A lot of folks use the word incorrectly.
Yeah… but in seeing it used in print I have hardly ever (so far as I can recall) seen it used “correctly” to mean 1 in 10 destruction. It’s almost always been used to mean huge amounts of damage or destruction.
If the incorrect use is the way 99% of people use it don’t you have to re-align the definition to popular usage?
Never!! 
Are you sure it doesn’t mean “reduce TO 10%” versus “reduce BY 10%”?
Actually per Webster’s, you’re both right. Definition 1 is “kill every 10th man”, and definition 3 is to reduce drastically in number.
Yes. It’s based on the Roman way of punishing some armies defeated in battle. The prisoners would draw lots. One in 10 would be executed.
Sloppy users of the English language think that “decimate” means more than 10 percent casualties.
Oh, the officer in the OP is a sick fuck. This is not the forum to use the term on various posters…
Jerks. Leaving an animal to suffer is not right - you’d think the game commission people would get that.
I think the officer’s only mistake was not communicating better with the homeowners. If you tell me the kittens living in my back yard will be euthanized, I’m going to assume that they will be trapped and taken to a shelter and killed, not that you’ll open fire on them then and there.
Actually, it was used by the Romans to punish their own soldiers, usually for mass cowardice or mutiny. You break them up into groups of 10, preferably with each group consisting of soldiers who know each other well. Have the group draw lots, and the loser is beaten to death by the other 9 members of the group. Probably pretty effective.
Both the Romans and this officer share a certain callous attitude toward killing.
Would that also be true of the humane society worker that euthanized the kittens twenty minutes later, if this fellow hadn’t shot them?
Perzactly. My pet peeve, even more irritating than the “like” word.
Well, the parent/s could have just done the weighted gunny sack & local pond/creek thing.
If we want smart, humane, well informed & contentious animal control people, we need to be willing to pay for them. We get what we pay for.
Nope.
So what makes the one callous, and the other not?
Agreed. The homeowner said she realistically expected the animal control officer to capture them and bring them somewhere that (almost certainly) they would end up being humanely euthanized. Not shot in her backyard, with her in ricochet range and front of her traumatized children.
Human Action: Risking bystander safety, traumatizing young children needlessly, and using a painful method of execution with a high risk of not causing a quick death.
“Callous attitude toward killing” isn’t the right term for that. “Thoughtless”, perhaps; “irresponsible”, sure.
Killing animals with a pistol isn’t any more or less callous than killing them via injection or suffocation.
ETA: I’ve never shot a kitten with a 9mm or .40 pistol (I’m sure the officer had one or the other), but I feel confident in stating that the risk of not causing a quick death must be very low.
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) the officer didn’t point-blank shoot the kittens due to the risk of ricochet. This would decrease the accuracy.
They were in a woodpile, weren’t they? I’d think you’d have to get pretty close to shoot animals in a woodpile.
You’re going a bit too far calling it hypocrisy, but the general gist of what you say is what I think, too. You don’t kill an animal unless it is actually causing harm of some sort. Some squirrels go missing? So what? The cat has as much right to be there as the squirrels. If they die, that’s just natural selection at work. Squirrels aren’t an endangered species or anything.
Shooting specifically is reserved for animals that are an imminent threat or if they are suffering. Exceptions are made for hunting, but hunting is a sport and should not be done with animals that stay in one place. You don’t shoot an animal in it’s home and call it hunting. If the guy were hunting feral cats, he’d have at least tried to scare them away first, and only shot them while they are moving and thus have a fair chance.
I guess I can also make an exception for exterminating burrowing animals just because of the difficult practicalities of trapping them. But, otherwise, shooting is not an extermination method.
Says who?
I have to confess a certain admiration for the phrasing. “They are going to kitty heaven”, followed shortly by BLAM!
Every time a sidearm goes off, another kitty angel gets its wings.
Regards,
Shodan