and pigs are such pleasant animals when left to their own devices in reasonable conditions. We butcher a hog to roast most years, and the ones we get from anything like a confinement operations are all kinds of screwed up. They don't even dig for crying out loud, and basically just cower in the shed. There's something screwed up about a pig that doesn't dig. The ones we get from free-range operations are inquisitive, sociable, and so far as a person can tell, enjoy their piggy existence to the fullest. Pour some water in there so they have mud, and they're eyeball deep looking for worms in a flat minute. Plus I think they taste better.

But yes, RAGBRAI is insane. Though if people want to suffer, I won't stand in their way. Otherwise they might try to stop me running nine miles in the middle of blizzards.

[Fragenstein]

But yes, RAGBRAI is insane. Though if people want to suffer, I won't stand in their way. Otherwise they might try to stop me running nine miles in the middle of blizzards.

I was thinking along the lines of the average ill tempered hog displaying better behavior and having a less toxic impact on the environment than the average rider, but you have a point as well.

As long as you're not jogging in traffic, more power to you. Run on, goblin. Run on.

[Spiryt]

No one's saying that what these girls did doesn't matter. Don't even pretend that it is that what people are saying. What they are saying is that there is no point to punishing them. They've changed. They are highly unlikely to ever do anything like this ever again. What point is there in ruining their lives now, ten years later? What point is there in creating additional misery that will not serve to change their character for the better?
.

We have no idea if they have 'changed', or especially, if it's 'unlikely that they will ever do it again'. How should we?

That should be evaluated, and punishment should be dealt to ensure it.

Everyone involved in it will obviously claim 'I was stupid, in bad place of my life, on the meds, needed money, blah blah blah'. What else are they supposed to say?

That doesn't mean that they are right, every criminal who's not completely on 'psycho' side will make excuses.

[Theoboldi]

We have no idea if they have changed, or if it's 'unlikely that they will ever do it again'. That should be evaluated, and punishment should be dealt to ensure it.

Everyone involved in it will obviously claim 'I was stupid, in bad place of my life, on the meds, needed money, blah blah blah'. What else are they supposed to say?

That doesn't mean that they are right, every criminal who's not completely on 'psycho' side will make excuses.

Why exactly would they ever do it again? After ten years of not needing to do this, and especially after it got caught in the eye of the media? Of course they are making excuses. I've not claimed that they've changed to become better people. But the chance that they would do this again is incredibly low.

And even if they have reason to do such a thing again, the only way to prevent it would be to lock them in jail permanently. Normal punishment at this late point will not scare them away from it (There's a load of interesting psychological stuff about how punishment needs to happen soon after the act that is being punished, as otherwise it cannot be associated as well with the deed. There's bound to be some articles on that somewhere, even if I can't think of any specific ones right now.) , but rather hurt their financial basis, more likely driving them to further crime. There's no point to it.

[AtlanteanTroll]

No one's saying that what these girls did doesn't matter.
To be fair, given the events occurred 10 years ago, I am.


In case of those poor animals there's obviously noone to 'remember' them or avenge them, because they are well, random animals, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Of course it does.

[Theoboldi]

To be fair, I am.

I refer to your name as to why I take things you say with a grain of salt. :smalltongue:

[AtlanteanTroll]

I refer to your name as to why I take things you say with a grain of salt. :smalltongue:
My point stands. With the addendum I feel that way only because it happened 10 years ago.

[Spiryt]

Why exactly would they ever do it again? After ten years of not needing to do this, and especially after it got caught in the eye of the media? .

Well, they have connections in some damn weird circles, and some 'knack' to it, to use such word. I really don't thing that many people would be able to really do such things without throwing up.

Though I agree that in this case I would indeed mainly worry about the whole rest of the 'staff', since they have much easier time staying anonymous even after taking part in such atrocities. No faces, probably some pseudonyms used and so on.

[Theoboldi]

Well, they have connections in some damn weird circles, and some 'knack' to it, to use such word. I really don't thing that many people would be able to really do such things without throwing up.

Though I agree that in this case I would indeed mainly worry about the whole rest of the 'staff', since they have much easier time staying anonymous even after taking part in such atrocities. No faces, probably some pseudonyms used and so on.

Well, we don't know if they still have connections after 10 years. The police probably know more, but I can't say for sure. Though if I had to bet, I'd say that any information they do still have is highly outdated.
And you'd be surprised what kinds of things people can do without throwing up if they feel that they are able to rationalize it. :smalltongue: Seriously, there's some very interesting and well known psychological experiments that show this. Wish I could name any off the top of my head.

I'm happy to see that we at least agree on that point, though. These girls are small fish, all things considered, and I stand by my point that any punishment would not cause any improvement for society at large. At best, it would be a waste of resources that would better be used going after the people distributing these kinds of movies. At worst, it could actually cause further crime from them.

[Paulinator]

At best, it would be a waste of resources that would better be used going after the people distributing these kinds of movies.

Except that in the US, they ruled that the distribution of animal crush videos is legal because to outlaw it would violate their freedom of speech. :smallannoyed:

[warty goblin]

They and the rest of the staff can always keep on shooting disgusting underground videos. :smalltongue:

Not that interested in seeing what they may vote on either. :smalltongue:

Seriously, if they didn't want their lives 'ruined' they could think before...

A sufficiently jaundiced observer might suggest that if the threat of ruining people's lives was enormously effective, there might be somewhat fewer people in prison. Alas however, the indications suggest that as satisfying as screwing over people who offend us is, as an actual preventative measure it may leave something to be desired.



I was thinking along the lines of the average ill tempered hog displaying better behavior and having a less toxic impact on the environment than the average rider, but you have a point as well.

This is also probably true. Though in my experience working food service, it's the monthly meetings of concerned liberals and giant fairy tail weddings you really gotta watch out for. Compared to them a disgruntled five hundred pound boar is really easy to work with. One of them can be kept happy with some mud and compost, the other will send back their off-menu request four times. Plus you can shoot the pig, but not the boor.

[Spiryt]

I'm happy to see that we at least agree on that point, though. These girls are small fish, all things considered, and I stand by my point that any punishment would not cause any improvement for society at large. At best, it would be a waste of resources that would better be used going after the people distributing these kinds of movies. At worst, it could actually cause further crime from them.

Being small fish cannot really be of any matter though, neither does naivety, other than being convenient for justice system.

And distribution or not, if they had none to 'star' in those, they would have nothing, or less, to distribute.

