Man Who Shot, Killed Ohio K-9 Officer Jethro Sentenced to 45 Years in Prison

[Krugminator2]

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/man-shot-killed-ohio-officer-jethro-sentenced-45/story?id=41645362


The man who shot and killed K-9 Officer Jethro, of the Canton Police Department in Ohio, has been sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Kelontre Barefield, 23, received the sentence after pleading guilty to charges related to the police dog's death and other charges in an unrelated robbery case, a spokeswoman for the Stark County Clerk of Courts told ABC News today.

In March, an 11-year-old girl donated all of her allowance money to help get bulletproof vests for all of the department's dogs.
"Officer Davis has received 2,000 letters since Jethro's death, and he was catching up with them over the weekend," Stanbro previously told ABC News. "He came across this girl's letter and donation, and it really touched him."


It seems like shooting a dog should be a fine and paying for a new dog. 45 years for shooting a dog along with a robbery seems a little insane. The guy shot a police dog not a police officer.

And what a terrible parent letting their kid send money for bullet proof vests for a dog. Dogs are property. They are not people.

[Danke]

Seems about right. With good behavior, you could probably get a reduced by the time he's 50.

Some dogs are more equal than others.

[oyarde]

One day , one of these fine officers may sic a dog on Allison and she will wish she kept her allowance.

[osan]

It seems like shooting a dog should be a fine and paying for a new dog.

So much as threaten the life of my dog and you would find your mortality standing on very thin ice.

Shoot my dog and it would be the last thing you ever did in this life.


45 years for shooting a dog along with a robbery seems a little insane.

It does seem that way at first blush, one would need to question how many of those 45 years were for the robbery and what may have been the aggravating factors in the case. If the guy has a long criminal record, it becomes notably tougher to validly criticize the judge.

That all aside, I would have absolutely no problem putting someone into a rape cage for killing a dog without valid justification. Dog attacks? Shoot away. Short of that, you don't want me presiding over your future because I will be perfectly fair, which will not go well for you.


The guy shot a police dog not a police officer.

In many cases I would value the life of the dog over the cop. I do not believe I am alone in this.


Dogs are property.

Says you? I say otherwise.


They are not people.

They are not human. Doesn't mean you can do as you please with them. Lots of people out there - many millions of them I would confidently bet - would take great exception to the unjust treatment of a dog. I brook no such treatments, myself.

[TheTexan]

I can't believe someone would just shoot a dog like that.

[Origanalist]

Ya fuck that. Those fucking dogs are trained animals for the police state. I don't care if they're innocent, the fault lies entirely with his trainer. This isn't someones pet that also serves as protection for their domicile. Their whole existence is an affront to liberty because of who their masters are.

[TheTexan]

RIP, brave Jethro. :(

http://imagecdn.godvine.com/pics/GV-Article/dog-funeral-1.jpg

http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2012/05/03/police-memorial-620.jpg

[Danke]

RIP, brave Jethro. :(

]

Is there any kind of fund that has been established in Jethro's memory? I would like to help defray the funeral costs and maybe something for any of his offspring to pay for their training.

[TheTexan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4M0OKTqc9Y

[Origanalist]

RIP, brave Jethro. :(

http://imagecdn.godvine.com/pics/GV-Article/dog-funeral-1.jpg

http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2012/05/03/police-memorial-620.jpg

Ridiculous. Are they going to block traffic for the fallen officers funeral?

[TheTexan]

Is there any kind of fund that has been established in Jethro's memory? I would like to help defray the funeral costs and maybe something for any of his offspring to pay for their training.

It was a pretty big funeral. But if we all pitch in I'm sure it will help a lot

The Canton Police Department is not actively seeking donations. However, those that wish to donate can make a check out to the Canton Police Department and write K9 donation on the memo line. Donations and condolences can be sent to the Canton Police Department at 221 3rd St. SW, Canton, OH 44702.

[Danke]

It was a pretty big funeral. But if we all pitch in I'm sure it will help a lot

The Canton Police Department is not actively seeking donations. However, those that wish to donate can make a check out to the Canton Police Department and write K9 donation on the memo line. Donations and condolences can be sent to the Canton Police Department at 221 3rd St. SW, Canton, OH 44702.

