(CNN) -- Terry Thompson, the Ohio man who authorities say set his exotic animals free just before killing himself, once supplied a lion cub for a photo shoot with supermodel Heidi Klum. "Thompson and his wild animal farm had long been on authorities' radar.
But while investigators kept a close eye on him, Thompson professed his love for his animals to most anyone. He would often be seen driving down the road with a wild animal.
"My cats are happier than most people," Thompson once told the Zanesville Times-Recorder. "I feed them every day, and they have a great place to live. How many people can say they have all they can eat and don't have to worry about a place to live?"
Yet on Tuesday, a strained marriage collided with the stress and the expense of caring for so many animals, people close to the investigation told CNN. "He was so depressed he said, 'That's it. I'm going to let them go,' " said Columbus Zoo director emeritus Jack Hanna, who helped authorities in the search for the wild animals.
The 62-year-old Thompson had been released from prison in recent weeks after serving a year behind bars on an illegal firearms conviction. Authorities say Thompson unlocked his animal cages, opened the farm's gates and shot himself to death.Thompson freed dozens of exotic animals -- from Bengal tigers to grizzly bears to baboons -- setting off a frightening scenario outside Zanesville, a town of 25,000 in central Ohio. Authorities killed at least 49 animals, including 18 rare tigers.
"What happened here was one of the largest animal escapes in our country's history," said Hanna. Sheriff Matt Lutz defended his officers, saying they had no choice but to kill the roaming animals. "I had deputies that had to shoot animals with sidearms at close range. That's how volatile this situation was."
The sheriff's department had been to the property on dozens of occasions over the last decade to check into reports of animal cruelty or animals on the loose. Thompson would stare down those who entered his property with his steely blue eyes. He'd cuss and scream. "I'll be damned," Thompson would shout, according to county Humane Officer David Durst. "I'll let them animals go!" "We were just afraid that this was going to happen. It wasn't a matter of if it was going to happen, it was a matter of when.
Opinion: Wild animals should be left in the wild
"The laws are so weak in Ohio, it's ridiculous. You can have one permit and pretty much have all the exotic animals you want." Added Hostetler: "For me the sad part of this is that the court system could've removed those animals, and it's really sad it reached this point." The Humane Society of the United States urged Ohio officials Wednesday to issue an emergency rule to crack down on exotic animal ownership. A previous emergency order issued by then-Gov. Ted Strickland that prohibited people convicted of animal cruelty from owning exotic animals expired in April. The Humane Society said Thompson "would almost certainly have had his animals removed by May 1, 2011, if the emergency order had not expired." When he was first sentenced to animal cruelty charges in 2005, Thompson told the judge: "I've learned a lot from this case, and I do love my animals.”
GROUP THREE DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
We chose these excerpts from the CNN website that discussed the recent animal fiasco in Zanesville, Ohio. Exotic animal owner, Terry Thompson, shot himself last Tuesday, October 18th, but before doing so, unlocked the cages where he kept his animals. The animals roamed from the area and worried local officials who were concerned for the safety of those residing in the area. Due to the critical time concerns, some animals were shot and killed when local police officers felt they had no other choice. This article discusses the argument of whether or not it was right that the animals were shot and killed as well as the argument of whether or not Ohio has strict enough laws regarding the ownership of exotic and wild animals. Who do these arguments appeal to? Is the source credible? Jack Hana took to his facebook and twitter to post, "I am so saddened by the tragedy in Zanesville, OH. The Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, the Wilds and I are doing all we can to help the situation on the ground. As always, public safety has to be the first priority. Our team is hoping to assist in the safe rescue of as many of these animals as possible." Does putting public safety first justify killing these animals, of which included 18 rare tigers? Do you think there should be a revision to the current Ohio law regarding exotic animals?
-Group 4
When looking at the issue of the release of exotic animals in Zanesville, OH, it is clear that there are two intended audiences: Animal lovers and public safety activists. This report by CNN, a credible source, presents both sides of the argument in an effective way. I believe that the death of these animals can solidly be blamed on human ignorance on a number of levels. The owner of these beautiful creatures was extremely irresponsible to put their lives at risk for selfish reasons. If he came to the conclusion that he was no longer capable of caring for these animals he could have at least attempted to find new homes for them. It could have easily been predicted that the welfare of the animals would be at risk after their release in a populated area. If they had not been euthanized by public safety officials then they could have been hit by vehicles or died numerous other ways. Ignorance of our society is also illustrated in our current laws concerning exotic animals. Having known predator exotic animals in a populated area always poses a risk to the public, whether a law states they are acceptable or not. I strongly feel that Ohio’s laws regarding non domestic animals should be revised to tightly regulate the ownership of these animals. It is a shame that these creatures had to die because of human ignorance to protect those that made the poor decision to not have sufficient regulations.