Their involvement was crucial and plain as day, and should be punished, aside from punishment to the other perpetrators.


as an actual preventative measure it may leave something to be desired.


Of course, but completely quitting, ceasing and so on because something isn't perfectly as desired is even more absurd.

[Theoboldi]

Except that in the US, they ruled that the distribution of animal crush videos is legal because to outlaw it would violate their freedom of speech. :smallannoyed:

Well, at the risk of sounding heartless, that is another issue of its own, and has nothing to do with whether these girls should be punished.

Though that is terrible. Really terrible. And I do oppose such needless cruelty, even to animals. And since I might steer into real-life politics territory here, I'll not give any other comments on it. Though it still is terrible.


Being small fish cannot really be of any matter though, neither does naivety, other than being convenient for justice system.

And distribution or not, if they had none to 'star' in those, they would have nothing, or less, to distribute.

Their involvement was crucial and plain as day, and should be punished, aside from punishment to the other perpetrators.
.

But what good will this punishment do? At this point, it would only be a large sink of state resources into what is essentially revenge. There is no other reason to do this. It has no actual preventive effect, and may actually cause further crime. The only reason it could be done would be to satisfy our own urges. And I cannot support that.

[Lither]

I for one am glad to see these people aren't going to be attacked just for trying to make a bit of money.

[Theoboldi]

Aaaaaaand I'm out. After such a polarising opinion, this discussion will not go well. I've made my point pretty well, I belief, even if I convinced no one. See ya'll.

[Fragenstein]

Except that in the US, they ruled that the distribution of animal crush videos is legal because to outlaw it would violate their freedom of speech. :smallannoyed:

Did they really? Usually, material depicting an illegal act doesn't fall under the protection of free speech. Was it determined that the acts depicted weren't sufficiently illegal? Are there at least disclaimers stating that the material may not be legal in all states?

[Bulldog Psion]

I had a long rant written up because this got my blood boiling (and Themyrys' responses got my goat, also), but it's a waste of good energy to rant about these two pieces of walking baboon vomit. Probably, justice was served by their public shaming about it.

Their whining about being humiliated by the truth being told about them is sweet, sweet music to my ears. I hope that one's daughter does Google her some day and spit in her face for what she has done. Hell, I hope it haunts them for the rest of their lives and makes them miserable, particularly since their statements indicated zero remorse, and just a lot of whining and blame-shifting.

What a way to start the week. Jeez. :smallannoyed:

P.S. I actually wish a lot worse on them, but if their lives are even partially ruined, then some good will have come from the case.

[Asta Kask]

Paulinator - what's your point? What do you want? Do you want to vent - mission accomplished. Do you want to change the law - this is not the forum for that discussion. Do you want to have a discourse on the general principles from a legal-philosophical point of view - you are not in the proper mood for such a discussion.

Have I missed anything?

[warty goblin]

I for one am glad to see these people aren't going to be attacked just for trying to make a bit of money.

Hey, if the crime had been inside the statute of limitations, I'd be entirely for prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. I don't hold with torturing something for either amusement or practicality, but I'm not going to advocate for strange and scary exceptions to the law in order to punish people. Perhaps the law should be changed; but if so it should be changed to be consistent, and there are methods in place for altering laws.


I had a long rant written up because this got my blood boiling (and Themyrys' responses got my goat, also), but it's a waste of good energy to rant about these two pieces of walking baboon vomit. Probably, justice was served by their public shaming about it.

Their whining about being humiliated by the truth being told about them is sweet, sweet music to my ears. I hope that one's daughter does Google her some day and spit in her face for what she has done. Hell, I hope it haunts them for the rest of their lives and makes them miserable, particularly since their statements indicated zero remorse, and just a lot of whining and blame-shifting.

For the sake of the daughter, man I hope not. That's not a visual any kid needs.

[Bulldog Psion]

For the sake of the daughter, man I hope not. That's not a visual any kid needs.

Just the news item, not the actual video. I wouldn't wish the viewing of it on anyone.

I suppose that the "producer (http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Adam_Redford_11919930/)" of this stuff will get off Scot free also.

[Spiryt]

But what good will this punishment do? At this point, it would only be a large sink of state resources into what is essentially revenge. There is no other reason to do this. It has no actual preventive effect, and may actually cause further crime. The only reason it could be done would be to satisfy our own urges. And I cannot support that.

Financial penalty or other form of actually collecting instead of 'sinking' resources could be always good. Invested in animal shelters or whatever.

Dunno what exactly are legal options, if fee or prison/social work is one.

Besides, people should face consequences of their actions.

People serve their dues for infinitely more trivial actions, something that slipping away is extremely disruptive and demoralising.


Because the longer ago a crime occurred, the less able a defendant is to defend themselves effectively against any given charge. They are less likely to remember any alibi or the details of any activities undertaken, witnesses are likely to have died, forgotten or dispersed to the point of untraceability, additional evidence will have decayed, etc. That goes for prosecution evidence too: older evidence is generally less likely to be reliable.

There's absolutely 0 problem of that kind here, everyone with eyes can see they've done it, everyone knows they've done it, they admit they've done it and so on.


I hope that one's daughter does Google her some day and spit in her face for what she has done

Yes, as terrible as it will be, their children should probably be informed....

Just because learning 'hard way' will be even more disastrous.

[warty goblin]

Just the news item, not the actual video. I wouldn't wish the viewing of it on anyone.

You know, frankly I could go happy to my grave not knowing about any extremely disturbing sex work* my parents may or may not have engaged in at some point in their lives. The news report of mother dearest whacking a dude off while killing chickens is not something that I can see as having a remotely positive effect on my life. Probably quite the reverse in fact.

But hey, if you're hoping some poor kid gets freaked the hell out some time just to punish the mother, that's your prerogative. The collateral damage seems a bit high for my taste is all.



*I think I'd be fine with some more normal sorts of sex work, just to be clear. I've got no particular dislike for sex workers as a class, and think they generally get a bum rap. I mean it would be a kinda odd thing to learn that Mom flogged dudes to pay for college, and I absolutely would not want details, but flogging dudes who want flogged for cash is, occupationally speaking, fine with me.

[Lither]

Prosecuting people who need money for doing what they can to get the money they need is problematic at best.

Rather, energies should be spent on tracking down and nabbing the people organising it, if they want to pretend unintelligent animals need legal protection.

