Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

    Originally posted by Random View Post
    I thought she have gone through normal channels but went unheeded.
    Yes, but sometimes you have go do more than just "complain" to someone else about a problem, and actually look into solutions for yourself. It can take a lot of effort .... a lot more than ragging on others to do something. But using the animal for batting practice isn't a humane or legal solution.
    Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

      Originally posted by Amati View Post
      It can take a lot of effort .... a lot more than ragging on others to do something. But using the animal for batting practice isn't a humane or legal solution.
      She did make an effort. Do you know how hard it is to swing a baseball bat on a moving target, especially when you're on your last nerve and so unfocused due to rage?

      Sorry, you won't find my sympathy for the unclaimed animal. We're all animals, who just happened to be on the top of the food chain, and capable of killing members of our own species. Accept that humanity, don't evolve it. We're at our own end of the evolutionary step (like our cousin the ape). Something better than humanity will come along, a la natural selection.
      Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

      Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

        Originally posted by Random View Post
        Sorry, you won't find my sympathy for the unclaimed animal. We're all animals, who just happened to be on the top of the food chain, and capable of killing members of our own species. Accept that humanity, don't evolve it. We're at our own end of the evolutionary step (like our cousin the ape). Something better than humanity will come along, a la natural selection.
        So if I am reading your post correctly, there no need to worry about animal abuse or cruelty? Please ... tell me I am wrong in my interpertation of your post.
        Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

          Originally posted by Amati View Post
          huh?.
          Pea-cock.
          Peacock.
          I don't think that word was used for a syllable soundoff on The Electric Company.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

            Originally posted by Amati View Post
            So if I am reading your post correctly, there no need to worry about animal abuse or cruelty? Please ... tell me I am wrong in my interpertation of your post.
            Interpret any way you want it. AFAIC, the peacock in question is an unclaimed animal.
            Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

            Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

              Having any annoying 'wild' life in a residential area is asking for conflict, and these peacocks have been in the neighborhood for over a decade. Most people just put up with the bad and enjoy the good, but with around 11 other birds recently killed by poison or pellet, shows there are more than one 'disturbed' resident taking it out on the pea fowl.

              Positive spin; 1) This one woman's spectacle helps bust the other killers.
              2) The birds get a new home to spare their well being and the sanity of those who've tolerated them for so long.
              https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                Ron - I like your statement.

                The peacocks have been in the valley over 100 years. and that's long before condos were built there. Why should they be removed to a cage someplace when they were there first? It's their home.

                As someone said earlier, complaining about peacock noise in Makaha Valley is like moving next to a airport and then complaining about the airplane noise!
                "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be."
                – Sydney J. Harris

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                  Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                  Ron - I like your statement.

                  The peacocks have been in the valley over 100 years. and that's long before condos were built there. Why should they be removed to a cage someplace when they were there first? It's their home.
                  One could make the same arguments for rats.
                  Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

                  Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                    A few years ago, iirc, a request was made to thin the population of peacocks in Makaha Valley by relocating many of them to Waimea Falls Park. I don't know whether or not that happened but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Wish I had time to research but I don't today.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                      Originally posted by Random View Post
                      Interpret any way you want it. AFAIC, the peacock in question is an unclaimed animal.
                      So, random killing of "wild" (ie non-pet) animals is A-OK in any circumstance because they are "unclaimed"? Does that apply to .... say.... Nene and whales?
                      Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                        I wasn't at all comfortable with news article's stating that abusing/killing of a non-pet/wild animal was somehow not worthy of a higher penalty or equal to that of harming a pet.
                        Hawaii has long been remiss in getting it's animal abuse laws fully into the modern era.
                        https://www.facebook.com/Bobby-Ingan...5875444640256/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                          Originally posted by Ron Whitfield View Post
                          Having any annoying 'wild' life in a residential area is asking for conflict, and these peacocks have been in the neighborhood for over a decade. Most people just put up with the bad and enjoy the good, but with around 11 other birds recently killed by poison or pellet, shows there are more than one 'disturbed' resident taking it out on the pea fowl.

                          Positive spin; 1) This one woman's spectacle helps bust the other killers.
                          2) The birds get a new home to spare their well being and the sanity of those who've tolerated them for so long.
                          Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                          Ron - I like your statement.

                          The peacocks have been in the valley over 100 years. and that's long before condos were built there. Why should they be removed to a cage someplace when they were there first? It's their home.

                          As someone said earlier, complaining about peacock noise in Makaha Valley is like moving next to a airport and then complaining about the airplane noise!
                          makes about as much sense to complain about pre-existing wild fowl as it is to gripe about pre-existing marathons. but i digress. additionally, i confess not to have any meaningful contribution to this subject so i shall go back to enjoying my oh-so-chic-if-i-were-in-waikiki-in-the-nineties cocktail: li hing maggie on the rocks, salt.
                          superbia (pride), avaritia (greed), luxuria (lust), invidia (envy), gula (gluttony), ira (wrath) & acedia (sloth)--the seven deadly sins.

                          "when you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people i deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly..."--meditations, marcus aurelius (make sure you read the rest of the passage, ya lazy wankers!)

                          nothing humiliates like the truth.--me, in conversation w/mixedplatebroker re 3rd party, 2009-11-11, 1213

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                            Originally posted by Amati View Post
                            So, random killing of "wild" (ie non-pet) animals is A-OK in any circumstance because they are "unclaimed"? Does that apply to .... say.... Nene and whales?
                            It's all part of Natural Selection. Who says we are immune to extinction?

                            Was this particular case a random killing or did she silenced the noisiest of the peacock?
                            Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

                            Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                              at this point does it really matter? the peacock's death was caused by a woman who, for whatever reasons she had, has now been charged with animal cruelty and will be prosecuted according to current law.

                              If someone is not satisified the way this law works, then they need to take responsibility for being dissatisfied and do something about getting the law changed.

                              I don't particularly care for peacocks but I also know that I would not have purchased a condo on a property where they run wild. This reminds me of the folks in California who keep building houses further & further into wildlife habitats and then run crying to the politicians when coyotes come into their yards and bears roam their streets. What has happened to simple common sense: if you live with peacocks, you will have noise and mess. You're in THEIR habitat!

                              Has no one ever considered sterilizing the peacocks so that they can't continue to procreate? that would eventually solve the problem, without any harm to the peacocks.
                              "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be."
                              – Sydney J. Harris

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sandra Maloney v. The Peacock

                                Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                                Has no one ever considered sterilizing the peacocks so that they can't continue to procreate?
                                Now that is a good question ..... or rather, that brings up a good question: can a bird be sterilized? I"ve heard of giving "birth control feed", but actual sterilization? Anyone know?
                                I won't even ask what a sterilized peacock would be called.
                                Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X