Wired Threat Level reports that a man and woman in Houston man and woman have been indicted for distributing snuff films online in which puppies and other animals were tortured and killed. "Federal authorities say the pair made eight videos — bearing titles like puppy 1, whitechick and crushblackluvsample — that depicted puppies, chickens, kittens and other animals being tortured and killed."

59 Responses to “Houston duo indicted for internet puppy torture videos”

  1. Michael Rosefield says:

    As the first (maybe) commenter, I would like to register my application to enact poetic justice upon these two myself, in full HD.

  2. awjt says:

    There is no Hell hot or painful enough for them.  May they face death by ten thousand puppy bites, kitten scratches and chicken pecks.  May they be forced into b*ttsecks by Hitler for all eternity.  May their cells have chain link ceilings, with thousands of bottomless animal kennels overhead.  May they be suffocated by anacondas for breakfast. May their lungs be filled with dander and loose hair.  May they be fed dog food for their last meal.  May their eyeballs be nipped out by a smiling baby turtle.  OK, I’m out.  These are the worst people.

  3. IronEdithKidd says:

    Unicorn needed, stat.  (and not of the pretend North Korean variety, please.)

  4. oasisob1 says:

    I’m really not feeling the BB Family line of posts. This seems a little, not Family.

  5. Christopher says:

    There are times when I wish I didn’t abhor violence so much, because if there are people who genuinely deserve to be treated violently then this couple are among them. 

  6. Xploder says:

    No offense because these people are hideous but how come I never see rage like this over a person getting murdered?

    • David Davion says:

      Honestly, I think it has to do with the serialization of it. Because they made videos, they got all sorts of positive attention (albeit from similarly messed up individuals) for what they did.  As a society, I think as a backlash we generate negative attention to balance this out.

      Unfortunately, I’m sure there are tons of animal torture cases happening, but this one got attention b/c of the public nature in which they did it, and everybody is expressing their dissaproval b/c approval is what the video makers were seeking. 

    • snagglepuss says:

      That’s an excellent question -

      But not as good a question as “Where have you been living all your life that you’ve never seen this kind of rage being displayed concerning the murder of a human being ?”

      • Xploder says:

        Good point. I should have said how come I RARELY if EVER see this kind of rage over the murder of a human being.

         Be honest. Any time some horrible asshat like these two do something like this, the interwebs go into a frothing rage over it and I think that’s the right thing to do. I didn’t see this kind of outrage after the shootings at the theater that killed and wounded so many. What I DID see was a hell of a lot of people posting about how crazy the guy looked and discussing whether or not he thought he was the Joker and crap like that.

        Please don’t get me wrong, I love animals and have had dogs my whole life. If someone were to do something like that to one of my dogs, I’d have no problem shooting them if I caught them in the act.

        But yeah, you’re right, I should have worded that better. I apologize.

        • C W says:

          “I should have said how come I RARELY if EVER see this kind of rage over the murder of a human being.
           Be honest.”

          Physician, heal thyself.

    • Charles says:

      Plus, most states and most Indian reservations allow dog consumption. Generally, humane killing is required. Many reservations have restaurants where nonindians may eat dog. I believe no USA offreservation eateries may serve dog.There are coyote hunts in a few states and the wild dogs killed as a result may be legally consumed by the hunters and their friends and families. Obama has consumed dog.

      • Xploder says:

         I’ve never understood the don’t eat dogs thing. I’ve eaten and enjoyed dog meat, horse meat and many others while I was in the service. I’ve always thought that here in America, a lot of people decided that it’s okay to eat any animal that isn’t cute.

        • Christopher says:

          I think it may be more complicated than that. Although dogs play a very different role in Western society I think the protections given cows in India may be somewhat analogous. If the theory I’m familiar with is correct people in India don’t eat cows because a living cow provides resources to a large number of people over a long period of time, whereas a dead cow would feed a smaller number of people for a much shorter period of time.

          It’s not a perfect analogy. I know a lot of people with dogs and none of them depend on their dogs for milk or use dog shit for oven fuel, but I think there may be a similar sense that dogs as companions are “useful” in a way that dogs as food wouldn’t be.

          Besides “cute” is in the eye of the beholder, and there are a lot of animals that are pretty darn cute that are still widely eaten. I’m pretty sure a lot of people who enjoyed the movie Babe still eat bacon and lamb chops.