[Paulinator]

Did they really? Usually, material depicting an illegal act doesn't fall under the protection of free speech. Was it determined that the acts depicted weren't sufficiently illegal? Are there at least disclaimers stating that the material may not be legal in all states?

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens) you go.

[warty goblin]

Prosecuting people who need money for doing what they can to get the money they need is problematic at best.

This argument strikes me as bad. Although if I decided to take up assassination to pay the bills, I might feel differently.


Rather, energies should be spent on tracking down and nabbing the people organising it, if they want to pretend unintelligent animals need legal protection.
What the hell does intelligence have to do with it?


Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens) you go.
Did you actually read the article in question? The Supreme Court overturned the law prohibiting the sale of anything depicting animal cruelty as overbroad. So you can still sell videos of dogfighting. However, as pointed out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stevens#Subsequent_developments), subsequent legislation specifically covers animal crush videos. So far as the Wikipedia article says, sale of crush videos is specifically illegal under federal law.

[Lither]

This argument strikes me as bad. Although if I decided to take up assassination to pay the bills, I might feel differently.

How so?
I for one have nothing against assassinations.

[Aedilred]

There's absolutely 0 problem of that kind here, everyone with eyes can see they've done it, everyone knows they've done it, they admit they've done it and so on.

Yes and no.

Firstly, that's just the principle on which a limitation period generally operates, the reason why they exist, and factors that will be taken into account in setting the period in question. Not every aspect will be applicable in every instance, and inevitably, sometimes a case will come along that falls outside the intent of the law. But the rule of law is supposed to ensure that the law is consistent, prospective, etc. and picking and unfortunately that sometimes leads to some cases falling outside it. Better that than the reverse, and innocent people being locked up because the limitation periods were set too high, or inappropriately disregarded, etc.

But there are other factors at play here too. Once of them looks like she is denying it, or at least some of it. We haven't heard the full details of what their defence would be, because the case didn't get an airing. These things are often not as clear-cut as they seem. There might be operable defences that ought to be taken into consideration and now can't be proven, like coercion. Even if they don't act to exonerate they might act to mitigate sentencing.

Trial by media is all very entertaining, but it's not a substitute for full criminal proceedings to determine culpability. We have absolutely nothing like the full picture here.

[Asta Kask]

What the hell does intelligence have to do with it?

A lot? I don't know about you, but I differentiate between people and slugs, largely on the intelligence aspect.

[warty goblin]

How so?

I thought about it for a couple of minutes, and it leads to strangeness and general undesirability. First off, one has to define 'needs money.' Outside of the hunter/gatherer community, everybody needs money, so presumably you're talking about some minimal income necessary for survival. So you earn less than X dollars, the law no longer applies. Fine.

Let's consider a person who earns less than our X dollar threshold. Do they get to do anything they want, so as somebody pays them? If I hired this person to kill my neighbor who wears the horrible Hawaiian shirts, have I done anything illegal? We've already established the person pulling the trigger has not, and all I have done at this point is to purchase a service the other person is, under this insane notion, legally allowed to sell.

The weirdness continues. Suppose I hire this person to kill two people because my other neighbor has bad taste in music, but the amount I pay them for killing the first neighbor pushes them above the minimal income threshold. Is killing the second dude now illegal? Or because it was a package deal is my now no longer grindingly poor hitman still free to go shoot the neighbor? What if the neighbor had a spouse I didn't know about, and is therefore not part of the deal? Suppose making the payment on my hitman renders me poor enough that I'm no longer legally obligated to make good on my debts. Now since I can't pay, the hitman has not received my payment and is also below the threshold, so are we both above the law? Can I enter into an arrangement with the hitman where we both owe each other our entire assets plus one dollar, and therefore neither of us can make good on the debt and are no longer governed by law?

Further oddities. Suppose the gun I give the hitman to go off my neighbor is worth enough that he can sell it and clear the minimum income threshold. Now when the hitman took the gun, he was below the minimum income threshold, therefore claiming ownership of the gun is entirely legal. So it's reasonable to assume he owns the gun. Clearly it is now illegal for him to kill the neighbor. Can I sue for breach of contract, even though the hitman cannot be culpable for any agreement made while below the threshold? Suppose I have incontrovertable proof that I originally owned the gun, and now that owning the gun puts the hitman over the income threshold, can I sue to get the gun back?

This is leaving aside issues like cost of living adjustments to the threshold, what time threshold it needs to be assessed over, whether it needs to include a family size adjustment, and so on.


I for one have nothing against assassinations.
Every now and again it's nice to meet somebody your average Viking raider would consider excessively open to violence.

[Bulldog Psion]

A lot? I don't know about you, but I differentiate between people and slugs, largely on the intelligence aspect.

Asta, I'm a bit shocked. I generally don't use the term "straw man" -- in fact, this is the first time I've ever use it -- but is this post really saying that a debate about whether two people deserve to be punished for torturing animal to death on film is precisely the same as the question of whether or not we should differentiate between humans and slugs? Really?

[Asta Kask]

Asta, I'm a bit shocked. I generally don't use the term "straw man" -- in fact, this is the first time I've ever use it -- but is this post really saying that a debate about whether two people deserve to be punished for torturing animal to death on film is precisely the same as the question of whether or not we should differentiate between humans and slugs? Really?

At a basic level it is similar, although of course not precisely the same. Should we differentiate between humans and (other) animals when it comes to moral concerns? Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer say no. I say yes.

But if you want to return to the original question, let's do so. Now, I agree with everybody else here that this kind of behavior should be punished, that there should be laws against it. I think there should be a statute of limitations for this crime - I don't know if you and Paulinator do or not. I'm also uncertain about whether Paulinator and you think we should ignore the statute of limitations for these two people, basically because they're evil.

And another point. I'm concerned about the complete lack of empathy you two show towards the girls. You do not even attempt to put yourself in their shoes. I think the most effective way of preventing this kind of thing in the future is to understand the perpetrators' actions, understand why they did what they did and then see what we can do about the underlying reasons. Not run around blindly calling down curses from the sky and blighting their houses.

[Frozen_Feet]

... why should we have empathy for two money-grubbing wenches?

Reality check: they could've as well gained their funds doing normal porn or whoring themselves out. There's no evidence they were coerced, so the only reasonable explanation for their participation in the filiming is that they thought killing and torturing living beings for fun and profit was a-okay.

We're going to forgive them for what they did, 'cause punishing them after all this time would not be worth the effort. But let's not start pretending they were not guilty, or somehow were victims in this scenario.

