Here is another article that takes a more detailed take about what she bragged about in her book. It also focuses more on the legal aspects, pointing out that her killing of the goat appears to have violated the states animal cruelty laws. If nothing else, the details about this give a clear, and disturbing view into the type of person she is.
“Walking back up to the yard, I spotted our billy goat,” Noem wrote.
The nameless goat’s only sin in that moment was being in Noem’s field of view.
In the book, Noem tried to justify her snap decision to kill the goat by writing that it “loved to chase” her children and would “knock them down and butt them,” leaving them “terrified.” The animal also had a “wretched smell.”
But apparently none of that had been a big enough problem to do anything about it. Not until Noem got angry enough to kill a dog and decided she needed to kill again.
Noem says she “dragged” the goat to the gravel pit, “tied him to a post,” and shot at him. But the goat jumped when she shot.
“My shot was off and I needed one more shell to finish the job,” she wrote.
She studiously avoided saying she wounded the goat with the first shot, but that’s the implication.
“Not wanting him to suffer,” she added — apparently experiencing her first twinge of feeling, after saying that killing the dog was not “pleasant” — “I hustled back across the pasture to the pickup, grabbed another shell, hurried back to the gravel pit, and put him down.”
…
In reality, what Noem did to the goat — dragging it to a gravel pit, tying it to a post, shooting at it once, leaving to get another shell, and shooting it again — sounds an awful lot like the legal definition of animal cruelty. That definition in South Dakota law is “to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously inflict gross physical abuse on an animal that causes prolonged pain, that causes serious physical injury, or that results in the death of the animal.”
I see… Just normal serial killer behavior. I wonder why someone would want to put scores of people people matching a certain profile in the care of a serial killer?
Whatever I’ll say it. Is she a dangerous sociopath, very likely. Does what she did to the goat fit the definition of the South Dakota law written above, doubt. A judge/ jury would find she thought a gunshot would kill the goat, and shot it. And since it is her story no one can prove she pranced around or did anything other than what she said she did, which was go get another “shell” to end its life. Her compete disregard for other peoples lives/feelings/wants/freedoms make her a shit person who should fear the possibility of her claimed religion being real. But being a shit person isn’t part of that law.
What I don’t understand is why I’ve seen people say she used a pistol and she keeps using the term shell. Her wording seems specific to her using a shotgun to shoot the goat, which should make it harder to miss… But it isn’t a guarantee. But my point being is that if she shot the dog with a pistol she had on her, she would have had to put the pistol away, see the goat, go grab a shotgun from the truck and shoot it at least once, and realize she was out of shells and go back.
She may need to see a specialist to figure out if she should be committed, but I don’t think anyone could prove she broke a law.
The point isn’t the killing of the animal. It’s the method and needless suffering involved. Taking pot shots at them until they’re dead is a little beyond the pale.
Sadly, I am. There are laws about how the animals can be put down and though they are not what I would want them to be, they do at least somewhat limit the cruelty inherent in the process.
Right, so it doesn’t matter what Noem did, because there is already so much cruelty out there? Why are people defending her cruelty by pointing out the existence of institutional cruelty? They are both bad. One does not refute the other.
Between what the law says and what actually happens, there is a yawning gulf. It’s the same in basically all jurisdictions where there are animal-welfare laws. The meat industry is powerful and consumers are unrelenting in their clamor for cheap meat. With such incentives, the weakest link is always going to be animals, which by definition have no voice.
i feel like you’re a tad misinformed. They are super cruel to the animals. They split families up. They kill animals when they’re still children. They castrate pigs without anaesthetic. They cut off the beaks of chickens so they don’t peck each other. They throw male chicks into a giant masher ALIVE. How is that not cruel beyond cruel?
So because there are institutional scale cruelties like this, then it doesn’t matter that a person in a position high in the American government is bragging about her personal cruelty to animals? I am simply pointing out her failings in this regard and you are telling me what? It doesn’t matter what she did because there’s already a lot of cruelty out there?
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter. I was merely pointing out that cunts will be like “THAT POOR DOG” then go home and eat a cow steak who was also tortured.
Not withstanding what @boddhisatva wrote in reply and in no way a defense of the meat industry, you’re missing the point.
The point is the woman demonstrably lacks any empathy and in fact appears to be a sociopath. She should never have been in any position of power over others, far less the position she holds now.
