I still have your card. Do you mind if I call for minor prayers and praises, or is it okay for everything?
Golfer Kills Hawk with Golf Shot
- Thread starter spartan7
- Start date
I still have your card. Do you mind if I call for minor prayers and praises, or is it okay for everything?
From the link:
It happens. Now if he was torturing it, that would be a different story. You guys should see what the local black crows do...swooping down at my cats when they cross the street into the woods. Mean bastards...
Can't say I haven't taken out my b-b gun a few times trying to take a few of them out before. Those black crows are some vicious critters. :thefinger
It happens. Now if he was torturing it, that would be a different story. You guys should see what the local black crows do...swooping down at my cats when they cross the street into the woods. Mean bastards...
Can't say I haven't taken out my b-b gun a few times trying to take a few of them out before. Those black crows are some vicious critters. :thefinger
bigbadbrody
Banned
I thought of this right away, Pro baseball pitcher Randy Johnson hits a bird with his pitch
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzZh92YtaBs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzZh92YtaBs
:wtf:
He is a sick fuck and is on his way to becoming a serial killer. Good riddens. :thefinger
http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_abuseViolence.asp
He is a sick fuck and is on his way to becoming a serial killer. Good riddens. :thefinger
http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_abuseViolence.asp
All the crap written here about "people who value the lives of animals over the lives and well being of humans" is just straw-man b.s. I've found that 9 times out of 10 that kind of rhetoric is put out there just to cover attitudes that are precisely the OPPOSITE of what is being suggested of others - in other words, the idea is that the ONLY lives that matter are human lives, and any other living creatures merely exist for our fun and amusement....or childish, pointless sadism. And before anyone goes off on another straw man, no, I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan, nor am I a member of PETA (I have plenty of problems with that group)...
(Please note that I was not calling for him to be killed, just a nice punch in the face followed by 3 weeks in the clink watching a looped vid of the dying bird - which is actually a good bit shorter than the potential jail sentence he could get. I doubt that anyone would SERIOUSLY suggest he should be executed. If so, they are just silly)
This guy was maliciously and with serious intention going after the bird, and witnesses make that abundantly clear. His defense that he didn't think he'd kill it is one that could only be accepted by a sucker, sorry. As others have noted, he's a golf pro, and the bird wasn't that far away.
The bird was irritating him and distracting him from a golf shot. Boo-fucking-hoo. It wasn't endangering him or threatening him in any way. Odds are good that the hawk was just hanging around an area that his family has lived in for many, many years, and he literally hangs onto the few trees that remain after the place was essentially levelled to put in an insanely artificial golf course environment.
It's truly pathetic that the golfer just couldn't get over his self-absorption, narcissism and solipsism enough to just let the hawk do its thing. A truly great golfer would deal with the distraction and make a hole-in-one anyway!
What would this shit-stain putz do if there was some kid crying in the audience?
(Please note that I was not calling for him to be killed, just a nice punch in the face followed by 3 weeks in the clink watching a looped vid of the dying bird - which is actually a good bit shorter than the potential jail sentence he could get. I doubt that anyone would SERIOUSLY suggest he should be executed. If so, they are just silly)
This guy was maliciously and with serious intention going after the bird, and witnesses make that abundantly clear. His defense that he didn't think he'd kill it is one that could only be accepted by a sucker, sorry. As others have noted, he's a golf pro, and the bird wasn't that far away.
The bird was irritating him and distracting him from a golf shot. Boo-fucking-hoo. It wasn't endangering him or threatening him in any way. Odds are good that the hawk was just hanging around an area that his family has lived in for many, many years, and he literally hangs onto the few trees that remain after the place was essentially levelled to put in an insanely artificial golf course environment.
It's truly pathetic that the golfer just couldn't get over his self-absorption, narcissism and solipsism enough to just let the hawk do its thing. A truly great golfer would deal with the distraction and make a hole-in-one anyway!
What would this shit-stain putz do if there was some kid crying in the audience?
Boo fucking hoo is right.
The guy had no business doing that at all. Why would anyone think it was okay to do that?
It also doesn't mean that if I tossed fireworks at your car when you drove by that I was the unibomber. What has that got to do with it? I think if destroying things is that much fun, or making fun of little blind girls gets a good laugh, Psychaiatrists are seriously underpaid.
It's like everything has to be black and white, us or them, nothing in between, no shades of grey. If someone complains about killing an innocent animal that was in good health minutes before that means they put animals above humans? Is that the excuse for acting like a selfish ass? A chance to again strut his stuff and show fans what a great shot he is?
If people oppose permanent destruction of the environment they become tree huggers? Just like everything else in poliltics and history, put a derogatory name on a group and dehumanize them.
I have a group I'd like to try that on, the f*ing thick headed group!
The guy had no business doing that at all. Why would anyone think it was okay to do that?
It also doesn't mean that if I tossed fireworks at your car when you drove by that I was the unibomber. What has that got to do with it? I think if destroying things is that much fun, or making fun of little blind girls gets a good laugh, Psychaiatrists are seriously underpaid.
