YES!! Cat Killer Recalled

http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=69553

They pulled their heads out and DID it. I really wasn't sure if they would
because these small town people are rather afraid (as you can tell as most
wouldn't say how they voted or are reluctant to say what they think) to go
against "the popular kid" (IMO). But they did it. It's a start.

Karen

In article , Dave wrote:
If you would have read the complete thred you would know.
CONGRADULATIONS it's good to see the little person win for a change.


Huh? I did. I responded to the *original* poster and the only one in the
thread. What are you talking about?

In article , Dave wrote:
If you would have read the complete thred you would know.
CONGRADULATIONS it's good to see the little person win for a change.


Huh? I did. I responded to the *original* poster and the only one in the
thread. What are you talking about?

I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring t

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault.

According to the article, he has been charged with three counts of animal
abuse. It also says state law in Nebraska *forbids* causing harm to or killing
domestic animals. Yes, he is totally at fault. I hate people who make excuses
for animal abusers.

neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first
time

Makes no difference. He took the law into his own hands, and is now charged
(rightfully so) with animal abuse.

her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this
beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike me

as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available,

Give me a break.

had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

This has been discussed on this newsgroup before. Karen may still have the link
to the first articles.

Sherry

I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring t

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault.

According to the article, he has been charged with three counts of animal
abuse. It also says state law in Nebraska *forbids* causing harm to or killing
domestic animals. Yes, he is totally at fault. I hate people who make excuses
for animal abusers.

neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first
time

Makes no difference. He took the law into his own hands, and is now charged
(rightfully so) with animal abuse.

her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this
beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike me

as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available,

Give me a break.

had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

This has been discussed on this newsgroup before. Karen may still have the link
to the first articles.

Sherry

in article , Charles M at
wrote on 8/6/03 8:23 AM:

In article , Karen Chuplis wrote:
http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=69553

They pulled their heads out and DID it. I really wasn't sure if they would
because these small town people are rather afraid (as you can tell as most
wouldn't say how they voted or are reluctant to say what they think) to go
against "the popular kid" (IMO). But they did it. It's a start.

Karen


I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring to.

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault. Sounds like she (the
neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first time
her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike me
as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available, or had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

There were earlier posts on the subject. This was an update for those
following the story. He did NOT try to resolve anything. He used steel
traps. When asked what if a child got into the trap he said he'd feel bad
but he wasn't a baby sitter. He refused to say how he killed that cats but
admitted he did. He then said "no one ever saw me throw If you are truly
interested read:

http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=56863

The highlights a

"I'm not worried about this recall election at all,"Schroder said in an
interview at his home last week. "I've got more relatives in this town than
she's got friends."

Schroder wouldn't say what he does with the cats he traps or how he kills
them.

"You just get rid of it, that's all I'll say,"he said. "Nobody ever saw me
throwing anything into the street."

Schroder said the trap doesn't hurt much, and that he has had his own hand
caught in it without pain. If a child got stuck, he said, he would feel
terrible. On the other hand, "I'm not the babysitter."

I would print it here but the article belongs to the Journal Star. From his
uncaring attitude about WHAT he caught, it's clear that at the very least,
he shouldn't be a leader in the town. He might have squirreled out a lot of
his problems if he hadn't shouted his mouth off in such a cocky indifferent
way. One has to wonder if his food business was attracting such animal
attention if he was even following good or legal procedures in storing it.
There's a big difference in trapping an animal and turning it in and
trapping and killing them himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but if
you can read the above article and think this man should continue in a
leadership role, I question your ideas of leadership.

Karen

in article , Charles M at
wrote on 8/6/03 8:23 AM:

In article , Karen Chuplis wrote:
http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=69553

They pulled their heads out and DID it. I really wasn't sure if they would
because these small town people are rather afraid (as you can tell as most
wouldn't say how they voted or are reluctant to say what they think) to go
against "the popular kid" (IMO). But they did it. It's a start.

Karen


I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring to.

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault. Sounds like she (the
neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first time
her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike me
as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available, or had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

There were earlier posts on the subject. This was an update for those
following the story. He did NOT try to resolve anything. He used steel
traps. When asked what if a child got into the trap he said he'd feel bad
but he wasn't a baby sitter. He refused to say how he killed that cats but
admitted he did. He then said "no one ever saw me throw If you are truly
interested read:

http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=56863

The highlights a

"I'm not worried about this recall election at all,"Schroder said in an
interview at his home last week. "I've got more relatives in this town than
she's got friends."

Schroder wouldn't say what he does with the cats he traps or how he kills
them.

"You just get rid of it, that's all I'll say,"he said. "Nobody ever saw me
throwing anything into the street."

Schroder said the trap doesn't hurt much, and that he has had his own hand
caught in it without pain. If a child got stuck, he said, he would feel
terrible. On the other hand, "I'm not the babysitter."

