And how well it betrays your own intellectual and emotional dysfunction, when confronted by reality and sense.

Whether or not you're apparent unstable and distorted perception of reality is threatened by the truths and reasonable statements that I made, is of little importance.

What I said previously still stands unrebutted by any rational argument. As it should be. Though please, if you wish to concede that you were completely mistaken in your unwarranted attacks, do so by posting another response to this topic. And be sure to deny that you are "conceding" by doing this. Have a nice day.

“31 counts of felony animal cruelty!!” Give me a #@*%ing break! The “authorities” need to show the evidence, or stop their petty TERRORISM against these two people. Threatening to prosecute someone with completely outlandish, grievous charges is no less terrorism than threatening to kidnap them at gunpoint! The cops have guns, and will kill you if you seriously resist their efforts at arrest and imprisonment. Even if it’s for false reasons – just like a terrorist would.

What has caused you to become so unhinged? Has someone been trampling on your civil rights? I get the feeling you wish someone would so you could get on CNN. After a short but profitable jaunt on the daytime talkshow circut you could write a book about how our country is turning into Nazi Germany and big brother is creeping up from behind.

And once again, if police agencies bring extreme charges against suspects (charges that are seriously void of credibility), then they are CLEARLY doing so to TERRORIZE the suspects. And the last time I looked in the dictionary, TERRORISTS are people who TERRORIZE others. The police are the ones with the guns, and you had better be afraid of their power, or they can (and WILL), kill you if you seriously resist.

I love your use of the word clearly. Were you there? Did you see the dead animals or the drugs they were using to kill them? How did you arrive at the conclusion the situation was so crystal clear? If I caught two people dumping 30 dead animals illegally I would probably assume the worst case as well. You do know the cops were there because "someone" had been dumping dead animals for weeks, right?
Hey here is an idea. If you are worried about the cops killing you, don't resist. Didnt your mom and dad teach you to respect the law, as well as the officers whos job it is to enforce it? Maybe not.
So anywho, sorry if I offended you or got your pink panties in a bunch. Please go on with your life thinking the MAN is after you, and the cops are trying to figure out how to get us all in jail. Hopefully one day you will wake up and see things are not as bad as you imagine they are.

I still don't see any justification for charging these two with any "felony." Disposing of the animal remains in an illegal manner would NOT be a felony, and certainly would not be "felony cruelty" to animals.

And once again, if police agencies bring extreme charges against suspects (charges that are seriously void of credibility), then they are CLEARLY doing so to TERRORIZE the suspects. And the last time I looked in the dictionary, TERRORISTS are people who TERRORIZE others. The police are the ones with the guns, and you had better be afraid of their power, or they can (and WILL), kill you if you seriously resist.

And even though the policing agencies are more frequently JUSTIFIED in using their power to subdue a resisting suspect (at least in this country), there are far too many times when they use that power as a tool to terrorize those whom they dislike or disagree with.

And "eatmeat"; most people find it very self-demeaning to resort personal attacks when attempting to discuss something in an intelligent manner. It reflects poorly on the credibility of their opinion.

“31 counts of felony animal cruelty!!” Give me a #@*%ing break! The “authorities” need to show the evidence, or stop their petty TERRORISM against these two people. Threatening to prosecute someone with completely outlandish, grievous charges is no less terrorism than threatening to kidnap them at gunpoint! The cops have guns, and will kill you if you seriously resist their efforts at arrest and imprisonment. Even if it’s for false reasons – just like a terrorist would.

The authorities need to make at least “reasonably” sure they have legitamate charges, or they are no better than a common terrorist abusing the power of the gun.

This cracks me up. Someone get BIGONE back on his meds.
Can you say - stake out?
Can you say - caught in the act?
Can you say - Kerry supporter?

Run chicken little - run.

I have no doubt these two aren't the types who would engage in any "cruelty to animals". Yeah yeah luvey duvey puppy dog kitty cakes. Whatever.

YOU DON'T THROW PILES OF DEAD ANIMALS IN A FRIGGIN' DUMPSTER. BECAUSE, HELLO.

If either of the “accused” are capable of doing cruel things to animals, there is yet no evidence presented that they have done anything other than “euthanize” those animals.

They were caught red handed illegally disposing of the bodies in a dumpster. The evidence is so overwhelming PETA has bought a full page ad in the paper to apologize.

I know Andy Cook. He lived with me for a while when he first moved to Virginia Beach. Nice enough guy. I truly believe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if he went on more than one trip he is guilty. I don't know about you, but if my job included killing 30+ animals and then throwing them in a dumpster I would look for another job, quickly. I was actually surprised to hear he worked for PETA. Everyone in Hampton Roads knows they are a bunch of crackpots. (People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area)

When most of the area ran for higher ground during the hurricane of 2003, Andy stayed at the shelter, CARING for the pets that were left behind. Please, innocent until proven guilty!