No PayPal?

[TheTexan]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbZw5W-UsAAZggW.jpg

[TheTexan]

No PayPal?

A handwritten letter, with your mailed donation, really lets them know that you care

http://petful.supercopyeditors.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/girl-letter-to-police.jpg

[Krugminator2]

Shoot my dog and it would be the last thing you ever did in this life.


That all aside, I would have absolutely no problem putting someone into a rape cage for killing a dog without valid justification. Dog attacks? Shoot away. Short of that, you don't want me presiding over your future because I will be perfectly fair, which will not go well for you.

In many cases I would value the life of the dog over the cop. I do not believe I am alone in this.

Says you? I say otherwise.

They are not human. Doesn't mean you can do as you please with them. Lots of people out there - many millions of them I would confidently bet - would take great exception to the unjust treatment of a dog. I brook no such treatments, myself.

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Dogs do not have rights. No animal except humans have rights. Rights exist to further humanity. There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal. It is purely a property rights issue. If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal. Morality and legality are two separate issues.

[TheTexan]

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Dogs do not have rights. No animal except humans have rights. Rights exist to further humanity. There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal. It is purely a property rights issue. If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal. Morality and legality are two separate issues.

This was no ordinary dog. This was an Officer. A Hero.

[Danke]

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Dogs do not have rights. No animal except humans have rights. Rights exist to further humanity. There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal. It is purely a property rights issue. If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal. Morality and legality are two separate issues.

This dog doesn't even belong to any one person, but to the taxpayers. So a taxpayer killed his own property, and that belonging to the collective.

A long time ago if you stole someone's horses or cattle, they could possibly stare to death. That problem doesn't exist today. So killing someone who kills your animal is very unreasonable.

Restitution for killing this dog should be the replacement cost.

[oyarde]

This dog doesn't even belong to any one person, but to the taxpayers. So a taxpayer killed his own property, and that belonging to the collective.

A long time ago if you stole someone's horses or cattle, they could possibly stare to death. That problem doesn't exist today. So killing someone who kills your animal is very unreasonable.

Restitution for killing this dog should be the replacement cost.

I will trade them some dogs for AR 15's

[Danke]

I will trade them some dogs for AR 15's

Will they be as good as the dogs they recently used in ND?

[oyarde]

Will they be as good as the dogs they recently used in ND?
Whatever they have at the dog pound , I can jail break 'em and trade 'em for rifles .

[Danke]

Whatever they have at the dog pound , I can jail break 'em and trade 'em for rifles .

Lol, "jail break." You mean, "pick up." Right.

[oyarde]

Lol, "jail break." You mean, "pick up." Right.

Yeah , pick up some dogs to trade to the white eye police for rifles ,good plan to get some tax dollars back .

[Danke]

Yeah , pick up some dogs to trade to the white eye police for rifles ,good plan to get some tax dollars back .

What kind of self respecting police officer would trade with an Injun? Especially firearms?

[oyarde]

Last time I was by there they had some fat , old , one eyed pit bulls . Those would be perfect , I could have the Mrs make them a little purple heart eye patch , once they get the bullet proof vest they will look just like cops. Same haircut .

[oyarde]

What kind of self respecting police officer would trade with an Injun? Especially firearms?

It is OK , I am a Great American Patriot .

[Danke]

It is OK , I am a Great American Patriot .

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif

[oyarde]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif

Time to make some dog trainer business cards . I wonder if they have any .308 's ?

[Origanalist]

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Dogs do not have rights. No animal except humans have rights. Rights exist to further humanity. There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal. It is purely a property rights issue. If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal. Morality and legality are two separate issues.


If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement

If that's something you want to do, sometimes morality trumps legality for many. Myself included. And doing so for any purpose other than self defense instantly classifies you as a threat to anyone around you. Not saying you would do so, just what the response would be.

Once the state takes an animal and turns it into a weapon against my liberty it no longer deserves any sympathy from me however. It may not be the dogs fault but it is what it is.