ReplyDeleteThis horrific accident was caused by ignorance and a basic lack of attention by the government. This credible source, being from CNN, displays both sides of the argument. Both sides being those who are advocates for the lives of the animals and those who are advocates for the safety of the public. The article also attempts to pass the blame to other sides being the owner obviously and then the government who failed to have stricter laws with people who own exotic animals. I believe that the killing of these animals for the sake of "safety" is totally unjustified. There are other ways to contain these animals without killing them, for example, using tranquilizer guns. I know that for some cases it is necessary but certainly not for almost all of the animals. Though it is the fault of the owner for letting his personal frustrations out on the defenseless animals, the government should take some of the blame for letting this happen, as the article says, "We were just afraid that this was going to happen. It wasn't a matter of if it was going to happen, it was a matter of when." The officers who noticed this should have done something about it and the government should create stricter laws based on who can own exotic animals.
ReplyDeleteObviously this article comes from a reliable source seeing as it originated at CNN. However, as Fox has a reputation for leaning more to the right politically, CNN has a reputation for leaning more to the left. That being said, the group of people that turn to CNN for their news could possibly also lean left in their political views. Just so I don't sound politically biased, I found a statistic saying that 47% of CNN's audience classifies themselves as a member of the Democratic Party. Because of that, I believe this article chose to appeal to the animal rights activists in their audience (who may identify with the democratic party) by hinting that it was not okay to shoot the wild animals, especially since they specified "including 18 rare tigers". Personally I believe public safety first absolutely justifies killing the animals. However, I don't think that was the message this article was trying to send. I believe they were blaming it on the current situation with Ohio law and saying that it is the state's fault that this occurred in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who has yet to post...
ReplyDeleteYou can also consider what we discussed in class today.
How does this article utilize pathos and logos? Does this article favor using one over the other, for example more use of pathos vs. logos and vice versa?
CNN is a reliable news source, but I do not see how this article presents both sides of the arguments regarding whether or not the animals should have been killed and whether or not Ohio has strict enough laws for exotic animal ownership. I think the article offers more of an account of the events rather than a debate about what happened. I think that Jack Hanna and the sheriff are trying to appeal to logic because they are saying that it was one of the largest animal escapes in history. This means that there was no precedent for how to deal with the situation. Also the sheriff says that deputies shot some of the animals at close range implying that they had no other choice. I think the comments about the laws regarding exotic animal ownership are appealing more to people's emotions. People are very upset about the deaths of these animals so the Humane Society and other organizations pushing for strict laws will be able to use this incident to garner support for passing stricter laws. By saying that this incident would not have happened if there were stricter laws, more people, already upset by the deaths of the animals, would be willing to support laws to prevent any scenarios like this in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe story is brought by a reputable and credible source in CNN. The article's stance is generally impartial, giving both sides of the story there equal share of pathos and logos. A strong example is it's ability to talk about the stresses in Thompson's life, while also mentioning the amount of neglect on the part of lawmakers. I believe the example of the stresses can be thought as an appeal at our emotions, as if to convey the idea that we are all stressed sometimes, this maybe could have happened to you. While the mentioning of the laws/lawmakers can be thought of as an appeal to our logos. We often think of the law as a yes or no thing, what is illegal and what is consequently not. However, I feel this article left out the current happenings, which include making it illegal to own any exotic animals in Ohio. This is an interesting, overlooked point which would have further this article's intentions. Although it is a tough thing to say whether these animals were justifiably killed, with all the information given, I think I am leaning towards it being justified. The animals were killed based on their potential to kill, a grizzly bear/tiger/lion has a huge potential to adapt in its new free environment and kill. If these were escaped flamingos, there would of course be less noise made (escaped flamingos actually sounds like a cool thing to see) since there potential to harm is nearly nonexistent. I wish the story had an expert to answer the question of why they needed to be killed. Am I the only one who's realized the article/police have not addressed why they didn't use tranquilizers?
ReplyDeleteI believe this is a credible source because it came from CNN. While this source is reliable, I also think it evenly displays both sides of the argument. It briefly stated the side for defending and protecting the animal’s lives, while mentioning the police officer’s safety. I wish this article expanded on the pro’s and con’s of the killing of these animals because it almost seemed more like a summary of what happened as opposed to a discussion on the topic. I definitely feel this article is trying to appeal to the emotions of its viewers by using the exact amount of animals that were killed, and including the fact that rare animals were included in that number. I personally think that the safety of the civilians in the near-by areas comes first, but I know others would disagree with me. I have heard people argue that these rare, exotic, some boarder-line extinct animals have priority over us. As of Monday this week the 7 billionth person was born in the world, while some of these exotic animals have only a population of fewer than 1,000. It is obvious we are not lacking in human population; however, we obviously are lacking in certain animal populations. Ohio should definitely have stronger laws regarding exotic animals due to the fact that these animals can be extremely dangerous. Many animal lovers would agree with me simply to protect any future exotic pets.
