Jestersix

It's Tough Being A Fish Nowadays

Teen Burglar Kills Goldfish Because He Didn't Want To Leave Any Witnesses, Cops Say

Police are calling a January burglary of a northwest suburban home "disturbing"--not just because of the stolen goods, but because the young burglars killed goldfish to avoid leaving "any witnesses."

According to TribLocal, a Nintendo game system, CD player, 30 video games, 30 DVDs, a BB gun, jewelry and fire safe containing personal papers and photographs were stolen from an Arlington Heights home sometime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 24.

When the homeowners returned, not only did they find their belongings stolen, but found their goldfish had been poisoned. Someone had poured hot sauce, mustard, ketchup and spices into their fish tank, and all three fish were dead.

Three teenagers were arrested for the burglary, according to the Daily Herald, and a 16-year-old involved with the incident reportedly told officers he "didn't want to leave any witnesses," so he killed the fish.

The boys, ages 15, 16 and 17, allegedly targeted the home because it had been evacuated following a Jan. 19 fire.

Police called the goldfish killing "disturbing," and the 16-year-old faces cruelty to animals charges in addition to a residential burglary charge. He and his two accomplices will be tried in juvenile court.
 
huh... so anyone feeding goldfish to other fish should be able to be charged with the same offense then.....

I don't like what he did, and it's a plain waste of life, but how can one allow live goldfish to be fed to other animals and in the same breath say you can't kill them? Could you be charged with the same offense for euthanizing it due to health concerns? What about allowing it to die due to ignorance? What about the thousands that die in route to stores, at the farms, and at stores due to out of control sticking densities and the lack of water quality?
 
I could see vandalism.

If he did this to any of my tanks... There isnt a protection order stron enough.

I got burgled 5 years ago... I was on the 5 oclock news.. the kids that did it got 33 months.

I sugested they go camping with me instead.. ATF and Fed Judge were no amused.
 
Erick said:
I think intent is the only thing that separates the kid from a everything you mentioned Gresh.

If you allowed a dog to die due to ignorance you would be charged. No intent there. Why is a goldfish any different? They didn't charge Steve-O for his stunt with the live goldfish, that was truly animal cruelty. He swallowed it and it sat in his stomach acids for a couple minutes. What was his intent there? if it died, would he then be charged?

Fish farms get in trouble for the manor in which they kill fish so they have to device elebrate kill systems, yet fishermen and fishing vessels aren't subject to the same rules.

We speak out of both side of our lips and send conflicting messages daily and we wonder how some kid could kill a fish to protect his identity?
 
BTW I think the kid is a wee bit "off" in the head to say the least. The article didn't state it, but maybe he's, well, not so smart :D
 
I doubt they really killed it to protect their identity. My guess:
They killed the fish for kicks, to see what nasty things they could add before it died.
Like tearing legs off spiders.
What they told the officers was probably a smart-ass type joke, trying to be funny.

--

Interesting about the discussion on cruelty to animals.
Agree, mostly due to intent. If you are a fisherman, intent is to eat, and you kill in the most efficient way
without emotion. May result in even more pain/suffering, but intent is still different.
Same with the magic trick. Intent is to put on a show, not get kicks out of dipping fish in acid.
Difference with dogs/cats is expectations.
We have much tighter emotional ties, so expectations on care is different.
Possibly unfair, but human nature.
A bit like the amount spent on endangered bald eagles versus endangers snails.
And back to spiders - would be really consider animal cruelty charges for kids pulling their legs off?
 
GDawson said:
Yes, it's the intent. The malicious suffering/pain/stress placed on the fish for no reason.

-Gregory

Was there suffering & pain? Fish and pain is a highly debatable discussion with papers and research on both sides equally. (IMO fish feel pain, know suffering and try to avoid it... this at least has been my experience over the years but the issue goes to how they process "pain" I guess)

What about the people just leaving their fish there for weeks with not feeding them? Anyone knows a animal will die if not fed. Ignorance of the law is illegal and thus they should be charged with animal cruelty as well.
 
I think everyone can agree with that Gresh, letting an animal starve to death, is bad and people with dogs and cats are charged with animal cruelty, I don't know how the spca feels about fish, but I would think it's the same.
 
GreshamH said:
GDawson said:
Yes, it's the intent. The malicious suffering/pain/stress placed on the fish for no reason.

-Gregory

Was there suffering & pain? Fish and pain is a highly debatable discussion with papers and research on both sides equally. (IMO fish feel pain, know suffering and try to avoid it... this at least has been my experience over the years but the issue goes to how they process "pain" I guess)

What about the people just leaving their fish there for weeks with not feeding them? Anyone knows a animal will die if not fed. Ignorance of the law is illegal and thus they should be charged with animal cruelty as well.

I am only addressing intent to cause harm…not neglect unless its falls under depraved indifference which brings it back to intent.

Yes, there are many arguments on pain vs no pain on fish…….but even if there’s no pain there’s self preservation/stress to survive that kicks in while floating in “hot sauce, catsup, etc” and the death that followed. Like you I believe that there is a fish analog to pain and an avoidance mechanism for it. It is a survival skill.

-Gregory
 
Back
Top