[Origanalist]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif

Dressing up tonight?

[oyarde]

What kind of self respecting police officer would trade with an Injun? Especially firearms?

I noticed this dog was in Ohio , my first thought was it was trespassing , but I think Canton is North of the Greenville Treaty line . Most of Ohio still belongs to the Miami , Shawnee etc. I would charge Ohio rent.....

[Danke]

I noticed this dog was in Ohio , my first thought was it was trespassing , but I think Canton is North of the Greenville Treaty line . Most of Ohio still belongs to the Miami , Shawnee etc. I would charge Ohio rent.....

You guys will never admit it, but you lost, smoking that peyote.

[oyarde]

You guys will never admit it, but you lost, smoking that peyote.

I have my scouts keeping a careful eye on the Wabash , we have to ensure not too many of those commies from Illinois make it across. When I am Gov. , we will evaluate if we need a wall. And yes , I will make them pay for it , of course .

[Danke]

I have my scouts keeping a careful eye on the Wabash , we have to ensure not too many of those commies from Illinois make it across. When I am Gov. , we will evaluate if we need a wall. And yes , I will make them pay for it , of course .

Tribal dudes have governors?

[John F Kennedy III]

Dogs are property and are not human. As long as it is your dog you should be able to do whatever you want to it with ZERO repercussions.

Any other stance is authoritarian. Period.

[osan]

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Sigh... incapable of offering a rational response, you resort to the ad hominem? For whatever reason, I thought you were better than this.


Dogs do not have rights.

Firstly, how do you know that?



No animal except humans have rights.

Prove it.

I wonder if you can even prove that YOU have rights.


Rights exist to further humanity.

Is a man's claim to life extant only to "further humanity"? Your statement makes no sense, as forwarded. Perhaps you have erred in its formulation? If rights exist to further humanity, the implication must be that the rights are not those of the individual but of collective humankind. Otherwise, the statement is nonsensical; how can an individual right exist solely for the furtherance of the collective?


There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal.

Who says? What is your basis?


It is purely a property rights issue.

Please demonstrate.


If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal.

And here is the money shot. Legality is normatively irrelevant. That we as a species have advanced it positively in status above morality demonstrates how bereft of sense and decency we have become, statistically speaking. Law must perforce derive its authority from moral principle or it is not, in fact, law but mere statute, which is nothing more than the whim of a subpopulation. Legality speaks solely to issues of statutory formalism and not to law. It therefore also fails to speak with any moral authority and is thereby invalid. That, of course, does not mean that men with guns will not impose the immoral statute upon you and enforce it with violence and the threat thereof.

If the act is immoral, then it ought to be unlawful and "legality" should not even be in our vocabulary, save as a term of derision to denote the immoral, unlawful caprice of tyrants and associated criminals responsible for violating men's valid claims.

To assert that immoral acts should not be illegal makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football. You would serve yourself well to reconsider this gravely flawed position on the matter.


Morality and legality are two separate issues.

Here we agree, legality having no normative validity whatsoever, yet possessing the positive force of actual law through the agency of men with guns.

Your position is the product of wanting to be able to do what you want in spite of what moral propriety says contrariwise. It is my displeasure to inform you that this is a sign of moral turpitude or perhaps merely ignorance.

[osan]

Ya fuck that. Those fucking dogs are trained animals for the police state. I don't care if they're innocent, the fault lies entirely with his trainer. This isn't someones pet that also serves as protection for their domicile. Their whole existence is an affront to liberty because of who their masters are.

Which is precisely why I value the life of the dog over those of their handlers.

I would also note that if it is indeed the case that this guy got 45 years because of the dog and not so much due to the robbery, the message there is you may as well just shoot the cop because the price seems about the same.

I'm not sure these rocket surgeons realize the potential trouble to which the loss of proportionality may give rise.

[Origanalist]

Which is precisely why I value the life of the dog over those of their handlers.

I would also note that if it is indeed the case that this guy got 45 years because of the dog and not so much due to the robbery, the message there is you may as well just shoot the cop because the price seems about the same.

I'm not sure these rocket surgeons realize the potential trouble to which the loss of proportionality may give rise.

