This seems just a little bit worse than planning on using cats for stairs. In what seems like logic for men and insanity for women, Bradley Cianni’s fate is yet to be decided. Seems that when Bradley decided he didn’t want a couple cats he found more people that didn’t want the cats too. What next? Kill ‘em.
Bradley brought two cats to the Hancock County Animal Shelter. Because Bradley is an Ohio resident the shelter refused to take the cats. So Bradley did the most sensible thing at the time and decided that if he didn’t want the cats and the shelter wouldn’t take the cats, he would do what every red blooded American male would do and threw the cats out of the car window and ran them over.
I’m not about to condone the actions by Bradley, but is this really worse than putting the cats on the street and having them force to fend for themselves and possibly starving to death? I’m not sure what the laws state, but it would seem more cruel to torture vs. execute.
Now nobody here at RetardNews.com condones the punishing or execution of anything, but I am willing to bet that people opposed to cat death are only choosing that because they like cats and not because they are animal lovers (or furries). If you like cats a lot and wouldn’t want them killed, would you say the same about spider or ants or ticks? And yea, I can compare all of these things because it’s fair.
If Bradley is found guilty of anything it would seem that the worst animal shelter ever should be twice as guilty (and no tag backs).
Source
Carbon neutral pledge:
[...] then, time for getting a gift card for a friend as an apology for running over cats, repeatedly, with my car. Oh wait, no, gift cards are not an option either. Hmm.. guess [...]
The disposition was not guilty x2, thanks.