PETA Reportedly Steals and Kills a Family Dog

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/peta-steals-and-kills-lit_b_6156196.html

PETA reportedly stole a family's pet chihuahua from their porch, and killed it.

You heard that right. Yes, we're talking about that PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The theft was caught on video, and has been reported by WAVY.com, local media in Accomack County, Virginia.

County Sheriff Todd Godwin insists that he charged the two PETA workers with larceny. The prosecutor has apparently refused to pursue the case, however, citing insufficient evidence of "criminal intent."

Let's try to comprehend this: we have a home surveillance video clearly demonstrating that a van marked "PETA" pulled up to the house of Wilbur Cerate, and that someone took the family's chihuahua, Maya. PETA has reportedly admitted that Maya was killed: they arrived later with a basket of fruit as compensation, says Maya's owner. (For some bizarre reason, PETA thinks that a nice basket of food makes killing pets okay.)

Hence, we have what we are told is pretty strong evidence that a crime was committed. An admission of guilt has been alleged. What part of the notion "criminal intent" am I missing here?

We also seem to have powerful evidence that the girl who owned Maya is inconsolable. The New York Daily News reports:
"The Mexican immigrant said the tiny dog had been the only thing that cheered his daughter, who was having difficulty adjusting to her new country."

PETA has refused to comment. Local reporter Anita Blanton has tried valiantly to elicit a statement from PETA headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, and has thus far had no luck.

It's hard to believe, but People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a long history of this kind of abuse. You'll find it documented in ugly detail here: "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies." Even more difficult to believe is that they tend to get away with it.

In 2005, PETA employees killed numerous healthy dogs and cats in the back of their van, and deposited the bodies in a dumpster behind a mall. They were charged with "21 felony counts each of animal cruelty," but were convicted only of "littering."

The littering conviction was later overturned. PETA has very good lawyers. "Essentially, the littering charges against Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook were overturned because the prosecution failed to prove that a dumpster is not the proper place for trash." ("Trash" here being dead pets.)

Since then PETA has been careful to dispose of bodies legally, using a professional crematorium. (They have killed over 29,000 animals.) But they are not being careful enough, it seems, when it comes to rounding up neighborhood animals. PETA are keen on eradicating strays -- in particular, they urge the mass killing of feral cats -- but they do not have permission to grab a family's pet dog from their home. Clearly they did not expect that the Cerate house would have a surveillance camera.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

PETA would prefer that people not keep animals for their amusement. If you personally find this unacceptable, however -- the alleged theft and destruction of a family dog -- then please let the local prosecutor know how you feel. Yes, PETA has a huge budget, and powerful lawyers, but public outrage can be effective.

The Commonwealth Attorney's name is Gary Agar. His office number is 757-787-2877; the office email is commatt@verizon.net.

You can also make your displeasure known to The Sam Simon Foundation. Sam Simon, co-creator of The Simpsons, has long done wonderful work for animals, and his foundation works towards -- among other things -- saving strays from so-called "euthanasia."

Mr. Simon is currently fighting cancer, and has announced that he is leaving a substantial portion of his 100-million-dollar fortune to PETA. It seems clear that this is a truly decent man, who hasn't the faintest idea what kind of organization he has decided to leave his money to. The situation is not unusual: most celebrities are kept in the dark regarding PETA's nature.

Mr. Simon is very ill, and it's perhaps best to tweet your outrage to his foundation (whose work PETA is busy undermining): @ssfoundation1

And please let PETA themselves know what you think: @PETA

The citizens unlucky enough to share their neighborhood with PETA headquarters have long been concerned that the group will target their pets. Not many of these people have the means to pursue a civil suit against PETA, but this is why we have criminal laws: it is absurd that a family's dogs and cats cannot be protected from the depredations of this organization.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Okay, I am pretty sure this article does not present the whole picture.

**Kilkrazy**

IDK about the USA but in the UK to kill someone's dog would be a criminal offence.

**Laughing Man**

Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK about the USA but in the UK to kill someone's dog would be a criminal offence.

Barring animal cruelty laws, pretty sure it falls under destruction of property. As mentioned in the article however, seems the prosecutor is unwilling to take the case.