[Asta Kask]

... why should we have empathy for two money-grubbing wenches?

You're confusing empathy and sympathy. Empathy simply means to place ourselves in their shoes, to try to understand why they did what they did. To try to learn how to prevent this from happening again (minimize the risk might be a more attainable goal). Sympathy would mean to agree with them and to accept their point of view. I'm not advocating that.

[Fragenstein]

Every now and again it's nice to meet somebody your average Viking raider would consider excessively open to violence.

Assassination is to war as orthoscopic surgery is to an accidental shotgun injury.

[Kalmageddon]

You're confusing empathy and sympathy. Empathy simply means to place ourselves in their shoes, to try to understand why they did what they did. .

Great, and what's your theory?
That since you personally wouldn't torture animals without being forced to do it it must be why those poor women did it?
Come on! Why do people always need gray areas in morality? Can't we admit that sometimes people can do something horribile without any excuse, in this case motivated only by profit and personal interest? Those two women did it because they were paid. They didn't give a crap about the lives of those animals, they weren't forced into it, there is absolutely no reason to think that!

Also, since nobody is going to say it, I will: I'm also fairly sure that if the perpetrators were two young men, nobody here would have even hinted at the possibility of them being somehow victims. The only reasons some people are reluctant to condemn what those two did is because they are women and thus more sypmathetic to the public.

[Asta Kask]

Great, and what's your theory?
That since you personally wouldn't torture animals without being forced to do it it must be why those poor women did it?
Come on! Why do people always need gray areas in morality? Can't we admit that sometimes people can do something horribile without any excuse, in this case motivated only by profit and personal interest? Those two women did it because they were paid. They didn't give a crap about the lives of those animals, they weren't forced into it, there is absolutely no reason to think that!

I prefer not to theorize without data. Your explanation may well be true, but it's not wise to lock on to one thing because it makes you blind to all other reasons.

[Frozen_Feet]

You're confusing empathy and sympathy. Empathy simply means to place ourselves in their shoes, to try to understand why they did what they did. To try to learn how to prevent this from happening again (minimize the risk might be a more attainable goal). Sympathy would mean to agree with them and to accept their point of view. I'm not advocating that.

Empathy and sympathy are synonymous under several definitions. They are both also potential synonyms for pity. But yes, you are correct it's possible to understand a person's actions without feeling pity or compassion for them. Which is what I did in my reality check, above. :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

Good. What worries me is this lack of empathy in e.g. Paulinator, because it signals a blindness to learn, to improve. I want this practice to end as much as anyone, but I don't think that accepting the explanation "they're scum" is helpful.

I also don't think we here have the data necessary, or at least haven't looked at it in a dispassionate manner.

[Paulinator]

Good. What worries me is this lack of empathy in e.g. Paulinator, because it signals a blindness to learn, to improve. I want this practice to end as much as anyone, but I don't think that accepting the explanation "they're scum" is helpful.

I also don't think we here have the data necessary, or at least haven't looked at it in a dispassionate manner.

Why should I feel empathy for people who whine and shift the blame when they are caught torturing animals?

What worries me more is your lack of common sense.

[Asta Kask]

Why should I feel empathy for people who whine and shift the blame when they are caught torturing animals?

Because we want to understand why they are doing it so we can prevent it in the future. As I've explained. Twice. Come with a counterargument, please. You are wasting everybody's time.

[Bulldog Psion]

Because we want to understand why they are doing it so we can prevent it in the future. As I've explained. Twice. Come with a counterargument, please. You are wasting everybody's time.

Presumably, because they came from abusive backgrounds. It's the usual origin of people with criminal inclinations. So, they were likely bashed around too much when they're small, and now they're ready and willing to take out their misery by sharing it with the rest of the world.

[Paulinator]

Because we want to understand why they are doing it so we can prevent it in the future. As I've explained. Twice. Come with a counterargument, please. You are wasting everybody's time.

The why is completely irrelevant and independent on whether or not I should feel empathy for them. And empathy for what? That they're upset that they got caught? Stiff ****. You are wasting time with something that's not even related with why someone should feel empathy for someone who got caught doing something horrible. Why should I feel sorry for these people when they tortured animals in a sex film for money? It is utterly ridiculous that you are panting these vile woman as some kind of victims in this case.

What counter argument do you expect me to come up with when the understanding of the reason behind such an act has nothing to do with having a personal opinion of not feeling sorry for these people getting caught?

[Starwulf]

The why is completely irrelevant and independent on whether or not I should feel empathy for them. And empathy for what? That they're upset that they got caught? Stiff ****. You are wasting time with something that's not even related with why someone should feel empathy for someone who got caught doing something horrible. Why should I feel sorry for these people when they tortured animals in a sex film for money? It is utterly ridiculous that you are panting these vile woman as some kind of victims in this case.

What counter argument do you expect me to come up with when the understanding of the reason behind such an act has nothing to do with having a personal opinion of not feeling sorry for these people getting caught?

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe these two women come from some god-awful background? Like maybe they were horribly abused and raped as children, to a point where they lost all sense of what's right and what's not? And then maybe that when they got older they just naturally gravitated towards the same kind of person that did those things to them, because that's what felt normal to them? Maybe they've been taken advantage of to such a degree that even now, 10 years later, they are entirely incapable of showing any remorse because that concept is entirely foreign to them.

No, of course not, you are to busy condemning them and screaming bloody murder at the top of your lungs to stop and think for even a second that maybe, just maybe, they aren't entirely to blame.

I'm not excusing what they did, and neither is Asta, but what he and I, and hopefully others realize, and what you seem incapable of grasping, is that there is a possibility that these women are just as much victims as the poor animals that they murdered and made porn on top of. Ever hear the old saying "Walk a mile in a persons shoes before you judge them", well that definitely applies here. You don't know them, you don't know what they've been through, and yet there you are, passing judgement as though you were some kind of god, wishing all sorts of awful things on them, demanding justice where maybe justice isn't even a factor.

[warty goblin]

The why is completely irrelevant and independent on whether or not I should feel empathy for them. And empathy for what? That they're upset that they got caught? Stiff ****. You are wasting time with something that's not even related with why someone should feel empathy for someone who got caught doing something horrible. Why should I feel sorry for these people when they tortured animals in a sex film for money? It is utterly ridiculous that you are panting these vile woman as some kind of victims in this case.

