Ever seen the movie The Ghost and the Darkness? It shows lions killing for sport in a rather premeditated way. Yah its got Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas in it, BUT it is based on a true story.
Sometimes for whatever reason an animal is born a little off in the head, and thats when unnatural things start to happen.

Hey Bruce, I loooove that picture. I'm gonna frame it.

Brigliadore, you believe everything that Hollywood makes? There's an old saying: "Although God cannot rewrite history, Hollywood can."

Wow, I'm glad that never happens to people.:haha:

I don't believe everything Hollywood makes, my mom is a screen writer and I grew up in that business, so I have a pretty healthy grasp on it. But it is a fact that those lions killed and they are stuffed and on display in the Chicago Field Museum. Here is the info on the display taken from the Field Museum's website.

A photo of one of the lions after being killed.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/.../z93658_sm.jpg

photos
 

For those that care the Chicago Field Museum has some photos on there web site taken while Lt. Col. John Henry Patterson was building the bridge in Tsavo. There are some neat photos of the railroad car used as a trap as well as the lion's cave entrance. I really love old black and white photos so I thought I would share.

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/...o/gallery.html

You're going to equte my overweight 14 lb house cat to a 600 lb African Lion?

I never said your house cat was on the same level as a lion. You said animals aren't capable of premeditated murder. I stated that I felt they were, and offered evidence to support that.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Poor gerbil. Probably died of fright right after that picture.

Loner male lions are not very nice.
If they get the male lion of a pride to flee, they take over the pride.

Then, they usually kill all the cubs in order to cause the females to go into heat.

Loner male cats are also known to kill kittens they come across, perhaps for the same reason.

Old predators will kill a human as well, merely because they can't catch their normal prey, which is too fast for them. Wounded animals will kill in self-defense.
I don't think that animals who kill humans are necessarily "off"; it may simply be, in their view, self-defense--we do tend to just take over an animal's normal habitat, then bitch when the animal "retaliates," ie, when coyotes kill livestock that is penned on what used to be their hunting grounds, when individuals venture into an animal's territory.

While I think that animals do kill with premeditation--how can you not consider killing for food premeditation, after all--I don't believe they kill with MALICE. Animals will often NOT kill when killing would be to their benefit, such as when a wolf fights for dominance. When the other wolf shows submission, the dominant wolf stops fighting. A human would press the advantage and kill. The animal is much more civilized, due to instinct, than humans tend to be with rules for behavior. That's the difference between animals and humans. Humans tend to kill for either no reason, or for inadequate reason; animals kill for a purpose: food, defense, instinctual passing on of genes. We can't apply our morals to animals. If we aren't going to treat them with the same consideration with which we treat human beings, we shouldn't expect them to adhere to our standards.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. ;)


Sidhe

Ever see a cat stalk a mouse? Same style as a lion.

In an examination of the skulls of "The Maneaters of Tsavo", it was found that the canine teeth were rotted out, causing them to seek easier prey. (Discovery Channel)
Lady Sidhe - "Old predators will kill a human as well, merely because they can't catch their normal prey, which is too fast for them."

I can understand why the lions were hunting humans. We are a good source of protein, and one 150 lb. male yeilds about 60-75 pounds of edible meat. We taste a little like beef, pork, or chicken, but that varies from person to person.

From what I've been told, animals only kill humans for food when they must, because animals supposedly don't really like human flesh. I don't know why. TS would probably know more about that.

Sidhe

We have a terrible meat-to-bone ratio and an awful diet.

Just as a general rule of thumb, predators will normally leave other predators alone. Its just not energetically a good equation to have to fight to the death for a few lousey pounds of meat when a nice tasty non-violent herbivore is sitting around anywhere NEAR in the neighborhood. Which would you rather do for dinner? Order out for pizza or go mano a mano with a cougar? Animals aren't stupid. Neither do they share our highly developed sense of morality and ethics (at least in theory highly developed - one wonders sometimes). There is a difference between killing and murder. I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play. As for the fabled lions - I suspect that was a fable and nothing more.

Very well said!