I would print it here but the article belongs to the Journal Star. From his
uncaring attitude about WHAT he caught, it's clear that at the very least,
he shouldn't be a leader in the town. He might have squirreled out a lot of
his problems if he hadn't shouted his mouth off in such a cocky indifferent
way. One has to wonder if his food business was attracting such animal
attention if he was even following good or legal procedures in storing it.
There's a big difference in trapping an animal and turning it in and
trapping and killing them himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but if
you can read the above article and think this man should continue in a
leadership role, I question your ideas of leadership.

Karen

In article , Sherry wrote:
I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring t

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault.

According to the article, he has been charged with three counts of animal
abuse. It also says state law in Nebraska *forbids* causing harm to or killing
domestic animals. Yes, he is totally at fault. I hate people who make excuses
for animal abusers.


You presume too much. And I resent that. I once had strays dogs come into my
yard and kill a kitten. By your logic would I be wrong if I had shot the
strays (I didn't, but I there is probably some law against that on the books)?
Your "I hate people who make excuses" remark is I take it because of my
"I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about". I said that because
1) its a common ruse of spammers and
2) should never be done in a post without breifly explaining (whats important
to you may not be important to me ands its rude to presume so).

And I can do without your bad attempt at sarcasm.

That said, you mention others posts (as did another poster). Karen's was the
top post with no others posts in the thread (at the time of my original
writting). If there are other posts in relation to this, they
should have been mentioned, referred to. I'm not psychic. I only know what I
read from the article.

And, I read the article. The author makes an attempt to paint him as the bad
guy. But all it really, in fact, says is that he allegedly trapped and
killed his neighbors animals after they had torn up his property. I once had
stray hunting dogs come onto my property and killed a kitten. I certainly
would've felt justified in shooting those strays (whether or not the laws says
I can - by the way I didn't). My point is sometimes you have to go to drastic
measures and I wouldn't want to judge someone based upon the meager information
in the story. Did he ever do anything like this before? The story doesn't say.
What kind of damage was done, to what extent? The story doesn't say. Did he
try to resolve this peacefully? The story doesn't say. Did his neighbor have a
history of letting her animals run wild and causing trouble? The story didn't
say. Did he previosly trap them and let them go with a warning to the owner,
animal control or whatever only to find that didn't work? Nowhere does he
admit to killing anything, only trapping. Do they know the animals are dead?
The article doesn't say.I don't have the answers to any of these questions and
my point is, I would have to know the answer to these questions before saying
he's a bad guy. Important information was left out of the article which should
not have been. For all I know, he may have tried to resolve this and was left
with no other recourse. As for the charges, they seem to all stem from his
neighbor- 'after Schroder's neighbor Heather Bruns alleged', the DA may have
had no choice in the matter (and that doesn't mean he'll be found guilty).
Did the DA file charges because he felt this was a clear violation or because
the neighbor put up a stink? No mention of him ever being in trouble before.
The only thing that is clear is that he did shoot his mouth off afterwards
(and truth be told,I don't know the circumstances under which that that
happened). He was re-elected, so somebody must think he's OK, which doesn't
seem too likely if he's had a history of this.
Contrarywise, of course he could be a cruel monster. The point is,I don't
know. And I cannot tell from the story. Its too short on facts.





neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first
time

Makes no difference. He took the law into his own hands, and is now charged
(rightfully so) with animal abuse.

her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this
beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike me

as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available,

Give me a break.

had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

This has been discussed on this newsgroup before. Karen may still have the link
to the first articles.


Again, I know nothing of this. Nor was there any mention of it in her post.



Sherry

In article , Sherry wrote:
I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring t

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault.

According to the article, he has been charged with three counts of animal
abuse. It also says state law in Nebraska *forbids* causing harm to or killing
domestic animals. Yes, he is totally at fault. I hate people who make excuses
for animal abusers.


You presume too much. And I resent that. I once had strays dogs come into my
yard and kill a kitten. By your logic would I be wrong if I had shot the
strays (I didn't, but I there is probably some law against that on the books)?
Your "I hate people who make excuses" remark is I take it because of my
"I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about". I said that because
1) its a common ruse of spammers and
2) should never be done in a post without breifly explaining (whats important
to you may not be important to me ands its rude to presume so).

And I can do without your bad attempt at sarcasm.

That said, you mention others posts (as did another poster). Karen's was the
top post with no others posts in the thread (at the time of my original
writting). If there are other posts in relation to this, they
should have been mentioned, referred to. I'm not psychic. I only know what I
read from the article.

And, I read the article. The author makes an attempt to paint him as the bad
guy. But all it really, in fact, says is that he allegedly trapped and
killed his neighbors animals after they had torn up his property. I once had
stray hunting dogs come onto my property and killed a kitten. I certainly
would've felt justified in shooting those strays (whether or not the laws says
I can - by the way I didn't). My point is sometimes you have to go to drastic
measures and I wouldn't want to judge someone based upon the meager information
in the story. Did he ever do anything like this before? The story doesn't say.
What kind of damage was done, to what extent? The story doesn't say. Did he
try to resolve this peacefully? The story doesn't say. Did his neighbor have a
history of letting her animals run wild and causing trouble? The story didn't
say. Did he previosly trap them and let them go with a warning to the owner,
animal control or whatever only to find that didn't work? Nowhere does he
admit to killing anything, only trapping. Do they know the animals are dead?
The article doesn't say.I don't have the answers to any of these questions and
my point is, I would have to know the answer to these questions before saying
he's a bad guy. Important information was left out of the article which should
not have been. For all I know, he may have tried to resolve this and was left
with no other recourse. As for the charges, they seem to all stem from his
neighbor- 'after Schroder's neighbor Heather Bruns alleged', the DA may have
had no choice in the matter (and that doesn't mean he'll be found guilty).
Did the DA file charges because he felt this was a clear violation or because
the neighbor put up a stink? No mention of him ever being in trouble before.
The only thing that is clear is that he did shoot his mouth off afterwards
(and truth be told,I don't know the circumstances under which that that
happened). He was re-elected, so somebody must think he's OK, which doesn't
seem too likely if he's had a history of this.
Contrarywise, of course he could be a cruel monster. The point is,I don't
know. And I cannot tell from the story. Its too short on facts.





neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first
time

Makes no difference. He took the law into his own hands, and is now charged
(rightfully so) with animal abuse.

her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this
beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike me

as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available,

Give me a break.

had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

This has been discussed on this newsgroup before. Karen may still have the link
to the first articles.


Again, I know nothing of this. Nor was there any mention of it in her post.



Sherry

in article , Charles M at
wrote on 8/6/03 3:53 PM:

In article , Karen Chuplis wrote:
in article , Charles M at
wrote on 8/6/03 8:23 AM:

In article , Karen Chuplis wrote:
http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=69553

They pulled their heads out and DID it. I really wasn't sure if they would
because these small town people are rather afraid (as you can tell as most
wouldn't say how they voted or are reluctant to say what they think) to go
against "the popular kid" (IMO). But they did it. It's a start.

Karen


I hate when a post doesn't say what its talking about. You have to click
the link to get any idea of what you're referring to.

That said, its not clear he's totally at fault. Sounds like she (the
neighbor) knew her animals were eating his feed and did nothing about it. If
he laid traps, he had some reason for doing so, i.e this wasn't the first
time
her animals had gotten in to his stuff. Did he try to resolve this
beforehand?
Did animal control try to do anything? The article doesn't say, and strike
me
as somewhat one sided for not doing so. He may have tried other alternatives
first for all we know. Yes, his actions were extreme, but were other options
available, or had he tried them to no avail? Again, the article doesn't say,
but it should.

There were earlier posts on the subject. This was an update for those
following the story. He did NOT try to resolve anything. He used steel
traps. When asked what if a child got into the trap he said he'd feel bad
but he wasn't a baby sitter. He refused to say how he killed that cats but
admitted he did. He then said "no one ever saw me throw If you are truly
interested read:

http://www.journalstar.com/local.php?story_id=56863

The highlights a

"I'm not worried about this recall election at all,"Schroder said in an
interview at his home last week. "I've got more relatives in this town than
she's got friends."

Schroder wouldn't say what he does with the cats he traps or how he kills
them.

"You just get rid of it, that's all I'll say,"he said. "Nobody ever saw me
throwing anything into the street."

Schroder said the trap doesn't hurt much, and that he has had his own hand
caught in it without pain. If a child got stuck, he said, he would feel
terrible. On the other hand, "I'm not the babysitter."

I would print it here but the article belongs to the Journal Star. From his
uncaring attitude about WHAT he caught, it's clear that at the very least,
he shouldn't be a leader in the town. He might have squirreled out a lot of
his problems if he hadn't shouted his mouth off in such a cocky indifferent
way. One has to wonder if his food business was attracting such animal
attention if he was even following good or legal procedures in storing it.
There's a big difference in trapping an animal and turning it in and
trapping and killing them himself. You are entitled to your opinion, but if
you can read the above article and think this man should continue in a
leadership role, I question your ideas of leadership.

Karen




Ah, a bit more detail. It looks now like he is indeed a cad. Sorry Karen, I
didn't mean to pick on you, but as I said in another post, the bit of showing
a link without any synopsis or explanation is a common tool of spammers, so
its a pet peeve of mine.

No, I did not know these other things. As far as I knew, the other article was
the only thing you based all this on and, personally, it seemed long on
opinion and short on facts to me. I had no knowlege of the other posts.

Sorry too if I sounded snippy. It was a while back that the first posts were
done. It just makes me soooooo mad when I think of this guy being so cocky
with his "importance" in a small town that he thinks he can do anything with
impunity. Grrrr. I just hope the charges stick now too.

Karen