5 - This is a flawed logic you're trying to propose because animals don't have the same logic and thinking that humans do. Animals don't know right from wrong like most humans do. They don't have the same understanding as humans. If a human kills another human or a pet it's not the same thing as a pet doing it because humans are capable of cooperation, they made that choice (and it was a horrible choice and they should face the charges of theri crimes obviously) to do what they did, where as if a pet does it, like has been said multiple times, it is because it more of an instinct of theirs and they couldn't control themselves and did it because they didn't think anything was wrong with it. If a pet does it they don't know or learn that it's wrong, which is why they may think it's fine to do it again in the future after seeing how easy it was the first time and nothing happened to them for it. So at that point once they attack or even kill someone they are a risk that need to be put down imo because they don't know not to do it again. One time is all it takes.
And he literally said "I don't think a dog killing a cat is worth putting a dog down. It would be different if the dog attacked another dog or person. He would be put down immediately". That implies that he thinks because it was a cat that his dog shouldn't be put down, but if it was a dog or a human then it should. That says that he thinks cat are lesser beings and aren't as big of a deal if they get killed as opposed to another dog or such. Improve your response skills.
Your logic is flawed... if animals doesn't have a logical thinking how would they assume that because they attacked a cat once without being killed it can kill humans?
Also, if human beings are logical and inteligent they also already know that killing someone or someone pet is wrong. So why more lenience to the one that should already know than to the one that wouldn't ever know?
He explained why. It isn't because dogs are better than dogs is because of animal chain of power that a dog hunting a cat seems as normal as a cat hunting a bird. But a dog attacking another dog or a human would be either attacking an equal or something more valuable and that would be more wrong.
What I mean is a dog attacking or killing a cat, and nothing happening to them, may allow them to attack other things in the future just because they feel like it. One day they might just attack someone for no reason just like the cat. There's no logic in it. I remember there being stories and videos of dogs attacking their owners completely out of nowhere as well even when they didn't seem angry or anything.
I'm not giving more lenience to one over the other, both are shitty things to happen whether it be by a human or animal, but i'm trying to say that you can't have the same kind of cooperation with an animal like you can a human. If a human were to make a decision to kill a human or a pet you can usually assume that they already knew it was wrong but because they're a shitty person they did it anyway. With an animal it's just unpredictable because even if you try to teach them that what they did was wrong, you may think for a while they understand, but one day perhaps their instincts will kick in or they'll just decide to attack something again.
Ultimately of course I don't want any animals to have to be put down, but the way I see it is once they do it the first time unexpectedly, even if you think they've learned not to do it again and that what they did was wrong, it may just be a timer before they decide to have another unexpected attack in the future because like has been said in the thread, they have instincts. Do I think an animal should be put down for essentially being what it is, an animal? No, but it gets to a point where they are just a risk to others and should at least be taken away then imo.