I can kinda see "shot an old horse or two" as being a positive thing, okay you got over the squeamishness of it and did a sick animal a mercy.
Winging a goat and gosh I gotta go get more ammo to finish this one off, well that's starting to get a little peculiar.
LIKING IT SO MUCH THAT YOU WENT OUT AND GOT A NEW PUPPY SO YOU COULD DO IT AGAIN, well hoooly fuck we are getting into something entirely else now aren't we?
Yeah sometimes animals need to be put down out in the country.
But she just completely failed to raise that dog to do what she wanted, completely impatient, then decided the only recourse was to shoot it.
Then just decided while she was out killin' to shoot a "mean" goat too? Like if she hadn't decided to kill the dog she wouldn't have killed the goat? Bloodlust is what it sounds like.
Yeah, putting down a dog that bites people is sometimes the only option, but the way it was worded sounded more like "it wasn't a golden genius and I didn't like it, so I shot it instead of putting any effort into training it"
She decided to go ahead and kill the goat, too. She writes that the goat survived the first shot, so she went back to the truck, got another shell, then shot him again, killing him.
She killed a her dog which was young because she is a joke of a owner who thought a dog would just magically train itself...with a shotgun, because she's a fucking idiot. Then she also killed a goat, also with a shotgun... because she's a fucking idiot. Euthanizing animals sucks, and when it's done properly, it's quick, and painless. People like her, have no fucking clue how to do so, and shouldn't be allowed to own animals or guns for that matter.
Why kill the dog? It didn't listen to her, embarrassed her, and she couldn't have that. Why admit to it? People already knew about it; she thought she could get in front of the story by spinning it as "hard decisions had to be made" rather than "sociopath murders dog."
True that may be, however anyone with the capacity to reason should have been aware that this may not be the appropriate response to such an offense, especially with their future goals in mind. Someone bestowed with such an ability should also understand, that telling people about it is itself not the brightest idea, especially if one does it honestly. The question remaineth: is she an imbecile?
(yep i head some fun with this)
I've heard two good explanations as to why she'd publicize such a story:
She botched a common Republican technique by choosing the wrong victim to villainize (full explanation here)
There are witnesses to the puppy murder (construction crew) so this is her way of getting ahead of the story before someone else tells it (AFAIK so far we've only heard her version; maybe reality is even worse)
Some parts of these articles are always so weird for me. It's not that I disagree or don't understand the point, but that it's always such a stupid part where they say "...now then, Trump said we're X and Y, now this actually isn't true, because in fact, he is." and I can't help but very silently yell to myself "my brother in Christ you are yet to prove your point in a logically sound way". I mean I know that he is and he acts like people other than him are, but it shouldn't be assumed I have that knowledge.
I think it's just bad writing from the journalists' part, that's all.
There are witnesses to the puppy murder (construction crew) so this is her way of getting ahead of the story before someone else tells it (AFAIK so far we’ve only heard her version; maybe reality is even worse)
That is what Democrats in the state legislature are claiming. That this was known in a lot of circles already and there were witnesses.
So this was damage control. The worst attempt at damage control I've ever seen.
Maybe she could be like that guy on The Leftovers? She goes around killing things to keep the Sudden Departure from happening again. She's doing this for us.