Probably not, but those behind the rise of the police state most assuredly do. The movement is towards making anything associated with government untouchable. They would make themselves holy.

[Krugminator2]

Sigh... incapable of offering a rational response, you resort to the ad hominem? For whatever reason, I thought you were better than this.

Who says? What is your basis?

Please demonstrate.




Anyone who values the life of dogs over humans is by definition irrational. Anyone who would kill another human for killing a dog is not tethered to reality. That is directly addressing your position. I highly doubt when push came to shove you would think like that.

The starting axiom is existence exists, And you have the right to exist. Everything flows from that.

Humans developed rights in order for humans to survive. For something to have rights, it has to have the ability or the potential to respect the rights of others. Animals don't possess that ability. They don't have a capacity for reason, and thus don't have a capacity to be moral. If you enter into a contract with a dog, it will be incapable of honoring that contract. If you did grant a bear a right to life, then you have to grant a salmon a right to life. If animals truly did have rights, then you would have to hold a bear accountable for murder every time it eats a salmon. If a human gets put in a cage with a lion, the lion is not going to voluntarily trade and cooperate with the human. It will eat the human.

If a human violates the rights of another human, it loses rights. But a human is granted rights in the first place because it possesses the capacity to respect the rights of others.

[Origanalist]

Anyone who values the life of dogs over humans is by definition irrational. Anyone who would kill another human for killing a dog is not tethered to reality. That is directly addressing your position. I highly doubt when push came to shove you would think like that.

The starting axiom is existence exists, And you have the right to exist. Everything flows from that.

Humans developed rights in order for humans to survive. For something to have rights, it has to have the ability or the potential to respect the rights of others. Animals don't possess that ability. They don't have a capacity for reason, and thus don't have a capacity to be moral. If you enter into a contract with a dog, it will be incapable of honoring that contract. If you did grant a bear a right to life, then you have to grant a salmon a right to life. If animals truly did have rights, then you would have to hold a bear accountable for murder every time it eats a salmon. If a human gets put in a cage with a lion, the lion is not going to voluntarily trade and cooperate with the human. It will eat the human. The same applies to humans. If a human violates the rights of another human, it loses rights.

If you put a human in a cage with a dog will the dog eat the human? It depends on if the dog is feral, trained to attack or trained to accept humans without attacking. So what you state about dogs is not true, they do have that ability.

[oyarde]

Tribal dudes have governors?

Once I secede I may keep that office for myself .

[William Tell]

If you put a human in a cage with a dog will the dog eat the human? It depends on if the dog is feral, trained to attack or trained to accept humans without attacking. So what you state about dogs is not true, they do have that ability.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?437390-Report-Kim-Jong-Un-fed-his-Uncle-to-starving-dogs

[Origanalist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?437390-Report-Kim-Jong-Un-fed-his-Uncle-to-starving-dogs

https://theawl.com/cannibals-seeking-same-a-visit-to-the-online-world-of-flesh-eaters-d4cfe06d9052#.9rhi4s67g

[William Tell]

https://theawl.com/cannibals-seeking-same-a-visit-to-the-online-world-of-flesh-eaters-d4cfe06d9052#.9rhi4s67g

Yeah. There are people who will eat people. The difference though is no matter how hungry I was, if they threw a baby or you into a cage with me I wouldn't eat the person. Although cannibalism takes place, far more people starve to death than eat other people. Because normal people don't consider eating their neighbor an option, certainly more would do it than we would like to think. But the morals are there a lot of the time. I doubt there are many dogs that would reject human flesh. I would take my chances in a cage of people starved for 15 days over a cage of dogs starved for 5 days.

My point was just that I would add "hungry" to the varieties of dogs that would eat people. I suppose it's possible even aggressive breeds of dogs that happen to be in cages with lots of other domesticated dogs wouldn't be as likely to eat people. But I still bet when push came to shove 30 domesticated large dogs would be far more likely to eat people than 30 people would.

Of course, if the Government calls human flesh Soylent Green or something like 70% of people would trust and chomp.....:(

[Origanalist]

Yeah. There are people who will eat people. The difference though is no matter how hungry I was, if they threw a baby or you into a cage with me I wouldn't eat the person. Although cannibalism takes place, far more people starve to death than eat other people. Because normal people don't consider eating their neighbor an option, certainly more would do it than we would like to think. But the morals are there a lot of the time. I doubt there are many dogs that would reject human flesh. I would take my chances in a cage of people starved for 15 days over a cage of dogs starved for 5 days.

My point was just that I would add "hungry" to the varieties of dogs that would eat people. I suppose it's possible even aggressive breeds of dogs that happen to be in cages with lots of other domesticated dogs wouldn't be as likely to eat people. But I still bet when push came to shove 30 domesticated large dogs would be far more likely to eat people than 30 people would.

Of course, if the Government calls human flesh Soylent Green or something like 70% of people would trust and chomp.....:(

On the flip side, throw a dog into a room full of starving people and watch what happens.

[Slave Mentality]

If you put a human in a cage with a dog will the dog eat the human? It depends on if the dog is feral, trained to attack or trained to accept humans without attacking. So what you state about dogs is not true, they do have that ability.

A hungry dog will eat anything.

-Joe Dirt

[osan]

Anyone who values the life of dogs over humans is by definition irrational.

"By definition"... FAIL. You need to bring far better game to the table than this. Who's definition? If you cannot establish said definition objectively, you have nothing but opinion. You are entitled to that, but you should then properly qualify your statements with "in my opinion...", rather that attempting to pass your arbitrary views as being objectively absolute.

So let us see your definition and your demonstration of its objective and universal validity. If you can do this, I may be moved to alter my position. I remain until such time.


Anyone who would kill another human for killing a dog is not tethered to reality.

Your blind and unsupported assertions cut no muster. You will have to do much better than this.


That is directly addressing your position. I highly doubt when push came to shove you would think like that.

I don't think you would dare test me on that theory. My dogs are family to me. If you threatened either of my daughters, you would never make that error a second time. This is no less true for my dogs. You can hold any opinion you wish on the matter, it will make no difference to me.

Let me ask you this: is a man entitled to use deadly force in defense of his property?


The starting axiom is existence exists, And you have the right to exist. Everything flows from that.

In this single sentence, you have wholly and utterly contradicted everything else you have asserted up to this point. I happen to agree with this statement, so far as it goes, which is not quite all the way, but I shall not split that hair at this time. If it pleases you, we can go through the analytic process to discover the implications of what you have written here.


Humans developed rights in order for humans to survive.

Wrong. Rights were not "developed", unless your meaning refers to our understanding of them. Rights simply are in the same way "existence exists". Men survived for millennia, presumably without any "development" of rights. Your assertion once again may be taken to imply that rights are synthetic social constructs, meaning they are artifacts, further implying that they are granted, which in turn also implies that they may be validly taken away. To accept this opens a can of worms I will be more than happy to examine for your benefit.

Rights exist in and of themselves because they inhere from the very nature of what we are as living beings. It is my belief that the same may be said of animals. Any valid refutation of this would perforce have to demonstrate the relevant distinguishing feature between men and other animals that places him in the position of holding rights whereas the others do not. Good luck with that. And allow me to preempt you in case you attempt to employ the tired old saws such as "sentience", moral character, and so forth. These all fail miserably under all but the most hopelessly careless scrutiny.

That all aside, I once again challenge you to prove that you have rights. Demonstrate it to us such that there is no possible argument valid to countervail your claim. To put it another way, what argument would you give to a perfectly reasoning alien species come to earth to kill you such that you would demonstrate to their complete rationality that they have no authority to take away your life?


For something to have rights, it has to have the ability or the potential to respect the rights of others.

Proof by assertion: FAIL. Where's your evidence?


Animals don't possess that ability.

See my response, immediately above.


They don't have a capacity for reason,

You clearly have not spent a lot of time around non-human animals. I have dogs, cats, ducks, geese, guineas, chickens, goats, coyotes, etc. in some abundance on our little farm. I can show you reasoning in their behavior that cannot be denied. You are also proven dead-wrong WRT apes who demonstrate the use of reason. Your assertion shows tremendous hubris and ignorance of that which is all around you.


and thus don't have a capacity to be moral.

As I mentioned above, the morality argument it tried, failed, and holds zero water. My proof of this lies in the fact that you will fail in any attempt to objectively demonstrate how morality qualifies as the defining quality in proof of your assertion that men have rights and non-human animals do not. I also point out that this tack contradicts your other assertion that "existence exists". Rights are either self evident in the manner of "existence exists", or they are based (according to you) upon the capacity for morality. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways, and these two separate notions are mutually exclusive due to the respective cloths from which each is cut.



If you enter into a contract with a dog, it will be incapable of honoring that contract.

This is patently silly. That dogs and humans may hold some sorts and measures of differing capacities, to deduce from this that one therefore possesses rights and the others not is non-sequitur. The path from your premise to your conclusion is occluded by chasms along the way. IOW, you need to establish more than just this, the "more" being the fundamental, objective, and universally valid and absolute factor that distinguishes the two classes of beings in a way that leads one to the unbreakable conclusion that one has rights and the others not. You have not come even to the same planet as that where such proof might live, much less the ballpark.

I confidently assert that even after a lifetime of devotion to such proof, you will fail to find it. But if you do, I will concede your point and alter my view on the matter.


If you did grant a bear a right to life, then you have to grant a salmon a right to life.

I recognize all animals' right to life. I similarly grant all other living things their right to life. This does not preclude my killing them in order that I might eat.

A man intent upon killing or otherwise bringing me to harm has a right to life and I fully acknowledge it even as I draw my knife and open his arteries in defense of my own claims.

You have made the classic and all-too-common error of assuming that a right to life necessarily implies sacrosanctity. Were this the case, then we would all be in deep karmic shit for so much as accidentally stepping on an ant or consuming a salad. It is clear that we are bound to kill in order to live. We cannot eat the rocks. Life must perforce feed on other life. This is simply the nature of things, rightly or otherwise.

A right is a CLAIM. I claim my life. Presumably, you claim yours. I recognize your claim and respect it. But if you attempt to harm me, loathe as I would be, I would remove life from you with no hesitation. I can only assume that you would do the same, were I to attempt to trespass upon your claim to life. Well guess what: if you attempt to trespass upon a deer in that manner, it is going to do what it can to defend ITS claim to life. It will run if it can. If cornered, it will use other means. This constitutes a prima facie demonstration of the claim. The claim, being a right, is thereby established in the apparent actions that bespeak said claim in the absence of verbalization. If I attempt to kill a deaf-mute, will he not likely make some attempt to defend himself, all else equal? There is no verbal expression of claim, and yet we accept that he claims his own life based on his actions in defense of same. I do not accept the simplistic assumption that just because he is human it follows perforce that he claims his life. There are, in fact, countless examples of humans relinquishing their claims to life. For example, the soldier who falls upon a hand grenade for the sake of his brethren in arms has relinquished his claim to life for the stated reason. Therefore, in the strictest epistemological sense, the assumption is not valid. We can, however, reliably judge that man's claim to life based upon his behavior in the absence of any verbal expression thereto. The same holds for animals. If they fight for their lives, it must be concluded that they claim their lives. Any other assumption fails the smell test in a big way.


If animals truly did have rights, then you would have to hold a bear accountable for murder every time it eats a salmon.

Non-sequitur. This fails in mind-numbing fashion.


If a human gets put in a cage with a lion, the lion is not going to voluntarily trade and cooperate with the human. It will eat the human.

Which stands mute on the issue of the lion's claim to its own life.


If a human violates the rights of another human, it loses rights.

Humbug. Again, you make a strong assertion with no evidence in support thereof. This is a very bad habit. We all do it, but you're making an art of it.


But a human is granted rights in the first place because it possesses the capacity to respect the rights of others.

Über-Ultra-Mega-Hyper FAIL.

No soup for you!

I regret to inform you that your understanding of the general issues raised in this exchange is greatly lacking. I say this as no attempt to demean or disparage you, but only that you should be aware that you might at least consider the possibility of further study. As always, you are also free to tell me to piss off.

To beat a dead horse: If I have before me a human infant, how do I know it has a right to life? By "know", I mean absolute knowledge, absent any assumption? The child is incapable of verbalization at that age. And yet, if I begin throttling it, will it not struggle to breathe in preservation of itself? Barring some freakish organic malfunction, an infant will struggle to preserve itself, even if only reflexively so. On that basis alone we may observe the acts of claiming in clear evidence. What fundamental difference would lead you to thereby conclude that in the presence of the self-same categories of action in animals, that they make no claim to their lives?

Good luck with that one. But once again, if you have a convincing answer, I will change my mind on the matter.

[oyarde]

I once overheard a Sgt in Korea say only difference between dogs and pigs is pigs taste better .

[Jamesiv1]

lol

[Jamesiv1]

"By definition"... FAIL. You need to bring far better game to the table than this. Who's definition? If you cannot establish said definition objectively, you have nothing but opinion. You are entitled to that, but you should then properly qualify your statements with "in my opinion...", rather that attempting to pass your arbitrary views as being objectively absolute.

So let us see your definition and your demonstration of its objective and universal validity. If you can do this, I may be moved to alter my position. I remain until such time.



Your blind and unsupported assertions cut no muster. You will have to do much better than this.



I don't think you would dare test me on that theory. My dogs are family to me. If you threatened either of my daughters, you would never make that error a second time. This is no less true for my dogs. You can hold any opinion you wish on the matter, it will make no difference to me.

Let me ask you this: is a man entitled to use deadly force in defense of his property?



In this single sentence, you have wholly and utterly contradicted everything else you have asserted up to this point. I happen to agree with this statement, so far as it goes, which is not quite all the way, but I shall not split that hair at this time. If it pleases you, we can go through the analytic process to discover the implications of what you have written here.



Wrong. Rights were not "developed", unless your meaning refers to our understanding of them. Rights simply are in the same way "existence exists". Men survived for millennia, presumably without any "development" of rights. Your assertion once again may be taken to imply that rights are synthetic social constructs, meaning they are artifacts, further implying that they are granted, which in turn also implies that they may be validly taken away. To accept this opens a can of worms I will be more than happy to examine for your benefit.

Rights exist in and of themselves because they inhere from the very nature of what we are as living beings. It is my belief that the same may be said of animals. Any valid refutation of this would perforce have to demonstrate the relevant distinguishing feature between men and other animals that places him in the position of holding rights whereas the others do not. Good luck with that. And allow me to preempt you in case you attempt to employ the tired old saws such as "sentience", moral character, and so forth. These all fail miserably under all but the most hopelessly careless scrutiny.

That all aside, I once again challenge you to prove that you have rights. Demonstrate it to us such that there is no possible argument valid to countervail your claim. To put it another way, what argument would you give to a perfectly reasoning alien species come to earth to kill you such that you would demonstrate to their complete rationality that they have no authority to take away your life?



Proof by assertion: FAIL. Where's your evidence?



See my response, immediately above.



You clearly have not spent a lot of time around non-human animals. I have dogs, cats, ducks, geese, guineas, chickens, goats, coyotes, etc. in some abundance on our little farm. I can show you reasoning in their behavior that cannot be denied. You are also proven dead-wrong WRT apes who demonstrate the use of reason. Your assertion shows tremendous hubris and ignorance of that which is all around you.

.

As I mentioned above, the morality argument it tried, failed, and holds zero water. My proof of this lies in the fact that you will fail in any attempt to objectively demonstrate how morality qualifies as the defining quality in proof of your assertion that men have rights and non-human animals do not. I also point out that this tack contradicts your other assertion that "existence exists". Rights are either self evident in the manner of "existence exists", or they are based (according to you) upon the capacity for morality. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways, and these two separate notions are mutually exclusive due to the respective cloths from which each is cut.