ReplyDeleteComing from CNN I believe this is a reliable source. Referring to Pathos, and Logos. Seeing as CNN is a reliable news source, they have to use a lot of logic (logos) to make themselves sound unbiased and credible, but upon reading that article, I felt like there was a lot more Pathos than logos. All the paragraphs talking about how stressful the farmer's life was, concluding why he killed himself, actually shooting himself to death, makes for a lot of Pathos. Whether it's intentional pathos or unintentional, the topic of death, especially suicide, is a sensitive topic, so its hard to not have a lot of emotional information. Along with the fact that 49 innocent animals had to be killed, also appeals to the people's emotions. I feel like there could have been more logos, if the article had given a little more explanation as to WHY exactly these animals had to be killed instead of captured, instead of just stating the fact that they were sadly executed. I feel like the second part of the article had good viewpoints, perhaps animals such as these would be better off in their natural environment. If they're too dangerous to live among people, and there's a risk that they may escape, for the sake of the animals lives, they should be kept in a place where no potential harm could come to them. I think that point was very logical (logos), and slightly balanced out the amount of Pathos presented in the first few paragraphs about all the deaths and tragedy.
ReplyDeleteBecause this article comes from CNN, it easy to tell that it is credible. The audience the writer is trying reach is animal lovers and Ohio residents. The fact that the author is trying to connect with animal lovers is clear, but it is not as clear that they are trying to reach out to Ohio residents. The reason I believe Ohio residents are also the intended audience is because it seemed as though the author was trying to push Ohioans to increase the exotic animal laws in Ohio. The author repeatedly stated that the laws in Ohio of owning an exotic animal are not strict enough. In my opinion, that seems like a direct effort to try and influence Ohio residents to speak their minds and try to tighten the laws of who can own exotic animals so that an incident like this does not happen again. Due to the extreme circumstances in Zanesville, I think that officers did the right thing by killing the animals before they harmed anyone. This does not justify their actions, because killing animals is not the right thing to do, but under such dangerous circumstances the officers took the action they needed to. It would have been great if they could have caught the animals and saved them so that they could live, but again the danger of having so many wild animals on the loose was too high and the correct action was taken.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that this article comes from CNN suggests that it is a credible and reputable source. I believe the author of this article was favoring the use the pathos approach to reel in two main audiences, the animal lovers and Ohio residents, since they were the two groups that were directly affected by this tragic event. By using the words such as "animal cruelty" and using Jack Hanna's quote, saying that this event was 'one of the largest animal escapes of our country's history' the author of the article is pulling at the emotion of these groups, suggesting that what happened was a tragedy and that new actions to change future legislation must be executed. While I do believe in the importance of public safety, I think what happened in Zanesville could have been avoided by properly revising the Ohio laws concerning the ownership of exotic animals. I think the order issued by then Governor Ted Strickland should be reenacted. No one convicted of animal cruelty should have the right to own animals. I also think that a law should be enacted to monitor properties that hold exotic animals. These properties should be checked on a regular basis to see if they fit the standards of housing exotic animals and if the owners of the animals are mentally stable.
ReplyDeleteBeing CNN, I would say that the source is credible. Until I read the last section of the article, I didn't think that the author was actually making an argument for one side. He seemed to be simply reporting the facts. But when he pulled in quotes from Jack Hanna, and the "Opinion..." section I got the idea that the author was not in full support of the killing of the animals or Ohio laws relating to exotic animals. So, I reread the article and found that throughout, the author's word choice and some of the information and quotes from Thompson painted him a negative light.
ReplyDeleteI my ignorant opinion (I know nothing about the Ohio laws that relate to exotic animals or any animals for that matter), I think that the death of those animals is a direct result of a lack sufficient protective laws for exotic animals. This should hopefully serve as a lesson to government officials that something needs to be done about exotic animal laws.
This source is very reliable and credible because because it is CNN. I don't think the animals should have been killed and there were probably better ways to capture them. Although, I have read other things that some animals were tranquilized but then it didn't effect them enough so they just freaked out and ran off still putting people in danger, so I am not informed and I think every source will probably have a different opinion on that as well. I think the article uses pathos because it has a lot of emotion in it. I think that Ohio should have stricter laws for having exotic animals and at least limit the number of exotic animals one person can have because of possible situations like this that put both people and the animals themselves in harm.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, it appears that the author is specifically targeting animal-rights activists as well as those concerned with public safety. I think that putting public safety first definitely justifies killing the animals. There is no way of knowing how tame these animals were, and in a situation like this the best thing to do is to try and eliminate the chance that a human is harmed by one of the animals. The other side of the argument is that these were rare animals, of which may be on their way to becoming extinct. Animal lovers will argue that killing these animals is hurting the entire animal population. This may be true, but in a situation where I have to choose between the life of an animal and the life of a human, I will pick the human every day without question. I am not fully aware of what the state laws are for owning exotic animals, but i assume it is acceptable since this man has had these animals for some time now. So, i guess there should be a revision. Maybe it needs to limit the number that you can own, or all together extinguish the idea of even owning any wild animals.
ReplyDeleteThis dangerous situation caused by the government due to lack of protecting and taking care of those animals. I would say this source is credible because CNN is a nationwide channel that majority of Americans watch along with NBC and ABC. CNN only wrote this article in negative way rather than analyze detailed situation. However, I don't think killing animals was the best option. The Government could just capture them even though it takes longer time than just killing. Government don't have right to kill around 40 animals just because they escape.
ReplyDelete