No one ran for higher ground during the hurricane of 2003. Andy went to work and fed the animals. So technically he was CARING for them.

"I lived with Andrew Cook for several years and I believe he is capable of doing much worse than euthanizing animals. Those who think that Hinkle is solely responsible don’t have complete knowledge of what Andrew is capable of."

If either of the "accused" are capable of doing cruel things to animals, there is yet no evidence presented that they have done anything other than "euthanize" those animals.

And it would not surprise me to find that a man rather than a woman would be more likely capable of doing cruel things to animals. Though I can't even begin to count the number of females that I have met (over my 54 years), who find it funny or entertaining to torture (or watch the torture of), some creature that they do not like. It's amazing how many women will admit to this if they are reasonably certain that they will not be "condemned" for admitting it.

I would be curious to know what Andrew Cook has done to animals that could be defined as cruel? I, personally, don't find humane methods of euthanization to fall under an "ordinary, reasonable" definition of "cruel." The reason's for euthanization have no reasonable bearing on whether the euthanization method is cruel.

Just as an afterthought; I have also noticed that it is often those who are the most vocal and "outraged" by something (like animal cruelty), that are the most "fascinated" and "thrilled" by that which they loudly condemn. Very few people are ever "completely" above suspicion.

Cruelty clearly means making something suffer needlessly (or otherwise), not simply KILLING IT. In fact, the law specifically says what killing methods are deemed to be NOT cruel.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't see any mention of these animals being killed in a legally defined "cruel" way! If these two individuals euthanized these animals in a legal manner as prescribed by law, how in HELL can they be accused of "felony cruelty?" And I have a hunch it would be a pretty safe bet that these two people did not kill these animals in a cruel way.

They may have committed "fraud" of some sort in the apparent way that they obtained the animals, and may indeed have disposed of the remains in an illegal manner. Though that still needs to be proven as well. After all, what's the difference to public safty between throwing out discarded meat products, verses the apparently healthy remains of the euthanized animals?

And many may not agree with what ever reasons that they thought these animals needed to be euthanized. But the simple fact that they "were killed" can NOT in any common sense of reason be defined as "cruelty." Ordinary, reasonable sense says there has to be clear evidence to indicate the deaths involved unlawful suffering!

"31 counts of felony animal cruelty!!!!!" Give me a #@*%ing break! The "authorities" need to show the evidence, or stop their petty TERRORISM against these two people. Threatening to prosecute someone with completely outlandish, grievous charges is no less terrorism than threatening to kidnap them at gunpoint! The cops have guns, and will kill you if you seriously resist their efforts at arrest and imprisonment. Even if it's for false reasons - just like a terrorist would.

The authorities need to make at least "reasonably" sure they have legitamate charges, or they are no better than a common terrorist abusing the power of the gun.

The "Activist Cash" website is created by an industry front group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom) with no credibility. They even oppose efforts to encourage people to eat healthier. The Humane Society of the US is a very conservative animal protection organization that opposes puppy mills (not all breeders) because of the horrible conditions suffered by such animals, and because animal shelters must deal with the pet overpopulation crisis that they contribute to.

You can tell someone has gone over the extremist edge when they try to lump the Humane Society of the US with extremism. These are groups that oppose any consideration for animal welfare at all.

I know MANY hardcore PETA members, animal rights activists & vegans etc who have housecats or dogs as pets and that is fine. PETA and the HSUS only insist on proper treatment of animals under our care.

You know "many" of the PeTA members? How many of them? There are only three: Ingrid Newkirk, Jeanne Roush and Michael Rodman. Don't believe me? See http://www.crcmn.org/review/peta.pdf.

You’ve fallen prey to myth #1,232,342 promulgated by these masters of deception. Yes, certainly there are many people who donate money to PeTA and think of themselves as members – PeTA of course is counting on this and are quite successful at harvesting millions per year from the gullible. But in reality these financial supporters have nothing to do with setting the agenda for this extremist group.

Newkirk (the group’s founder) is on public record dozens of times advocating "total animal liberation" and the elimination of pets. Of course you won’t find any of those quotes on PeTA's many websites – dog and cat lovers almost certainly provide the majority of PeTA's funding, after all. But you certainly don't have to look very hard to find the truth. They're counting on the fact that most people won't.

By the way, did you know that the FBI considers animal rights extremists to be one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation? See http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/. Note the carefully-worded quote from PeTA in this article: "PeTA has no involvement with alleged ALF or ELF actions." Funny; I think most people would consider financial support to be "involvement", wouldn't you? And the group's financial records establish that they have made such donations. It's a federal crime to provide "material support or resources" to terrorists, whether foreign or domestic... so this is pretty serious stuff.