What counter argument do you expect me to come up with when the understanding of the reason behind such an act has nothing to do with having a personal opinion of not feeling sorry for these people getting caught?

The why always has something to do with it. Unless one's sole motive is vengeance, understanding why a transgression occurred is necessary to putting any sort of sensible policy in place to prevent it recurring. Part of that understanding is understanding the people who do terrible things; which very frequently leads to the unsettling conclusion that they are basically ordinary people. Not monsters, sociopaths, or anything else. Just people. It's satisfying to think otherwise, that they are depraved and unworthy of empathy or understanding, but this view is ultimately both dangerous and more often than not, wrong.

Back in college, I read a book called Ordinary Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_Men), an account of a German Police battalion in Poland during World War II, and their role in the Holocaust. Out of 500 men, 15 chose not to go door to door killing Jews when explicitly offered the choice. Fifteen, from five hundred. There was nothing exceptionally evil about these particular men before they were drafted and sent to Poland; really they were like most other working class men from anywhere. It is certainly tempting to conclude otherwise, that anybody capable of killing like that is a something unique and monstrous, as indeed some historians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Willing_Executioners)do, mostly by ranting and ignoring research. It is more prudent by far to recognize that the men who did those things are cut from the same cloth as most any other man, and in that understanding safeguard against repeating such crimes.

There is a difference between understanding and feeling sorry for somebody. I can understand that certain pressures will make almost any person do horrible things; that does not wipe away what they did, or necessarily entitle them to pity or mercy. I do think that recognizing them as the same species as the rest of us, made of the same stuff and no more capable of terrible things than you or I does entitle them to fair treatment. Calling for laws to be ignored or suspended is not fair treatment, it is reducing the accused to less worthy of respect without a chance to defend themselves, and baying for blood because revenge feels good. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me.

[Paulinator]

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe these two women come from some god-awful background? Like maybe they were horribly abused and raped as children, to a point where they lost all sense of what's right and what's not? And then maybe that when they got older they just naturally gravitated towards the same kind of person that did those things to them, because that's what felt normal to them? Maybe they've been taken advantage of to such a degree that even now, 10 years later, they are entirely incapable of showing any remorse because that concept is entirely foreign to them.

Being abused isn't an excuse for abuse. That's the same excuse serial rapists use. There is nothing to suggest that they have been historically abused, either. Not one statement, not one report of a possible defence of such. No nothing. I am going by what is reported, and by what defence they used. "We didn't know animal torture was wrong", "we were manipulated to do it" and "but but other models did it" are not valid excuses.

Do you make up the same excuse for child molesters too? Apparently a lot of them had god-awful backgrounds too, this is actually verified in some cases. Is it verified here? No.


No, of course not, you are to busy condemning them and screaming bloody murder at the top of your lungs to stop and think for even a second that maybe, just maybe, they aren't entirely to blame.

Yeah, because they are the ones who stomped on and set live animals to fire for a quick buck. They could have done something else. Not like the producer was threatening to kill them, they are just as complicit. If I assault someone, and my defence was "I didn't know it was wrong" and "this guy told me to do it", how long would it take the judge to come with a guilty verdict you reckon? These people were adults when they did this, they were not children. They should not be treated as abused children.


I'm not excusing what they did, and neither is Asta, but what he and I, and hopefully others realize, and what you seem incapable of grasping, is that there is a possibility that these women are just as much victims as the poor animals that they murdered and made porn on top of.

Sure sounds like it. You're trying to rationalise their behaviour. Just much victims as the animals? Holy baloney, I can't quite believe what I am reading here. They weren't the ones being slowly squashed or burned alive on film. How utterly amazing you would consider the perpetrators of such an act of vicious and brutal violence would be as much victims as the animals that were actually tortured to death.

And yet I am the one who is "incapable of grasping" something? Wow. When you have one of them stating "it's only a rabbit and chicken" then that tells me they didn't really give a damn, and are only playing the victim card because they got caught. I do not buy their excuses. "We thought was ok to torture animals because some guy producing a porno flick said so". Bull-friggin-****.


Ever hear the old saying "Walk a mile in a persons shoes before you judge them", well that definitely applies here. You don't know them, you don't know what they've been through, and yet there you are, passing judgement as though you were some kind of god, wishing all sorts of awful things on them, demanding justice where maybe justice isn't even a factor.

I would expect people to judge me harshly if I did something like that, and rightly so. People like this deserve to be vilified. I don't have to know someone in intricate detail to look at their behaviour and assess their personality. What's funny though, is that you don't know these things either yet you're happy to conclude that they are victims.

Yeah, I am passing judgement: they are animal abusing turds. Simple fact. You can say all you want about them "not knowing" or being manipulated somehow, but the opposite is also just as likely. In that they took up the job, no matter how inhumane and disgusting, because they wanted a quick buck. There are people out there who do that, there are people out there who don't give a hoot about animal welfare just as long as they get a paycheck. Why is that more unlikely than them being victims, because they were 18 year old women at the time? Just imagine if it were two blokes who were in their 30s... the victim card wouldn't work as well, would it?

[Paulinator]

The why always has something to do with it. Unless one's sole motive is vengeance, understanding why a transgression occurred is necessary to putting any sort of sensible policy in place to prevent it recurring. Part of that understanding is understanding the people who do terrible things; which very frequently leads to the unsettling conclusion that they are basically ordinary people. Not monsters, sociopaths, or anything else. Just people. It's satisfying to think otherwise, that they are depraved and unworthy of empathy or understanding, but this view is ultimately both dangerous and more often than not, wrong.

No, it does not. There is no excuse for this behaviour at all, none... only with the exception of someone threatening their lives over it. And that is not the case here, otherwise that would have been reported as their defence. Such a big reason would not be omitted from the public view. In that case, the statute would not have mattered anyway.

Why should I show empathy to someone who was upset because they got caught doing something horrible? Ohh geez, I'm so sorry girls, you got caught and now your reputations are ruined. Well you know what I say to this? Too bad.

[Paulinator]

... why should we have empathy for two money-grubbing wenches?

Reality check: they could've as well gained their funds doing normal porn or whoring themselves out. There's no evidence they were coerced, so the only reasonable explanation for their participation in the filiming is that they thought killing and torturing living beings for fun and profit was a-okay.

We're going to forgive them for what they did, 'cause punishing them after all this time would not be worth the effort. But let's not start pretending they were not guilty, or somehow were victims in this scenario.


Great, and what's your theory?
That since you personally wouldn't torture animals without being forced to do it it must be why those poor women did it?
Come on! Why do people always need gray areas in morality? Can't we admit that sometimes people can do something horribile without any excuse, in this case motivated only by profit and personal interest? Those two women did it because they were paid. They didn't give a crap about the lives of those animals, they weren't forced into it, there is absolutely no reason to think that!

Also, since nobody is going to say it, I will: I'm also fairly sure that if the perpetrators were two young men, nobody here would have even hinted at the possibility of them being somehow victims. The only reasons some people are reluctant to condemn what those two did is because they are women and thus more sypmathetic to the public.

Thank you!

It's a relief to see there are actually people with a little bit of common sense here.

[Starwulf]

Thank you!

It's a relief to see there are actually people with a little bit of common sense here.

I'd think the opposite honestly, but we are obviously so far removed from each others viewpoints that there is really no point in further discussing this. You are firmly entrenched in the idea that there is absolutely zero reasons that could be given that could even begin to mitigate what they did, which is absolutely silly in my opinion.

Also, guys can be victims of abuse as well, I should know, I was mentally and to a lesser extent, physically abused(my sisters bore the real brunt of the physical abuse) as a child myself, so yeah, I'd be hesitating to pass judgement just as much if it were two guys that were in this situation.

[Paulinator]

I'd think the opposite honestly, but we are obviously so far removed from each others viewpoints that there is really no point in further discussing this. You are firmly entrenched in the idea that there is absolutely zero reasons that could be given that could even begin to mitigate what they did, which is absolutely silly in my opinion.

No actually, I don't. I said that threatening their lives would be a reasonable mitigating factor. Let's see the possible. "mitigating factors" that have been talked about so far:

"I was abused as a child." (did they even use that as a defence?)
"The guy told me to do it."
"I only wanted to make money."
"Other models are doing it."
"We didn't know it was wrong to slowly and brutally torture animals."

I was bullied as a child, quite frequently, in primary school. If I bullied someone at my workplace, should it be taken less seriously, and I should receive lesser disciplinary action than the person who bullies but who was not bulled himself at all?


Also, guys can be victims of abuse as well, I should know, I was mentally and to a lesser extent, physically abused(my sisters bore the real brunt of the physical abuse) as a child myself, so yeah, I'd be hesitating to pass judgement just as much if it were two guys that were in this situation.

Which goes to show, age and gender is irrelevant unless they were extremely young. But there were 18 years old. 18. That is old enough to drive a car, drink legally in the UK and have a full time job. Old enough to know better Don't be under the illusion that they had absolutely no knowledge at all that something was not right. Ignorance is not a defence, after all.

[Starwulf]

No actually, I don't. I said that threatening their lives would be a reasonable mitigating factor. Let's see the possible. "mitigating factors" that have been talked about so far:

"I was abused as a child." (did they even use that as a defence?)
"The guy told me to do it."
"I only wanted to make money."
"Other models are doing it."
"We didn't know it was wrong to slowly and brutally torture animals."

I was bullied as a child, quite frequently, in primary school. If I bullied someone at my workplace, should it be taken less seriously, and I should receive lesser disciplinary action than the person who bullies but who was not bulled himself at all?


Thing is, they didn't hurt a human, it was animals. Yes it's a horrendous act, but they didn't go psycho and start murdering humans, so yes, if they had been caught in time to be tried for their crimes, I do believe "I was horrifically abused and/or raped as a child" would be a significant mitigating factor. Actually, even if they had hurt humans, it would be a mitigating factor, enough to say..warrant them going to a mental institution for 20 years to life, instead of a jail cell for 20 years to life.

You don't seem to understand the significant impact abuse can have on a persons psyche, and just how warped that can make a person. I have intimate knowledge of the subject, both for personal reasons, and people that I'm friends with. There is a possibility, small, but a possibility that they grew up in such horrid circumstances that they literally never learned the difference between right or wrong, or have such a warped view of it, that they thought what they were doing was just fine/normal. Heck, maybe they don't even acknowledge that they were abused because it happened with such regularity that they believe everyone deals with that. That can happen ya know.

That is why I say judging them without knowing EVERYTHING is just foolish. Yes, the acts committed were atrocious. They are absolutely disgusting, and I have a hard time even imagining it inside of my head(especially the sex on top of mutilated animal corpses. My mind refuses to see it and keeps substituting teddy bears ripped open with stuffing spilling out). But, I'm not going to condemn two people I've never met without knowing why they did it. A short interview means absolutely nothing. It conveys the bare minimum, and that's all. Until all the facts come spilling out, until they say "Oh, we were two perfectly normal girls who were never hit or raped, and we knew fully that what we were doing was wrong, even if we didn't know it was illegal", will I consider them terrible human beings.



Which goes to show, age and gender is irrelevant unless they were extremely young. But there were 18 years old. 18. That is old enough to drive a car, drink legally in the UK and have a full time job. Old enough to know better Don't be under the illusion that they had absolutely no knowledge at all that something was not right. Ignorance is not a defence, after all.

I don't know why you keep bringing this part up. I've never mentioned ignorance of the law. Hell, has anyone outside of the first page of the thread, ever mentioned ignorance of the law as a defense? Seems to me you're just grasping at straws here, trying to refute logical arguments by derailing them with stuff that no-one has even mentioned.

[Asta Kask]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A61GCiTIJVo

[Shinken]

Yes. But by then, it had only existed since about 4 months.

So it was during the "only collenge students" phase, right? So they didn't have one.

[Frozen_Feet]

Starwulf, stop making a fool of yourself.

Occam's Razor: which is the simpler and more likely option, that these girls had whatever contrived past of abuse you can imagine to explain their actions, or that they were just lazy, ignorant and greedy? It's not like the last three qualities are in short supply in humanity. People don't need a history of abuse to be cruel to animals.

[Chen]

Starwulf, stop making a fool of yourself.

Occam's Razor: which is the simpler and more likely option, that these girls had whatever contrived past of abuse you can imagine to explain their actions, or that they were just lazy, ignorant and greedy? It's not like the last three qualities are in short supply in humanity. People don't need a history of abuse to be cruel to animals.