It’s about her, not the animals (as horrible as it was for these, and is for other, animals).
Here is another article that takes a more detailed take about what she bragged about in her book. It also focuses more on the legal aspects, pointing out that her killing of the goat appears to have violated the states animal cruelty laws. If nothing else, the details about this give a clear, and disturbing view into the type of person she is.
…
So not only is she an awful human being, but she’s also an awful shot.
I see… Just normal serial killer behavior. I wonder why someone would want to put scores of people people matching a certain profile in the care of a serial killer?
Whatever I’ll say it. Is she a dangerous sociopath, very likely. Does what she did to the goat fit the definition of the South Dakota law written above, doubt. A judge/ jury would find she thought a gunshot would kill the goat, and shot it. And since it is her story no one can prove she pranced around or did anything other than what she said she did, which was go get another “shell” to end its life. Her compete disregard for other peoples lives/feelings/wants/freedoms make her a shit person who should fear the possibility of her claimed religion being real. But being a shit person isn’t part of that law.
What I don’t understand is why I’ve seen people say she used a pistol and she keeps using the term shell. Her wording seems specific to her using a shotgun to shoot the goat, which should make it harder to miss… But it isn’t a guarantee. But my point being is that if she shot the dog with a pistol she had on her, she would have had to put the pistol away, see the goat, go grab a shotgun from the truck and shoot it at least once, and realize she was out of shells and go back.
She may need to see a specialist to figure out if she should be committed, but I don’t think anyone could prove she broke a law.
Can we just say she’s dangerous and untrainable? Just a thought…
The dog she can justify with him trying to bite her (not saying I agree, but she can provide justification). The goat isn’t justifiable at all.
Killing billions of farmed animals a year: I sleep
Killing a pet: REAL SHIT BRO.
The point isn’t the killing of the animal. It’s the method and needless suffering involved. Taking pot shots at them until they’re dead is a little beyond the pale.
are you aware what happens in the animal agriculture industry?
You support the Trump administration?
Because when this shit comes up and you do your best to shift the focus, that’s one of two conclusions I can come to.
Sadly, I am. There are laws about how the animals can be put down and though they are not what I would want them to be, they do at least somewhat limit the cruelty inherent in the process.
How they’re “put down” (that’s a very kind euphemism) is only part of the problem. It’s how they’re forced to live
That’s their entire life.
Right, so it doesn’t matter what Noem did, because there is already so much cruelty out there? Why are people defending her cruelty by pointing out the existence of institutional cruelty? They are both bad. One does not refute the other.
This is the internet. Deflection from the point being made, in an effort to one-up or simply argue with a post.
More specifically this is Lemmy. If we don’t have morons arguing with the dumbest logic possible, something is wrong.
So theyre forced to live just like the people Noem is kidnapping via ICE?
Between what the law says and what actually happens, there is a yawning gulf. It’s the same in basically all jurisdictions where there are animal-welfare laws. The meat industry is powerful and consumers are unrelenting in their clamor for cheap meat. With such incentives, the weakest link is always going to be animals, which by definition have no voice.
i feel like you’re a tad misinformed. They are super cruel to the animals. They split families up. They kill animals when they’re still children. They castrate pigs without anaesthetic. They cut off the beaks of chickens so they don’t peck each other. They throw male chicks into a giant masher ALIVE. How is that not cruel beyond cruel?
So because there are institutional scale cruelties like this, then it doesn’t matter that a person in a position high in the American government is bragging about her personal cruelty to animals? I am simply pointing out her failings in this regard and you are telling me what? It doesn’t matter what she did because there’s already a lot of cruelty out there?
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter. I was merely pointing out that cunts will be like “THAT POOR DOG” then go home and eat a cow steak who was also tortured.
That’s kind of the point of the article I linked to. Yeah, everyone is upset about Cricket, but the goat matters too.
Personally I share your take, but you’re not helping the cause by insulting people.
Not withstanding what @boddhisatva wrote in reply and in no way a defense of the meat industry, you’re missing the point.
The point is the woman demonstrably lacks any empathy and in fact appears to be a sociopath. She should never have been in any position of power over others, far less the position she holds now.
It’s about her, not the animals (as horrible as it was for these, and is for other, animals).
But what about the children?
This is exactly my mental response to this kind of story. Total hypocrisy. Try to ignore the pushback, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.