A minority/liberal trifecta
female reader, writes:
In this story from the New York Daily News,
- end of initial entry -
“‘I’m no cat killer,” says Lordtyshon Garrett, accused of beating kitty with an umbrella
I was struck by three elements that touch on both recent and enduring themes in your posts: idiotic Ebonic names; senseless depravity; and sheer, utter journalistic incoherence.
Note how the principals can’t even keep straight the sex of poor deceased cat “Madea”!
Also, if you check out the link from an earlier report, the story grows even more muddled. Did the cat belong to his wife or his mother-in-law? What was the source of the DNA on the umbrella? The later account doesn’t say, and the wife alleges there was no blood; was it presumably saliva from the cat biting it in self-defense? Who is this home health worker who allegedly reported the incident? (In the most gloriously brain-damaged part of the article, the perp’s wife is quoted as saying “If she saw it, why wouldn’t she take him to the vet?…. All I know is the cat was acting funny so I brought him to the vet. There wasn’t blood. And then they had to put her to sleep.” Huh?
Daniel B. writes:
“busted when the kitty’s DNA was found on his umbrella”
How much did this DNA lab analysis cost taxpayers? How many rape, murder, and assault cases have been delayed by a forensic lab wasting time on the death of a damn cat!? Why is this even news?!!
I think it’s something of a novelty story, the novelty being that he is facing criminal charges for killing a cat, that people can get in serious trouble with the law for mistreating animals.
But you are right. The idea that the cat’s death was taken so seriously that there was a search for the cat’s DNA on the umbrella, as though this were a murder case on the Forensic Files, is pretty strange. The strangeness didn’t occur to me until you pointed it out, probably because the use of DNA in criminal investigations is so common now that I didn’t stop to wonder at the oddity of its being done in the case of the death of a cat.
Also, as a a result of what you’ve said, I’m wondering about the propriety of posting it at all.
Daniel B. replies:
I don’t believe your posting the story is innappropriate in anyway. The story fits with the general conversation. What is inappropriate is our societies attitude towards animals. Sure, if the guy wantonly killed the cat with an umbrella he’s a sick bastard and ought to be punished. At the same time, sending DNA samples to a lab is a waste of time, money and resources and hinders the Law in effectively pursuing those who have demonstrated that they are a clear and present threat to society.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2009 09:49 AM | Send