It need not be abuse, I could easily just be desperate need of money. Some people turn to porn/prostitution because they like it. A LOT of people do porn/prostitution because they are desperate and feel they have no other options. If I had to choose between cruelly killing animals or being out on the street with no food, there'd be a lot of dead bunnies around. That still wouldn't make the action right, but it would be understandable. I am fortunate to have never been in such a position where I wasn't sure of where my next meal was coming from or that I didn't know if I'd have a roof over my head. I have friends who have been in that position. It's not pretty what people will do when they are so desperate for survival. Things that may seem entirely irrational/immoral can be done by otherwise good people, in an effort to just survive.

If they had been caught at the time, some sort of community service and/or fine would have been justified. Help undo the harm they caused to society. 10 years after the fact? I suppose if they were still doing these types of things it might motivate them to stop. But I suspect they are no longer doing this. There is little benefit in punishing them now except to feed people's need for vengeance. And that is the WORST reason to punish people in today's society.

[warty goblin]

It need not be abuse, I could easily just be desperate need of money. Some people turn to porn/prostitution because they like it. A LOT of people do porn/prostitution because they are desperate and feel they have no other options. If I had to choose between cruelly killing animals or being out on the street with no food, there'd be a lot of dead bunnies around. .

Mind, if forced to that extremity, I'd also eat the rabbits. Good in soup or panfried with salt and pepper, and contains at least some nutrition. Plus the skins make good winter clothes, properly scraped.

[Paulinator]

Thing is, they didn't hurt a human, it was animals.

So what? Abuse, torture, being cruel... it is fundamentally the same. The only differences are humans are regarded more, the consequences for doing it to a human are far more dire and obvious and the animals are a lot more helpless and thus easier targets.


Yes it's a horrendous act, but they didn't go psycho and start murdering humans, so yes, if they had been caught in time to be tried for their crimes, I do believe "I was horrifically abused and/or raped as a child" would be a significant mitigating factor. Actually, even if they had hurt humans, it would be a mitigating factor, enough to say..warrant them going to a mental institution for 20 years to life, instead of a jail cell for 20 years to life.

The psycho line was already crossed. Why should it be a significant factor? It's no excuse. Do you think it's an excuse for people who murder other people? The factor you refer to is whether or not the person is clinically insane, many murderers are not (and yet use the same "but I was abused" excuse).


You don't seem to understand the significant impact abuse can have on a persons psyche, and just how warped that can make a person.

I understand perfectly well - the only difference here, is that I understand that it's not a legal or moral defence.


There is a possibility, small, but a possibility that they grew up in such horrid circumstances that they literally never learned the difference between right or wrong, or have such a warped view of it, that they thought what they were doing was just fine/normal. Heck, maybe they don't even acknowledge that they were abused because it happened with such regularity that they believe everyone deals with that. That can happen ya know.

Or how about the large possibility that they are, in fact, selfish, inconsiderate and greedy people who do not care one iota about what they did? But I guess that's too much and I'm being too harsh hmm? Your entire thought process here seems so convoluted and full of assumptions, a hell of a lot more than what I was proposing. You're rationalising their acts of brutality. It's almost like the truth that they are bad people is too awful for you to accept mentally.


Until all the facts come spilling out, until they say "Oh, we were two perfectly normal girls who were never hit or raped, and we knew fully that what we were doing was wrong, even if we didn't know it was illegal", will I consider them terrible human beings.

There is no evidence or report to suggest that they were, though. It would have been their main defence otherwise. Either this was not reported (incredibly unlikely) or it was not used at all. The onus would be on you to show that they were actually abused, because you seem to be the only one suggesting that this is somehow likely despite the fact that there's absolutely no report of it.


I don't know why you keep bringing this part up. I've never mentioned ignorance of the law. Hell, has anyone outside of the first page of the thread, ever mentioned ignorance of the law as a defense? Seems to me you're just grasping at straws here, trying to refute logical arguments by derailing them with stuff that no-one has even mentioned.

It was their other excuse. It's just as valid as "but my father beat me up when I was six years old because he was an alcoholic". Can't we just admit that people of that age just need to take some damn responsibility for their actions? I know of people who were abused as children, yet would never ever do something like this. So why should they get away with that excuse, assuming it's even true in the first place?

[Paulinator]

It need not be abuse, I could easily just be desperate need of money. Some people turn to porn/prostitution because they like it. A LOT of people do porn/prostitution because they are desperate and feel they have no other options. If I had to choose between cruelly killing animals or being out on the street with no food, there'd be a lot of dead bunnies around. That still wouldn't make the action right, but it would be understandable. I am fortunate to have never been in such a position where I wasn't sure of where my next meal was coming from or that I didn't know if I'd have a roof over my head. I have friends who have been in that position. It's not pretty what people will do when they are so desperate for survival. Things that may seem entirely irrational/immoral can be done by otherwise good people, in an effort to just survive.
Pleeease. They have plenty of options. They are two woman living in a first world country for crying out loud. One of them was well-off enough to have an internet connection and able to pay for a subscription to a model dating website (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephanie-Fonte-FAN-PAGE/388759241149784). For 12 years. Even if they were desperate to do porn flicks for money, there are practically tens of sub-genres they could have picked from. You're making it sound like they had absolutely nothing, as if was the only single option for them.

[Chen]

Pleeease. They have plenty of options. They are two woman living in a first world country for crying out loud. One of them was well-off enough to have an internet connection and able to pay for a subscription to a model dating website (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephanie-Fonte-FAN-PAGE/388759241149784). For 12 years. Even if they were desperate to do porn flicks for money, there are practically tens of sub-genres they could have picked from. You're making it sound like they had absolutely nothing, as if was the only single option for them.

Actually I'm saying that's a possibility. You are insistent there is no possible explanation/justification for what they are doing. I am saying there could be plenty. Clearly I don't know their entire history and maybe they are just plain cruel animal haters. You single-minded condemnation along with your inflammatory rhetoric is what is wrong with the way people argue nowadays.

Have you lived in abject poverty or known people who have? Are you sure there are "plenty of options". What if others feel those options are even worse than cruelty to animals? I mean I would condemn someone who stole from another human being to eat far more than someone who killed animals so they didn't starve. The reason people are arguing for empathy, is not because its actually going to do something for these women. They can't feel your empathy. The point is to not be so closed minded to simply see issues like this one in pure black and white.

[Paulinator]

You are insistent there is no possible explanation/justification for what they are doing.

I mentioned twice that being forced to do it from threat of death would be a pretty good one.