      • Funk Daddy says:

        That’s the problem with belief eh?

        You can eat dog in the USA, no laws restrict it. If you wanted to sell dogmeat for consumption well then it must be inspected etc. which is a considerable barrier.

        Guess what else Obama has consumed….


        You.

    • My Ocean says:

      Because children and animals are defenseless against adult humans, whereas other adult humans theoretically stand a better chance against defending themselves against being caught and tortured for the pleasure of their captors.

    • SumAnon says:

       In the US (and most western countries?) puppies, kittens, and other pets are in many ways placeholders for children. They are a part of the family, and often considered innocent and deserving of the same protection as kids. Worse, pets are children who will never grow up, never lose their innocents, and will always be defenseless victims.

      The rage you see is the same reaction someone would have if the videos were of infants being hurt. And justifiably so; the people killing puppies and kitties are doing so knowing (and probably because) those animals are just a hair short of being human in society’s eyes.

      The lobsters not so much. Poor sea bugs.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      If you were observing the reactions of those who knew the murdered human it might resemble what you see here.

      We know that we don’t know the humans.

      We know that we do know the animals.

      • Xploder says:

        MAN! I didn’t mean for my comment to generate this much hoohah. I’ll agree with most of what you guys have said except that I don’t see a pet as a child or even a child substitute. Especially one that is never going to grow up. I see them as what they are, an animal that enjoys living with me in my home. There’s a big difference there between that and thinking of them as an almost human.

        Last thing I want to do is get into a big debate over this. I see that everyone has their own viewpoint and that’s great! It’s what makes humans such a wonderful thing. I wish everyone in the world could state their own viewpoint without fear of being thrown into the middle of a word fight, or, in some places, an actual fight.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Thanks for your concern.

    • robcat2075 says:

      I recall reading about WWI being precipitated by the murder of one person.  That was a bit more rage than commenting on the internet.

  7. coiled embrace says:

    Are they accessible or are they currently behind bars? If so, do they have children? It’s only a matter of time. Karma may not be instant, but… 

  8. Charles says:

    I know you guys hate those who are mean to dogs, but most states would allow the defendants to humanely kill then eat pups. For decades, the default method for dispatching cows in slaughterhouses was a single sledgehammer blow to the forehead of the bovine. The defendants did not seem too far from that method, which is legally considered humane. Btw, economics dictate vegan diets, as do health issues, but that route means animals will approach extinction

    • Funk Daddy says:

      A. Killing for consumption is distinct from torturing/killing for the purpose of torture/causing suffering for profit. 

      B. The couple were torturing to an extent far removed from a single blow to the head of sufficient force to kill.

    • Jack Jett says:

      When you say….”I know you guys hate those who are mean to dogs……”

      I assume you believe that there are people who are fine and accepting of people who are “mean to dogs”.

      I am glad to say I have never met those people and hope that I never do. 

      If someone is mean to a dog, then they are simply mean. 

  9. Charles says:

    I knew a girl who liked a stray rabbit more than any humans. To me, excessive animal love can inure to the detriment of the animals. Most PETA folks seem to like cutting the mink loose to die in the woods immediately; throwing ink on a minkcoat that is the only keepsake from the wearer’s late mother the wearer has; and rescuing an animal and giving it to PETA to be euthanized (!); yet are unbothered by the fact that the PETA program ultimately means animals are wiped out, except the nastier ones.

    • Lupus_Yonderboy says:

      I really don’t understand your context for “wiped out”, please clarify.  If it’s because “well, we won’t have cows if we don’t keep breeding them to be slaughtered” then perhaps we shouldn’t have cows.  I think that the cows would probably prefer it that way – I know that if personally I was given the choice between my species gradually fading away and being captive bred to be brutally slaughtered I’d probably choose the former.  If it was up to me animals would have the chances that nature gave them without our interference (of course, that includes both breeding for slaughter and taking over their habitats) but it isn’t up to me so I try to do my part where I can.

    • coiled embrace says:

      Demons are devouring your unborn spawn, Charles… You are so rational. 

    • C W says:

      PETA is an “awareness” charity. Like Komen and many others, they exist to propagate their personal brand, not to do “the most good”.

      I’m sure all of us have met an asshole before, but your ramblings about animal lovers are irrelevant and confusingly misplaced in a thread about abusive psychopaths.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        There’s a difference between a charity that promotes awareness of illness and one that promotes awareness of problematic human behavior. In the latter case, shining a spotlight on it is usually the primary cure.

  10. Paul Renault says:

    Coincidentally, the CBC will be airing an investigative report tonight on The Fifth Estate about the online group Animal Beta Group’s investigation into Luka Magnotta’s videotaping and online posting of him killing kittens (literally).  Magnotta killed Jun Lin in late May this year, sparking an international manhunt.

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/11/hunting-magnotta.html
    More here:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/28/magnotta-fifth-estate-online-hunt.html

  11. Boundegar says:

    I wish to thank you for not embedding the videos.

  12. benher says:

    Texas has the death penalty, no?

  13. koturnin says:

    Uh… This probably surprises no one, but has anyone seen the Wired comments section? It’s the f-ing KKK over there! Lynching, n****rs, and of course the more genteel shibboleths like ‘Obamaphones’ and welfare references. I mean I don’t expect much from Wired comments but the extent of it was surprising. Oh well, the election brought all these guys out of their cave I guess…

    • Ipo says:

      “The federal indictment alleges they produced the films ‘with the objective of earning a profit.’” 
      Doesn’t sound like they were after Obama’s welfare handouts but more like they are predatory Romney capitalists.  

  14. Velocirapt42 says:

    It’s interesting, because back in the day people regularly vivisected completely unsedated animals- dogs, mostly- in front of a medical audience. People were convinced that as animals have no soul, the dog couldn’t really be feeling pain, despite its screams and struggles and everything else that makes us want to vomit and get out the shotgun. (To be fair, there were anti-vivisectionists as well, who protested this kind of thing.) 

    Nowadays, if a kid did this, we’d gear ourselves up for him being a sociopath, because it shows a shocking lack of empathy. If you’re not moved by the cries and struggles of a tortured puppy, if you ENJOY it, you’re probably going to move onto humans- perhaps not torture per se, but physical and/ or emotional abuse of people who have to take it because they don’t think they have a choice or can’t get away  (spouses, kids, unfortunate sex workers, etc.) Lack of empathy is what has characterized the infamous killers in our society that did unspeakable things (at least, those who did them hands-on; bombers and people who have others do the abusing and killing are further removed from the act of violence.)

    So my question is, were the people back in the day performing these demonstrations sociopaths? Hopefully they didn’t actually enjoy what they were doing, but they were unfazed enough to carry on with the practice. I’ve always been puzzled about exactly where to place that part of medical history.

  15. benenglish says:

    Yes, I know this is weird but it’s just an information point.  I knew the guy (and, yes, there was ONE guy) who started the commercial crush video market (in the U.S., at least).  The thing is, he wasn’t into the crushing.  He was a foot fetishist.  He was looking for a way to make a splash in that market so he started making crush videos that were pathetic.  They featured worms.  Literally, he had lovely women stepping on stuff you buy at a bait shop.

    That got him some notoriety and he quickly abandoned the whole “crush” thing to concentrate on what turned him on, feet.  Other folks, however, saw that there was a market for killing things.  Commercial videos of models popping the skulls of kittens weren’t far behind.  Last time I talked to him (over 15 years ago) he was aghast that people would do stuff like that and was wracked with guilt over the whole thing.

    Yeah, no links and it sounds ridiculous.  So don’t believe me.  I’m not going to link to any of his old stuff from 20 years ago because I don’t want anyone else making the connection, tracking him down, and blaming him for shit that is clearly way beyond anything he would have ever conceived.  (Besides, if you’re seriously into porn history, just the narrative above would be enough for you to identify him.)

    My point is – Give people a little weirdness and there are nutjobs out there who will take it to extremes.  Must we all live vanilla lives so we don’t give ideas to borderline crazies?  Or will sociopaths come up with this stuff all by themselves, anyway?

    I dunno.  Sometimes I grieve for the state of the human race.

  16. Funk Daddy says:

    ?? I saw in the article names and faces that were not indicative of a Native American origin. I gather you are a racist shithead?

  17. Xploder says:

     I was gonna say that those pictures of them seem to indicate that they’re…ummm…too dark to be Native Americans. I agree that hs sounds like a racist shithead there. Good call.

Leave a Reply