This is patently silly. That dogs and humans may hold some sorts and measures of differing capacities, to deduce from this that one therefore possesses rights and the others not is non-sequitur. The path from your premise to your conclusion is occluded by chasms along the way. IOW, you need to establish more than just this, the "more" being the fundamental, objective, and universally valid and absolute factor that distinguishes the two classes of beings in a way that leads one to the unbreakable conclusion that one has rights and the others not. You have not come even to the same planet as that where such proof might live, much less the ballpark.

I confidently assert that even after a lifetime of devotion to such proof, you will fail to find it. But if you do, I will concede your point and alter my view on the matter.



I recognize all animals' right to life. I similarly grant all other living things their right to life. This does not preclude my killing them in order that I might eat.

A man intent upon killing or otherwise bringing me to harm has a right to life and I fully acknowledge it even as I draw my knife and open his arteries in defense of my own claims.

You have made the classic and all-too-common error of assuming that a right to life necessarily implies sacrosanctity. Were this the case, then we would all be in deep karmic $#@! for so much as accidentally stepping on an ant or consuming a salad. It is clear that we are bound to kill in order to live. We cannot eat the rocks. Life must perforce feed on other life. This is simply the nature of things, rightly or otherwise.

A right is a CLAIM. I claim my life. Presumably, you claim yours. I recognize your claim and respect it. But if you attempt to harm me, loathe as I would be, I would remove life from you with no hesitation. I can only assume that you would do the same, were I to attempt to trespass upon your claim to life. Well guess what: if you attempt to trespass upon a deer in that manner, it is going to do what it can to defend ITS claim to life. It will run if it can. If cornered, it will use other means. This constitutes a prima facie demonstration of the claim. The claim, being a right, is thereby established in the apparent actions that bespeak said claim in the absence of verbalization. If I attempt to kill a deaf-mute, will he not likely make some attempt to defend himself, all else equal? There is no verbal expression of claim, and yet we accept that he claims his own life based on his actions in defense of same. I do not accept the simplistic assumption that just because he is human it follows perforce that he claims his life. There are, in fact, countless examples of humans relinquishing their claims to life. For example, the soldier who falls upon a hand grenade for the sake of his brethren in arms has relinquished his claim to life for the stated reason. Therefore, in the strictest epistemological sense, the assumption is not valid. We can, however, reliably judge that man's claim to life based upon his behavior in the absence of any verbal expression thereto. The same holds for animals. If they fight for their lives, it must be concluded that they claim their lives. Any other assumption fails the smell test in a big way.



Non-sequitur. This fails in mind-numbing fashion.



Which stands mute on the issue of the lion's claim to its own life.



Humbug. Again, you make a strong assertion with no evidence in support thereof. This is a very bad habit. We all do it, but you're making an art of it.



Über-Ultra-Mega-Hyper FAIL.

No soup for you!

I regret to inform you that your understanding of the general issues raised in this exchange is greatly lacking. I say this as no attempt to demean or disparage you, but only that you should be aware that you might at least consider the possibility of further study. As always, you are also free to tell me to piss off.

To beat a dead horse: If I have before me a human infant, how do I know it has a right to life? By "know", I mean absolute knowledge, absent any assumption? The child is incapable of verbalization at that age. And yet, if I begin throttling it, will it not struggle to breathe in preservation of itself? Barring some freakish organic malfunction, an infant will struggle to preserve itself, even if only reflexively so. On that basis alone we may observe the acts of claiming in clear evidence. What fundamental difference would lead you to thereby conclude that in the presence of the self-same categories of action in animals, that they make no claim to their lives?

Good luck with that one. But once again, if you have a convincing answer, I will change my mind on the matter.
You should do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

[osan]

Probably not, but those behind the rise of the police state most assuredly do. The movement is towards making anything associated with government untouchable. They would make themselves holy.

Excellent point. I'd not quite gone there, but I see it as clearly the case.

[osan]

You should do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

That's ALL you've got?

Sorry to say, but you've no room for talking about auto-embarrassment with a response like this.

Come back when you have something of substance.

[Jamesiv1]

That's ALL you've got?

Sorry to say, but you've no room for talking about auto-embarrassment with a response like this.
You sir, are no lover of liberty.

[osan]

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

And you, sir, have no science.