Have you lived in abject poverty or known people who have? Are you sure there are "plenty of options". What if others feel those options are even worse than cruelty to animals? I mean I would condemn someone who stole from another human being to eat far more than someone who killed animals so they didn't starve. The reason people are arguing for empathy, is not because its actually going to do something for these women. They can't feel your empathy. The point is to not be so closed minded to simply see issues like this one in pure black and white.

Yes, I know people who have. They've never ever had to resort to torturing animals. Why would they? They would get ****-end jobs that pay very little, but at least it's still legal. There are welfare systems in place, social services people can use. I'm not saying they are perfect, or even enough, but they are there to use. People who steal to survive, like from a bakery for example, aren't actually hurting anyone or anything. There's not many things I can think of that are actually worse than slowly torturing an animal as a job, short of being a hitman or someone who'd break people's bones to "collect debts". Or something that is potentially fatal. But hey, if you want to argue that cleaning toilets at McDonalds for example is worse than wounding rats then setting them on fire, go right ahead. I would call you a lunatic though.

All I see are excuses here.

They didn't just "kill animals", they tortured them in a slow and painful manner. In a porn flick. Defenceless animals you'd purchase from a pet store. Even if they were living in complete poverty, torturing animals to death wouldn't be their only option to make money. No one was holding a gun to their head. They were two young women living in Florida, not in a slum in Yemen, are you saying it's possible that the only option they had was torturing little critters to death in a porn flick?

Many people struggle for money, certainly a lot worse off than these two woman, yet they keep clean. Or at the very least, not painfully harm a living being for sexual pleasure. Yet they, for some reason, can't do this? Right.

[Starwulf]

Starwulf, stop making a fool of yourself.

Occam's Razor: which is the simpler and more likely option, that these girls had whatever contrived past of abuse you can imagine to explain their actions, or that they were just lazy, ignorant and greedy? It's not like the last three qualities are in short supply in humanity. People don't need a history of abuse to be cruel to animals.

That is incredibly offensive. I"m not making a fool of myself at all. Just because you can't see the possibilities, doesn't mean they aren't there. Welcome to my block list, I don't like people who are rude ><


snip

As I said before(but didn't stick with it), I'm done with the discussion. You refuse to see any other possibilities. I'm not even sure why you made this thread in the first place. It obviously wasn't for any real discussion, it was just to see how many people agreed with you that they should be prosecuted. The moment any dissension arises, you refuse to even consider it and just keep saying the same things over and over again. Enjoy talking with nothing but like-minded people, I'm out.

[Paulinator]

You refuse to see any other possibilities.

That's because there are none.

One says that it was other models doing it, the other admits they did it but said they were manipulated into doing so:


“We were manipulated and convinced that these things were alright. And unfortunately they were very wrong and now we have to pay the consequences, even if it was 10 years ago.”


“The truth always comes out. I wasn’t guilty from the get-go,” Hird said. “Those were other models.”

But nooo, they're victims! :smallannoyed:

They can't even get their stories straight. You, Asta and Chen should really read the content of the report first before even remotely suggesting that they may be victims. They're not. That is quite obvious from the fact that they're not even using the same alibi. Furthermore, they did not use the "excuse" that they were incredibly poor, or abused as children. Their defences don't even match! They directly contradict each other despite the fact they were both involved. What does that tell you, hmm?

[Aedilred]

By the report do you mean the news article linked from the first page? Becuase that's the only source I've so far seen. Admittedly I haven't been looking for others independently, but I haven't seen them in the thread. Because that's one article from one news source. Media bias is a thing. Media inaccuracy is a thing. Anyone who has ever had independent knowledge of an event reported in the media will know the remarkable propensity of news sources to get at least one salient fact in each instance wrong.

In any case, it's not a legal report. It doesn't contain the full details of their defence. It's written to appeal to its audience, not to give a clear and unbiased account of the facts. I don't know anything the Miami Herald so it could the the red-top of Florida for all I know. I don't think that article alone is sufficient to be drawing too many conclusions about the exact details of what did or didn't happen.

But in any case I am flabbergasted at the vitriol being flung around in this thread. The discussion may well have run its course (as has the case) but if it's going to continue, perhaps we should all just... calm down?

[Frozen_Feet]

If they had been caught at the time, some sort of community service and/or fine would have been justified. Help undo the harm they caused to society. 10 years after the fact? I suppose if they were still doing these types of things it might motivate them to stop. But I suspect they are no longer doing this. There is little benefit in punishing them now except to feed people's need for vengeance. And that is the WORST reason to punish people in today's society.

It's pretty clear you didn't catch my stance on the actual conviction. I'm perfectly allright with them getting away with it due to statute of limitations, because I know why such limitations exist.

What I do consider silly is people jumping through mental gymnastics in order to "defend" or "justify" people who, quite frankly, don't need it. But apparently, pretty young girls continue to be an endangered species. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Any act that involves a creature that can't communicate whether not they would enjoy something should not be dignified with with the word 'fetish'. On a related note, though, thankfully, less severe, note, I was pretty appalled when I heard about someone base jumping with their dog, because the dog can not give consent to something like that.

[Jayngfet]

It's pretty clear you didn't catch my stance on the actual conviction. I'm perfectly allright with them getting away with it due to statute of limitations, because I know why such limitations exist.

What I do consider silly is people jumping through mental gymnastics in order to "defend" or "justify" people who, quite frankly, don't need it. But apparently, pretty young girls continue to be an endangered species. :smalltongue:

I get the feeling that if we swapped them out with a couple of forty something bearded ambiguous brown folk there'd be much less sympathy to go around.:smallannoyed:

Though in all seriousness, this is indefensible as an act. There's usually an alternative, if one of your options is choking the chicken in both the literal and metaphorical sense at the same time. I can buy the statute of limitations idea applying, and provided they don't do it again there's no real point to punishing them more than the humiliation and attention already have(either way, passing a background check is now a whole lot harder after this). They're already paying for their crimes enough that prison is kind of overkill, and the prison system itself is bloated enough already without chucking two more into the meat grinder of a machine that needs it's own working out already.

If they get caught doing this again and it's an obvious habit, we can continue the conversation at that point, but as far as I'm concerned this really has gone as far as it needs to.

[Mystic Muse]

Maybe they can't get their stories straight because it's something that happened over ten years ago?

[Paulinator]

Maybe they can't get their stories straight because it's something that happened over ten years ago?

That they mix up the difference between "We did it, we were manipulated" and "other models were doing it" ? Such a minor detail isn't it, especially with something so emotionally involved as torturing an animal? :smallannoyed: