Petition: These girls threw a hamster against a wall so hard it died. Tell the police to find and prosecute them.

by: Andrew M
target: Devon and Cornwall Police

2,000 GOAL

Two girls in Plymouth, United Kingdom wanted to be “Snapchat famous.” But what they did to garner likes will disgust you.

The two teenagers filmed themselves throwing a pet hamster against a wall to so hard it died. The young animal abusers could be heard chuckling as the poor rodent thudded against the hard surface.

They then posted the video of the small critter’s still body on social media. Writing “killed it.”

When police were approached for comment on whether the case was being investigated, they refused to answer. That is unacceptable. Studies show that those that commit animal abuse are much more likely to resort to violence against humans. These girls need to be caught, tried and treated.

Please sign the petition and demand that police find these two girls and bring them to justice.

Petition · Chief Thomas J. Nestel III: Keep K-9 Abal with his handler Officer Galanti ·

Nicole Galanti started this petition to Chief Thomas J. Nestel III

As I sit here heartsick with tears falling, I am haunted by my 10 year old crying himself to sleep. My daughter, sobbing, and my husband trying his best to stay strong for us.

On March 23, 2018 my husband, Officer Richard Galanti of the SEPTA Transit Police Department received a memo from work, they would be transferring him from his K9 unit effective April 1, 2018. They would notify him at a later date of the future of his dog Abal.

Four days later they informed him that Abal would be reassigned to another handler. March 30, 2018, he was instructed to bring Abal to the kennel on the morning of April 3, 2018, where the dog will stay until another handler is found.

There was no warning, no reprimand, no explanation or reason. Only the sudden unjust, unsupported transfer of one of the most experienced k9 handlers in the department and the removal of our beloved working dog Abal.

As a family we know loss. We lost our son and brother Benjamin (14yo) in June 2014, a week later Rich lost his mom to cancer. Every day we survive that loss together as a family. Abal, who adored Ben, has been an important part of that healing for me and my children but especially for my husband.

Abal is not only a work dog, to us he is family. Abal was rescued as a stray on the streets of NY. He was trained and assigned to my husband and our family in the fall of 2013. We brought him home and fell in love with him. We are the only family he has ever known.

It breaks my heart to know, that on Tuesday April 3, he will be ripped from us. Away from our love, his home, his toys, and his comfy bed. He will be placed in a kennel alone, confused and feeling abandoned once more.

Abal is almost 7 years old and has worked for the last five years. When we found out about the transfer we hoped and asked that he would be retired.

We also asked to possibly purchase a new dog for the department in exchange for Abal. (Although, how we will be able to do that I’m not sure). We haven’t yet received an answer, other than he will be reassigned.

Please help try to make Septa Transit Police Department’s do the right thing. Retire K-9 Abal to Officer Galanti.

Petition Updates · Maximum Sentence for Jason Hampton

Morgan Tucker started this petition to Saint Francois County Prosecuter

In Febuary 2018 Jason Hampton, of Farmington MO shot a yellow lab known as Trooper and paralyzed him. He then hit him over the head with a hammer, dumped him, and left him for dead. Trooper laid paralyzed and alive for weeks, sitting in his own feces and urine for so long it began burning through his flesh. Trooper has a long road ahead of him, and will most likely never fully recover from his injuries. He will need around the clock care, daily vet visits, and someone to dedicate their entire life to him. People from around the country have donated towards his $10,000+ vet bill. We also ask the defendant make monetary donations to animal rescues as part of his sentence, and be fired from his position with St Francois County. He admitted to the Crime, but when charged he recanted his statement and placed blame on the dog. We are asking that you file charges and pursue the maximum penalty allowed under the law.


For those asking how you can help Trooper:

For updates, please follow Team Trooper and Missouri K9 Friends on Facebook. If you would like to donate to his cause, there are several ways to do so:

� Free Funder:

� Buy a tshirt:

� PayPal:

Email and ask for the maximum penalty for Jason Hampton or call 1-573-756-3623 to reach the St Francois County Prosecuting Attorney.

Get more details about Trooper and his recovery at

Petition update · Rusty has been at Dallas Animal Services since Dec. 16, 2017 ·

Petition update

Apr 5, 2018 — The City of Dallas filed their initial brief in their appeal of the County’s denial of the City’s argument that Dallas Pets Alive has no right to challenge the order of the municipal court that Rusty be killed. We will submit our response brief on or before April 18. The City may file a reply brief but the Court of Appeals will set a date for the appeal to be submitted to the panel deciding the matter with or without oral argument. Appeals are not like trials in that appeals are decided on the actual written record before the Court and the application of existing law. There is no set time for the Court of Appeals to issue its written opinion.

Rusty has been at Dallas Animal Services since Dec. 16, 2017, even though we continue to offer the City of Dallas a positive solution that meets the needs of all parties. Unfortunately, Rusty will remain at Dallas Animal Services while the City of Dallas spends even more taxpayer dollars and City manpower trying every tactic possible to avoid giving Dallas Pets Alive, and really Rusty, due process.

While we are not able to visit Rusty, we understand he remains in good spirits as he sits in isolation at Dallas Animal Services. We do not believe Rusty should be there, but we truly appreciate the staff at Dallas Animal Services and all they are able to do for Rusty while the City of Dallas needlessly drags this case out. We know Rusty has appreciated all of the donations he’s received from the #RescueRusty team. If you would like to donate new toys, bones and treats to Rusty, please send them to the address noted below (NOTE: it is a PO box and not a physical location) or drop them off at our adoption event this weekend at Grapevine Craft Brewery from 4-7 p.m. Please keep in mind that Rusty is a chewer, so tough toys are best and toys that occupy his mind and challenge him while he is in his kennel would be appreciated.

Dallas Pets Alive

11700 Preston Rd.
Suite 660 #263
Dallas, TX 75230

We also want to thank you for reaching out to your elected officials and urge you to continue your outreach as the City Council has the ability to end this ongoing legal battle and send Rusty to a sanctuary in New York. Follow this link to easily contact your city councilmember:

We do again extend our thanks to Council Members Omar Narvaez and Adam Medrano for their continuing efforts on Rusty’s behalf. They have advocated for Rusty since the beginning and continue to do so.

This issue is NOT going away and the citizens of Dallas deserve answers from their elected officials about their position and their willingness to expend untold City resources both in manpower and finances on this needless fight. As always, please remember to remain positive in your advocacy for Rusty. #RescueRusty

Petition · Demand for Instagram to Improve Its Rules Against Animal Cruelty ·

We are requesting Instagram take stronger Action Against Animal Cruelty. Too many post depicting animal violence has been uploaded with no retribution. When a report is made, Instagram, time and time again, have said the post is within its regulations. It is inexplicable why images of abused and murdered animals are deemed appropriate when selfies of people with exotic animals are not. We ask that Instagram:

  1. Prevent the uploading of abused and murdered animals like it has banned the posting of exotic animal selfie.
  2. A team of REAL people discerning and in/appropriateness of reported images.

  3. The reporting of suspected animal abuse to Animal Welfare organizations.

  4. Assisting Animal Welfare organization in the investigation of animal cruelty.

Petition · National Boy Scouts of America: Demand the Boy Scouts of America reinstate the rank of Eagle Scout to Logan Blythe ·

Fifteen- year- old Logan Blytne has Down Syndrome and Autism. He began as a Cub Scout when he was eight and progressed through the Boy Scouts earning sanctioned alternative badges. When the time came to earn his Eagle Scout rank, is Utah Chapter approved his Eagle Scout project. Then it happened. The National Boy Scouts of America decided not only to not approve his Eagle Scout project, but to rescind his alternative Badges and demote him to Cub Scout. This is outrageous. this petition demands of the Boy Scouts of America reinstate his Badges and approve his Eagle Scout project.

Petition update · Man Armed with Semiautomatic Rifle Guns Down Family of 10 Wolves Outside Denali National Park ·

Petition update

Apr 6, 2018 — Although it’s illegal to hunt and trap wolves within Denali National Park, wolves are vulnerable as soon as they cross the park’s invisible boundary. A man armed with a semiautomatic rifle recently gunned down a family of 10 wolves near the park’s border, and brags about it online:

It’s too late for these 10 wolves, but we can still protect the others who call Denali National Park home. Please take action today.

How To Protect Yourself From Climate Denial Misinformation
Posted on April 5, 2018
By Peter Ellerton

Originally appeared in The Conversation

Much of the public discussion about climate science consists of a stream of assertions. The climate is changing or it isn’t; carbon dioxide causes global warming or it doesn’t; humans are partly responsible or they are not; scientists have a rigorous process of peer review or they don’t, and so on.

Despite scientists’ best efforts at communicating with the public, not everyone knows enough about the underlying science to make a call one way or the other. Not only is climate science very complex, but it has also been targeted by deliberate obfuscation campaigns.

If we lack the expertise to evaluate the detail behind a claim, we typically substitute judgment about something complex (like climate science) with judgment about something simple (the character of people who speak about climate science).

But there are ways to analyse the strength of an argument without needing specialist knowledge. My colleagues, Dave Kinkead from the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project and John Cook from George Mason University in the US, and I published a paper yesterday in Environmental Research Letters on a critical thinking approach to climate change denial.

We applied this simple method to 42 common climate-contrarian arguments, and found that all of them contained errors in reasoning that are independent of the science itself.

In the video abstract for the paper, we outline an example of our approach, which can be described in six simple steps.

The authors discuss the myth that climate change is natural.

Identify the claim: First, identify as simply as possible what the actual claim is. In this case, the argument is:

The climate is currently changing as a result of natural processes.

Construct the supporting argument: An argument requires premises (those things we take to be true for the purposes of the argument) and a conclusion (effectively the claim being made). The premises together give us reason to accept the conclusion. The argument structure is something like this:

Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
Premise two: The climate is currently changing
Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.

Determine the intended strength of the claim: Determining the exact kind of argument requires a quick detour into the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. Bear with me!

In our paper we examined arguments against climate change that are framed as definitiveclaims. A claim is definitive when it says something is definitely the case, rather than being probable or possible.

Definitive claims must be supported by deductive reasoning. Essentially, this means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is inevitably true.

This might sound like an obvious point, but many of our arguments are not like this. In inductive reasoning, the premises might support a conclusion but the conclusion need not be inevitable.

An example of inductive reasoning is:

Premise one: Every time I’ve had a chocolate-covered oyster I’ve been sick
Premise two: I’ve just had a chocolate-covered oyster
Conclusion: I’m going to be sick.

This is not a bad argument – I’ll probably get sick – but it’s not inevitable. It’s possible that every time I’ve had a chocolate-covered oyster I’ve coincidentally got sick from something else. Perhaps previous oysters have been kept in the cupboard, but the most recent one was kept in the fridge.

Because climate-contrarian arguments are often definitive, the reasoning used to support them must be deductive. That is, the premises must inevitably lead to the conclusion.

Check the logical structure: We can see that in the argument from step two – that the climate change is changing because of natural processes – the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises.

In the spirit of honesty and charity, we take this invalid argument and attempt to make it valid through the addition of another (previously hidden) premise.

Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
Premise two: The climate is currently changing
Premise three: If something was the cause of an event in the past, it must be the cause of the event now
Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.

Adding the third premise makes the argument valid, but validity is not the same thing as truth. Validity is a necessary condition for accepting the conclusion, but it is not sufficient. There are a couple of hurdles that still need to be cleared.

Check for ambiguity: The argument mentions climate change in its premises and conclusion. But the climate can change in many ways, and the phrase itself can have a variety of meanings. The problem with this argument is that the phrase is used to describe two different kinds of change.

Current climate change is much more rapid than previous climate change – they are not the same phenomenon. The syntax conveys the impression that the argument is valid, but it is not. To clear up the ambiguity, the argument can be presented more accurately by changing the second premise:

Premise one: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
Premise two: The climate is currently changing at a more rapid rate than can be explained by natural processes
Conclusion: The climate is currently changing through natural processes.

This correction for ambiguity has resulted in a conclusion that clearly does not follow from the premises. The argument has become invalid once again.

We can restore validity by considering what conclusion would follow from the premises. This leads us to the conclusion:

Conclusion: Human (non-natural) activity is necessary to explain current climate change.

Importantly, this conclusion has not been reached arbitrarily. It has become necessary as a result of restoring validity.

Note also that in the process of correcting for ambiguity and the consequent restoring of validity, the attempted refutation of human-induced climate science has demonstrably failed.

Check premises for truth or plausibility: Even if there were no ambiguity about the term “climate change”, the argument would still fail when the premises were tested. In step four, the third premise, “If something was the cause of an event in the past, it must be the cause of the event now”, is clearly false.

Applying the same logic to another context, we would arrive at conclusions like: people have died of natural causes in the past; therefore any particular death must be from natural causes.

Restoring validity by identifying the “hidden” premises often produces such glaringly false claims. Recognising this as a false premise does not always require knowledge of climate science.
Flow chart for argument analysis and evaluation.

When determining the truth of a premise does require deep knowledge in a particular area of science, we may defer to experts. But there are many arguments that do not, and in these circumstances this method has optimal value.
Inoculating against poor arguments

Previous work by Cook and others has focused on the ability to inoculate people against climate science misinformation. By pre-emptively exposing people to misinformation with explanation they become “vaccinated” against it, showing “resistance” to developing beliefs based on misinformation.

This reason-based approach extends inoculation theory to argument analysis, providing a practical and transferable method of evaluating claims that does not require expertise in climate science.

Fake news may be hard to spot, but fake arguments don’t have to be.

Category: Climate Justice, Featured, Social Media News Tags: climate change, Climate Denial, critical thinking, The Conversation