It's like everything has to be black and white, us or them, nothing in between, no shades of grey. If someone complains about killing an innocent animal that was in good health minutes before that means they put animals above humans? Is that the excuse for acting like a selfish ass? A chance to again strut his stuff and show fans what a great shot he is?
If people oppose permanent destruction of the environment they become tree huggers? Just like everything else in poliltics and history, put a derogatory name on a group and dehumanize them.
I have a group I'd like to try that on, the f*ing thick headed group!
Last edited:
I remember that. You all have to admit, that was kind of funny. :1orglaugh
Whoa, dude. I don't think anywhere in the article it said the dude was trying to mutilate the bird with a golf ball, just scare it off. There's a big difference. And yes I think animals deserve to be treated with utmost respect:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=192783
Hold on a minute - I never SAID that he was trying to "mutilate the bird." I never used that word and I didn't claim that anyone else did, either. He was simply, but maliciously (are you confusing "malicious" with "mutilate" by any chance??), trying to KILL the bird.
Anyway, did you read the original article that was linked to? It said this:
====
"Investigators said Isenhour killed the hawk because he was upset it was making noise as he tried to film an instructional video. He allegedly first drove in a golf cart toward the bird, then 300 yards away, to hit balls at it. When the hawk later landed within 75 yards, Isenhour’s shots got closer until he eventually hit and killed it. The bird fell to the ground bleeding from both nostrils, witnesses told the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
“I can’t deny the accident did happen, but we tried to do everything we could after it happened to make things as proper or right as we could,” Isenhour said.
The golfer, whose real name is John Henry Isenhour III, said it was foolish for people to believe he could have realistically hit the bird.
“That’s obviously people who don’t know very much about golf,” he said. “To say it’s a one-in-a-million shot for an accident like that to happen, you know, and when it did happen, I was very remorseful, very upset that it happened.”
But film crew members who witnessed the killing saw it differently.
“He was just going strangely out of the way to go after it,” said Jethro Senger, a sound engineer at the shoot. “And it was almost, the whole thing was basically like a joke to him. The balls were getting closer and closer. ‘Haha, look how close that one came.’ ‘That one was even closer.’
“I yelled at him,” Senger said. “I said, ‘What did you expect was going to happen?,” Senger said. “I said, ‘You’re a pro golfer, you’re hitting line drives right at it.”’"
====
Thus far it pretty clearly sounds as though he was going after the bird. Almost, strangely, to the point where he was putting getting the bird over his golf game.
I've never used this icon before, but here's me if I would've witnessed this incident ---->
Hold on a minute - I never SAID that he was trying to "mutilate the bird." I never used that word and I didn't claim that anyone else did, either. He was simply, but maliciously (are you confusing "malicious" with "mutilate" by any chance??), trying to KILL the bird.
Anyway, did you read the original article that was linked to? It said this:
====
"Investigators said Isenhour killed the hawk because he was upset it was making noise as he tried to film an instructional video. He allegedly first drove in a golf cart toward the bird, then 300 yards away, to hit balls at it. When the hawk later landed within 75 yards, Isenhour’s shots got closer until he eventually hit and killed it. The bird fell to the ground bleeding from both nostrils, witnesses told the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
“I can’t deny the accident did happen, but we tried to do everything we could after it happened to make things as proper or right as we could,” Isenhour said.
The golfer, whose real name is John Henry Isenhour III, said it was foolish for people to believe he could have realistically hit the bird.
“That’s obviously people who don’t know very much about golf,” he said. “To say it’s a one-in-a-million shot for an accident like that to happen, you know, and when it did happen, I was very remorseful, very upset that it happened.”
But film crew members who witnessed the killing saw it differently.
“He was just going strangely out of the way to go after it,” said Jethro Senger, a sound engineer at the shoot. “And it was almost, the whole thing was basically like a joke to him. The balls were getting closer and closer. ‘Haha, look how close that one came.’ ‘That one was even closer.’
“I yelled at him,” Senger said. “I said, ‘What did you expect was going to happen?,” Senger said. “I said, ‘You’re a pro golfer, you’re hitting line drives right at it.”’"
====
Thus far it pretty clearly sounds as though he was going after the bird. Almost, strangely, to the point where he was putting getting the bird over his golf game.
I've never used this icon before, but here's me if I would've witnessed this incident ---->
Mutilate, kill....whatever. That is what I meant. He didn't try to kill the bird. He is on record saying just that. He was trying to scare the bird off. He hit the bird on accident.
And what do you think will happen when a pro golfer hits a "line drive" at a bird and actually makes contact? If it's the head or chest, it will kill the bird.
In this case, the only difference between trying to HIT the bird and trying to KILL the bird is semantics.
If I tell you I'm gonna toss a bowling ball off a highway overpass just to see if I can hit someone's windshield, you'd either think I was crazy or trying to kill someone...