In order to make that statement you have to define killing and murder. So when a tomcat comes upon a litter of kittens it hasn't sired, does he murder or kill them? When a mongoose finds a non-poisonous snake, that it's not going to eat, does it kill or murder the snake? When Shrikes have an overabundance of prey, do the murder or kill the ones they don't eat?
Even human law divides murder into many catagories depending on the circumstances, so where do you draw the line?
I disagree on the Tsavo lions in that I think it's documented well enough that although it could well be exaggerated, I doubt if it's fabricated. Animals, like humans, occasionally produce odd looking and/or behaving individuals. That's what keeps Wolf and my friend Sharon, the Animal Control Officer, guessing. :worried:

Actually its a pretty well documented story. Here is the link to the Chicago Field Museum where the lions are on display.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/...maneaters.html

Here is the link to a bunch of the photos Patterson took.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/...o/gallery.html

I think for it to be murder there has to be sentience

Sentience, n.
The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

Sentient, adj.
Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).
Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Uh,...Do you mean a critter would have to know they were killing another critter, Dana? As opposed to kicking it's ass until it happened to die? I'm confused.
I think animals understand when another animal is dead vs alive, but they'll never attach all the ramifications people do, to death. I'm convinced that when a lion grabs a victims throat, they're aware the victim is going to end up in a state of what the lion understands to be dead. It's intentional and premeditated, which only leaves "justified" as the determining factor between killing and murder.
Maybe. :confused:

I think it's exactly that ability to understand the ramifications of the act which causes us to classify killing as murder. Animals have no such sensibilities, they have no moral or ethical understanding of the world.
There was a time when animals were considered capable of murder. During the middle ages there were several well documented cases of animals being tried for murder and in some cases executed. That was because murder was seen as an act of evil and animals were seen as capable of being evil

There is no court in the land that would try an animal for murder. Animals that kill human beings are simply dispatched themselves or in rare cases, relocated to territories far enough away from humans. Look at all the outcry there was on that thread sometime back about sharks in Austrailia being killed for having killed humans. No one accused the sharks of murder. No one came forth to plea extenuating circumstances for the sharks other than that they were merely animals. Males of various species of felines will kill kittens that they have not sired - this is called the reproduction instinct. Every organism is equipped with an instinct to perpetuate its own genetic code. By killing kittens, it did not father, a male feline is merely following this instinct and could hardly be considered a "murderer". Animals may be sentient beings, but they do not have the intelligence from which to create a strict rule of morality and ethics. The ethic of the animal world is Nature's - nothing more. The cases where we see the animal "ethic" go awry are generally ones where either man has interfered and upset the balance in some way or where we do not know the full story of what is going on. I find the killer lion story highly suspect because no zoologist or ethnologist was on the scene to obseve the facts in a scientific manner. Felids are known to prey on men almost always because the cat is injured or sick. The large size of the lions killed make me think that the "great white hunter" of the time found a couple of convenient scapecoats to placate the natives and tell a good story back home while the real killer lions probably had died of some illness or injury already sustained.

Oh and Bruce, I just found your quote in the hamster thread, "She would have to have comprehension and I doubt she's pondering the meaning of life. I fully understand your not wanting her to suffer pain, but how do you know she's feeling anything other than unusual?" Well which is it? Either an animal is capable of advanced philosophical thought or it's not. Make up your mind.

Ok, then I'll agree that critters can't commit murder because even though they can premeditate it, they don't have the comprehension of the moral/social ramifications. But dead is dead so it's really semantics. :)

Oh? So why do courts make a distinction between, say, manslaughter and murder in the 1st?

And people have the intelligence to create a strict rule of morality and ethics, so I'm bound by rules you made up instead of "nature" like the cat. And of course the rules you made up are infallible so it doesn't matter what I think the rules should be.
I see, then murder is a violation of your rules and not a crime against nature. That being true, then I'll have to agree critters can't commit murder.
Well, duh. If I stick you with a pin you'll be FEELING pain. I know you can't help it, being female, when you hear the word "feeling", your thoughts skip right over the obvious physical trauma and skip right to emotional drama. Of course being male, I could never understand, no less discuss, feelings. :p

I'm not sure which rules I'm supposed to be making up. My comments on feline behavior come from what I learned in an animal ecology class at University of Colorado. Take it up with them if you feel they are teaching feline behavior incorrectly. I don't understand your last sentence. Maybe its because I'm a girl.

I recall in the last year or two (I wish I had a link to post for you) the lions' den was discovered. A cave near the bridge was found with a large number of human skeletons. At first the authorites suspected foul play until they noticed that the human bones had marks on them that looked like lion teeth marks. The number of bodies (I don't remember how many), the tooth marks on the bones, and the relative proximity to the site of all the lion attacks led them to believe they were some of the bodies of the railroad workers.

I’m not taking issue with your comments on feline behavior. You described a well known phenomenon.
What I questioned was your statement, “I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play.” I responded with examples of animals killing for neither food nor defense, one of which you explained.
Now, when you smugly state animals can’t murder, then define murder as killing while cognizant of a strict rule of morality and ethics, that’s a straw man. I’ve shown examples that premeditated killings occur and I won’t argue whether it should be called murder for humans and nature for animals. It’s still the same thing.

I’m not surprised you didn’t understand the last sentence in that post, it was a joke. :eyebrow:

First of all, I'm sorry. I realized your last sentence was a joke. I wasn't too sure of where you were going with your NEXT to the last sentence. It felt like a barb disguised as a joke, but us girls are always hopelessly confused about such things.

I think the problem here, Bruce, is that no one has given a definition of the word "murder."

Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word: NOUN: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

also:

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

execute, assassinate, kill, murder, slay (vv.) execute, assassinate, kill, murder, slay (vv.)


"all mean “to deprive someone or something of life,” but they differ in important ways. Execute has long meant “to perform, to carry out an action or a duty, to enforce a law,” and a number of other senses not necessarily involving taking life, and for some time in the nineteenth century, commentators deplored the use of execute in the sense of “put to death.” (Their unhappiness may also have been caused in part by the fact that execute is a back-formation from execution.) But today, execute clearly also means “to put to death,” usually under order of a court: The judge sentenced the convicted murderer to be executed by means of lethal injection. (Ironically, gangsters, mobsters, and terrorists often claim to be executing victims judged guilty in their own informal tribunals.)
To murder is usually “to kill with malice aforethought and unlawfully”: He murdered the bank guard who had tried to stop him. To assassinate is “to kill a public or political figure,” and it often is a crime performed for hire or at least on assignment by an organization: The terrorists assassinated the governor of the province. To slay is a literary word—a bit old-fashioned (David slew Goliath) but beloved of the press because it fits headlines (Dissidents Slay Rebel Leader). Slay gives a change from the more common kill, which is, of course the generic term, meaning simply “to take the life of”: We killed hundreds of mosquitoes."

THESE are the definitions of "murder" and "kill" which I am using in my argument. It appears to me that you are using the two words inter-changably.

I will agree with you that animals are capable of and do commit the act of KILLING. I fail to understand how I am creating a straw man when I say animals are incapable of murder. Animals may act in a premeditated fashion, but they do not do so out of malice. You are anthropomorphizing the animal if you embue it with a human emotion such as malice. You admitted yourself that you only showed examples of animals acting in a premeditated manner, but you did not show examples of animals acting with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. Both conditions must exist for an act of killing to become an act of murder.

Animals can, do and will perform premeditated killings. Selecting the one antelope in the herd to bring down shows that. There's a certain degree of thought that goes into it.

Animals can not murder. Even leaving behind the 'of one human' part, when they go to kill something, they aren't doing it for political reasons or anything like that. There are no reasons really, it's done by instinct and the drive to continue living and pass on genes. Taking the life of the antelope is not done because the pride has a certain grudge against that or any antelope or because they want to hear the antelope scream in terror and pain. There's no ill will or malice, as the book says, there.

There's first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter:

Manslaughter is, generally, unintentional, as in, you busted your husband in bed with your best friend and shot them both in the heat of passion, or if you're driving down the road and someone darts in front of you, and you hit them, causing death.
Murder in the first degree is not only premeditated--you planned it, even if only five seconds before but is also murder committed while in the act of committing another felony, such as armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, etc.