Wouldn't be terribly surprised if this is the unvarnished truth, Oxayotl: PETA has a pretty ugly history of euthanising most of the animals in its care, and while I doubt corporate would steal someone's pet, the run-of-the-mill members tend to be zealous enough to pull this kind of bull.

**Jimsolo**

PETA is shady enough that I wouldn't be surprised if it went down exactly like the article says. They are also galvanizing enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the story is embellished.

The salient takeaway here is that people SHOULD encourage Sam Simon's foundation not to support PETA. That's a worthwhile endeavor no matter what the specifics of the chihuahua story. There are tons of groups out there, from the ASPCA to the WWF, that benefit animal rights.

**PhantomViper**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay, I am pretty sure this article does not present the whole picture.

Why do you think that?

It is a pretty known fact that PETA is against the concept of humans owning animals, stating that said ownership causes the animals great deals of pain and suffering, and that their end goal is that humans aren't even allowed to own pets. It is also a known fact that PETA alleviates the suffering of animals almost exclusively by killing them.

Put two and two together and it becomes entirely plausible that some of the more militant members would actually enter someone else's yard and take away their dog to be "euthanised".

**TheDraconicLord**

PhantomViper wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Okay, I am pretty sure this article does not present the whole picture.

Why do you think that?

It is a pretty known fact that PETA is against the concept of humans owning animals, stating that said ownership causes the animals great deals of pain and suffering, and that their end goal is that humans aren't even allowed to own pets. It is also a known fact that PETA alleviates the suffering of animals almost exclusively by killing them.

Put two and two together and it becomes entirely plausible that some of the more militant members would actually enter someone else's yard and take away their dog to be "euthanised".

I am fething shocked and appalled to read this. I have always ignored PETA so I'm surprised to read their practices are something out of a comic book's villain's.

**d-usa**

Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.

This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.

**streamdragon**

d-usa wrote:
Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.

This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.

How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?

**Medium of Death**

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2838829/PETA-snatched-family-s-dog-porch-drove-away-van-killed-came-fruit-basket-say-sorry.html

Video from another news source but it's on the Daily Mail page.

The person walks up onto his porch and then leaves carrying something. Cradling it, like you would a small dog, if you didn't want to be seen.

PETA are an absolutely disgusting organisation. Their methods are just foul.

Could the owner have shot them for trespass and theft?

**streamdragon**

Yeah, article in the OP has the footage towards the end of the news video also. There is no real other way to argue this went down.

**d-usa**

streamdragon wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.

This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.

How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?

Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?

We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.

**Medium of Death**

I think you're stretching it a bit don't you?

Entering into somebodies property and removing a dog.

Also what gives PETA the legal right to remove animals and destroy them on assumptions?

**Kilkrazy**

I would have to agree.

I doubt that PETA would have the legal authority to pick up stray dogs from the streets, actually, let alone from private property.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

PhantomViper wrote:
Why do you think that?

Because real people are not comic book villains, they need motivations to do stuff, and they usually do not do stuff that they would themselves consider evil (except if it is bringing them tons of money, maybe, but that is not the case here).

**LordofHats**

PETA killing animals? Oh, I'll pretend to be surprised. PETA acting unethically? I'll pretend to be surprised about that too.

**lord_blackfang**

As a rule of thumb, I always assume that anyone preaching ethics or morality is simply filling an economic niche. With that viewpoint, there's really nothing surprising with PETA torturing or killing animals, because they're not actually in the business of ethical treatment of animals, they're in the business of selling the idea of ethical treatment of animals.

**d-usa**

Medium of Death wrote:
I think you're stretching it a bit don't you?

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that these are all things that are completely ignored by the article and things that PETA might try to use as a justification.

Entering into somebodies property and removing a dog.

Happens all the time, all over the country and yours. A stray dog doesn't become any less of a stray dog just because he parks himself in a front-yard. Many places have laws that say a dog has to be on a leash or in a fenced yard, no idea if that was the case in that city though.

Also what gives PETA the legal right to remove animals and destroy them on assumptions?

I don't know of any place where PETA has contracted animal-control duties. But anyone can pick up strays and take them to shelters.

PETA are a bunch of scumbags, but just because they are scum doesn't mean that the article is in any way objective.

Edit: and obviously killing =\= taking them to a shelter, but considering their "anti-shelter it's better to kill than suffer there" stance it's not shocking that they did that.

**Asherian Command**

OH PETA. You will never stop surprising me.

**ZebioLizard2**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Why do you think that?

Because real people are not comic book villains, they need motivations to do stuff, and they usually do not do stuff that they would themselves consider evil (except if it is bringing them tons of money, maybe, but that is not the case here).

Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.

Generally PETA has issues with people owning animals or using any sort of animal products...Unless it's to benefit themselves, such as Ingrid Newkirk's use of Insulin, along with funding of the Animal Liberation Front Terrorist group, and support for them.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

**Medium of Death**

Well I hope that one, or more, of them gets shot when they enter the wrong property and attempt to steal someone else's pet.

I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK about the USA but in the UK to kill someone's dog would be a criminal offence.

For my family I would find the people that did this. They would pay and not in a court.

**Medium of Death**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

Oh really?

NSFW
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/

**AduroT**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

Because dead animals don't have to suffer at the hands of their owners.

**ZebioLizard2**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

Animals should not be caged,. The ideology is animals are better off dead then with humans, or serving humans in any manner or way.

**LordofHats**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

That's why PETA is the butt end of so many jokes. This is not a myth. it's not made up. It's dead serious. PETA kills nearly every animal it takes into its shelters, and seemingly with zero discrimination. They mock Pokemon as advocating animal cruelty, but they euthanize thousands of animals every year (and yes, PETA members and employees have been charged and convicted several times of animal cruelty). They vehemently lobby in the defense of Euthanasia laws, try to shut down no kill shelters, and at the same time demand we stop using virtually all animal products. I assume this is so they can euthanize all the animals, since barring those products, there's little point to them living in a world dominated by man.

This is a group with more than enough money to run no kill shelters. Hundreds of them. They simply choose not to, and its utterly baffling. What's the difference between killing a rat with an experimental drug, and killing a dog who has no owners? The rat's death might ultimately have meaning.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK about the USA but in the UK to kill someone's dog would be a criminal offence.

I believe that the DA refused to prosecute the case

**Asherian Command**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because it's ideology at play here, along with a bit of laziness.

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

Animals should not be caged,. The ideology is animals are better off dead then with humans, or serving humans in any manner or way.

Comparably they are basically hypocrites and suffer from cognitive dissonance. They also are known for being under dealers and for getting away from political backlash, as most of this is not known that well. Even though peta kills more animals than you would think each year.

It should be commonly associated that business with PETA or its affiliations to be basically akin to financial/political suicide. I mean as a company that makes fur coats from the 'finest' fur around I get, you want to have a supplier why else would you ally with the devil?

LordofHats wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Precisely. I do not see how killing animals fills PETA ideology.

That's why PETA is the butt end of so many jokes. This is not a myth. it's not made up. It's dead serious. PETA kills nearly every animal it takes into its shelters, and seemingly with zero discrimination. They mock Pokemon as advocating animal cruelty, but they euthanize thousands of animals every year (and yes, PETA members and employees have been charged and convicted several times of animal cruelty). They vehemently lobby in the defense of Euthanasia laws, try to shut down no kill shelters, and at the same time demand we stop using virtually all animal products. I assume this is so they can euthanize all the animals, since barring those products, there's little point to them living in a world dominated by man.

This is a group with more than enough money to run no kill shelters. Hundreds of them. They simply choose not to, and its utterly baffling. What's the difference between killing a rat with an experimental drug, and killing a dog who has no owners? The rat's death might ultimately have meaning.

Basically. They are also known to be in-league with a terrorist organization and to fund them.

**Dreadclaw69**

Medium of Death wrote:
I don't understand how a private entity, specifically a charitable organisation, has the right to remove property through assumptions and trespass. It just boggles the mind that people would be OK with that. Feth the officials for being so spineless as to not pursue the case.

They do not have that right. They should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law