And it's NOT "mutilate, kill...whatever." There's a difference. If he mutilated it, say, after he killed it, then I'd be even more pissed.
And, no, he didn't "hit the bird on accident." He clearly wasn't satisfied to get a shot CLOSE to the bird. He was AIMING at the bird.
Hitting the bird "on accident" would be if he was playing, took his shot, and the shot veered from where he intended the ball to go, and hit the bird. This was no accident.
Please don't be obtuse about this ninetysixcavy!
In this case, the only difference between trying to HIT the bird and trying to KILL the bird is semantics.
If I tell you I'm gonna toss a bowling ball off a highway overpass just to see if I can hit someone's windshield, you'd either think I was crazy or trying to kill someone...
And it's NOT "mutilate, kill...whatever." There's a difference. If he mutilated it, say, after he killed it, then I'd be even more pissed.
And, no, he didn't "hit the bird on accident." He clearly wasn't satisfied to get a shot CLOSE to the bird. He was AIMING at the bird.
Hitting the bird "on accident" would be if he was playing, took his shot, and the shot veered from where he intended the ball to go, and hit the bird. This was no accident.
Please don't be obtuse about this ninetysixcavy!
I'm not being obtuse about it. He was quite straight-forward about it on the news last night. He didn't try to hit the bird.
If I threw a golf ball at a man, and afterwards claimed "I wasn't aiming for him." Wouldn't I still have to face the same charges? Just like Isenhour should have to face the same charges whether he was aiming for the bird or "aiming near the bird".
In any event, it was not during the course of a regular round of golf that he hit the bird, therefore he should be responsible for an intentional act.
He didn't aim at the bird, he aimed at the tree. He was trying to hit the tree close to the bird, to scare it off...
He didn't aim at the bird, he aimed at the tree. He was trying to hit the tree close to the bird, to scare it off...
Good god, this sort of thing must have been the reason why Al Gore wrote "The Assault on Reason":
http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reaso...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205061046&sr=1-2
You are not only being defensive of this fellow to an absurd degree, and buying the guy's revisionist tale of what happened, but you are also just making things up. Has the golfer even said he was "trying to hit the tree"? You are assuming that's the case, based on the dude's post-killing recollections. Have you ever thought that the guy is feeling guilty and remorseful (which would be good) or just wants to avoid looking bad and paying a fine or serving a few days, so he makes the whole incident just into a lighthearted game with the hawk that ended with a tragic accident that couldn't possibly have been foreseen??
At the VERY LEAST - and frankly, I doubt this take on it, based on the various witness descriptions I've read, incl. those of his own crew member - he was criminally stupid and negligent to have thought he could aim for a bird that close and not, eventually, hit it and, most likely, kill it.
For God's sake, I wouldn't want one of his line drives to hit me, even from 200 yards away. If he hit my eye, it would likely blind me for good.
Hitting a 10 lb. bird? That won't end well.
I'm sure some folks think I'm being overzealous about this incident. I realize it's not the worst thing to ever happen. Perhaps the guy genuinely feels bad now, I don't know. But he surely doesn't wanna pay up or go to jail, either.
As for the discussion on this forum, though, I am just getting fed up, in general, with people in society who are just flatly dishonest and who think they can revise events to their liking without anyone calling them on it. So, I guess I'm venting a bit from my general frustration with that on this specific incident.
Good god, this sort of thing must have been the reason why Al Gore wrote "The Assault on Reason":
http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reaso...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205061046&sr=1-2
You are not only being defensive of this fellow to an absurd degree, and buying the guy's revisionist tale of what happened, but you are also just making things up. Has the golfer even said he was "trying to hit the tree"? You are assuming that's the case, based on the dude's post-killing recollections. Have you ever thought that the guy is feeling guilty and remorseful (which would be good) or just wants to avoid looking bad and paying a fine or serving a few days, so he makes the whole incident just into a lighthearted game with the hawk that ended with a tragic accident that couldn't possibly have been foreseen??
At the VERY LEAST - and frankly, I doubt this take on it, based on the various witness descriptions I've read, incl. those of his own crew member - he was criminally stupid and negligent to have thought he could aim for a bird that close and not, eventually, hit it and, most likely, kill it.
For God's sake, I wouldn't want one of his line drives to hit me, even from 200 yards away. If he hit my eye, it would likely blind me for good.
Hitting a 10 lb. bird? That won't end well.
I'm sure some folks think I'm being overzealous about this incident. I realize it's not the worst thing to ever happen. Perhaps the guy genuinely feels bad now, I don't know. But he surely doesn't wanna pay up or go to jail, either.
As for the discussion on this forum, though, I am just getting fed up, in general, with people in society who are just flatly dishonest and who think they can revise events to their liking without anyone calling them on it. So, I guess I'm venting a bit from my general frustration with that on this specific incident.
Dude, he feels remorse. I saw him on the news and he expressed remorse about the incident. And how do I know about abilities of golfers? I am one. A single digit handicap, at that. (Maybe that's why I'm defending him) :dunno:
Similar threads