Murder two is premeditated. That's what I think you mean when you say murder one.


Hoodeehoo! I finally got to use my CJ degree! Hahahahahahahahaha!! I knew it'd come in useful SOME day....


Besides, like I said before, we can't apply our laws to animals. They aren't part of our society, as is shown by the way we take over their hunting grounds and entire ecosystems, leaving them without means, then pitching a bitch when they don't understand why they can't hunt or live there anymore.

You can't call an animal a murderer for killing for food, defense or genetic advancement, because by the "laws" of their society, this is acceptable. Murder is a crime, by human standards. It is considered separate from "killing" (ie, war, hunting, self-defense). In the animal world, killing and murder aren't valid concepts. Killing is a way of life if one wants to eat or survive. It isn't murder because there is no malice, nor is there a concept of crime among animal predators.

Therefore, due to the fact that they are not part of our society, and therefore not subject to our laws, an animal cannot be guilty of the crime of murder.


So there. ;)


Sidhe

In PA, felony murder is 2nd degree. Weird quirk of state law. Premeditated murder is first degree, other murder is third. Then there's voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Yeah, I didn't differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, sorry about that.

In La., first degree is premed and while in the course of committing another felony--it has to have certain aggravating factors. Other states have different tweaks on it, I'm sure.

My point was merely that we cannot hold a non-human animal who is not considered a part of our society, nor has rights within our society, to the laws of our society, just as we would not condone murder by a human even if he WAS living in the woods and only came down once a year for groceries. He is a human, part of the human society with it's attendant laws and mores that are applicable only to humans. Whether or not he's living like an animal doesn't change the fact that the laws apply to him.

There are standards for human behavior because we need them. Animals don't need them. I don't think that animals are as inherently vicious as humans can be. I'm not downing the human race; I'm just saying that humans don't seem to have the instinctual built-in safeguards to their behavior, by which they preserve their groups, like animals do, and thus we need rules and laws to control our behavior lest we destroy our society.

We can't apply our rules to them, any more than their rules can be applied to us. Different species, different worlds, different rules for what is acceptable.


Sidhe

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's something that I could never be accused of. :D
OK, so we're in agreement that both people and animals sometimes kill for reasons we don't fully understand. But, the English language has divided these acts into different names, of which the majority apply to only humans.
That makes sense, as were are much more concerned about people killing and try to define it more precisely.

All I know is that my very well-fed kitty will kill for the hell of it if she spy's a chipmonk. I've talked to her about this but she has so far ignored me, she merely looks away like she's interested in something else. She is such a wench...

MEOW

Before a whole bunch of people condemn me ---I've been a foster mom for LOTS of little kitten's and cat's--all of them display hunting/killing traits. Especially the MALES when they want to engender their own.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by lots. When I worked at the Humane Society I was known to beg the higher ups to let me take pregnant dogs home so they could have the puppies. Before me even if the dog was 2 days away from giving birth they aborted the litter and fixed the dog. As long as the dog was within a few weeks of the delivery they let me take them home and then mom and pups came back when the babies were old enough. One time the dog I took home delivered 9 pups. That meant I had 14 dogs at my house (9 pups, plus the mom, my 3 dogs, and my moms 1 dog). That would seem like a lot but it was only for a few months. I loved having puppies around, I almost always wanted to keep some. Its hard when you see them born to let them go, but they hopefully went to go homes.

Well, obviously, you win Brig--I've never had that many animals in my home. I usually have about 5 cats--two are mine and the rest I am trying to socialize for the shelter--so, that means three 'strangers'---cats are kinda difficult to socialize and I don't feel like I've done my job until everybody's happy----that's just me, though. Co-dependant trait impossibe to irradicate. Don't even try. I'll just agree with you and kiss you to death.

I for one am glad cats still have that killer instnct. Ray killed a weasle in our house a while back. Last year we gave some chickens to one of our neighbors because a weasle had gotten in her hen house and killed every bird. Hen houses are like magnets for vermin, I wouldn't have chickens without at least one hunter around.

That's true, Griff. A dog to roust the big ones and a cat to kill the little ones. The vermin will come for miles to a chicken coop. :worried: