Some people take the concept that animals are innocent and that all humans are inherently 'fallen' very seriously (including those who see themselves as being secular, thus have no direct sense of what humans are 'fallen' from). It is only now that they are willing to back it into law, risking future societal backlash. After all, human rights are recognized in exchange for human social responsibilities. Non-humans lack one due to lacking the other. Personhood Rights are in place in the event that a member of another species comes along who can interact with humans as equals and respect their rules as well as a human primate researcher can respect the rules of a gorilla clan. 

Quote

At first I thought the dog was just pushing the man, but I realized it was way more than that. ^^

OY! It is same in US now also. Kill the dog and go to jail 10 years. Shoot a gun wildly in the street at someone, have a stray bullet go through a window and kill a child and some cry that it was because of bad circumstance for the person that shot the gun and punishment should be less.

I will not go to a city in the US after it is dark, and some parts of most cities in US, I would not go even during daytime!

17 minutes ago, LadySmoks said:

OY! It is same in US now also. Kill the dog and go to jail 10 years. Shoot a gun wildly in the street at someone, have a stray bullet go through a window and kill a child and some cry that it was because of bad circumstance for the person that shot the gun and punishment should be less.

 

I will not go to a city in the US after it is dark, and some parts of most cities in US, I would not go even during daytime!

> Our cities became more like American big cities - very insecure and dangerous. That's why my luvs always carries their guns when we go out. People here think that crime pays and there is no punishment for such. But what really makes me sad is that human life lost its value. People sympathies more with killed dogs than killed human being. I can write numerous cases about how people showed more compassion for the killer dog who killed a child than for killed child by the dog.

> My husband doesn't like animals, but he doesn't torture them or do bad to them. On the other hand he would kill any dog or animal who will hurt human beings. I wouldn't but he has my full support.

2 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> Our cities became more like American big cities - very insecure and dangerous. That's why my luvs always carries their guns when we go out. People here think that crime pays and there is no punishment for such. But what really makes me sad is that human life lost its value. People sympathies more with killed dogs than killed human being. I can write numerous cases about how people showed more compassion for the killer dog who killed a child than for killed child by the dog.

> My husband doesn't like animals, but he doesn't torture them or do bad to them. On the other hand he would kill any dog or animal who will hurt human beings. I wouldn't but he has my full support.

As a child, we had both cats and dogs. Each had their jobs, but also were part of family. My husband does not care for cats, but has had a dog since he was 1 year. But, he said he would quickly kill a dog of any size with his bare hands if he saw it attack a child.

Cities here are more dangerous every year that I am in this country, and it is all politics. As I said, I will not go to the cities. There is nothing that I need or want there. My husband's work sends him to Philadelphia some times. He will tell me that he drove passed the place where a person was killed a few days ago. I get upset and he says that is almost anywhere in the city. ((( I worry a lot some times.

It's worth noting that nobody died in the second story, which is why the criminal was only convicted of "attempted aggravated murder."  If he had actually killed the person he shot at, the sentence would have been much more severe (and certainly a longer sentence than the 10 years of the dog abuser).   

I think we humans also tend to factor in ruthlessness, deliberation, and how "cold blooded" an act was when deciding punishment.  A psychopath that kidnaps and tortures somebody for days before killing them is seen as much worse than a crime of passion where somebody finds their spouse cheating and snaps, committing murder in an anguished frenzy of rage and despair.  The premeditated, cold blooded murders get harsher sentences than impulsive, crimes of passion.  

In the first story a man brutally tortured and abandoned a dog, breaking many of its bones, stabbing it in the eye, cutting its tongue, etc..  The dog was so badly injured that it couldn't be saved and had to be euthanized.   That's the kind of cruelty you see from serial killers.  In the second story, a man tried to steal a car but was stopped by a worker, he shot at the worker but didn't kill him.  It was a spur of the moment thing and he probably didn't want to kill anyone, he acted out of instinct or panic.   So the lack of premeditated intent and the fact that he failed to kill anyone would be why he got less of a sentence than the dog torturer.  

Animal rights groups are also pushing for stricter and stricter sentences for animal abuse.  I am sympathetic to this to an extent, but I agree that killing an animal should not be comparable to killing a human.