From the Sunday Calendar: After Marine's apparent puppy toss, virtual lynch mob forms

Throwing a puppy off a cliff? It would be hard to invent a better metaphor for cruelty. Small wonder then that when a video began circulating recently showing a U.S. Marine apparently doing just that, online communities the Web over erupted in anger and disgust.

It was a despicable and even shameful act, but the reaction was no better. Before any of the facts were established -- the Marine's identity, for instance, or whether the video was some kind of hoax -- the cyber mob had its torches lighted, and the auto-da-fé had begun. Barely a day after the video surfaced, a Marine's reputation was in tatters, his life threatened and his family terrorized.

The video goes like this: Two Marines are standing on a desert precipice in full battle gear. It could be in Iraq. One is holding a small, black-eyed puppy by the scruff of its neck.

"Cute little puppy, huh?" "Oh, so cute -- so cute!" coos the second Marine.

"Whoops, I tripped," says the first and hurls the animal off the rocky incline. As it twirls in the air, you hear a series of heartbreaking yips.

"That's mean," says the second Marine. "That's mean . . .," he repeats, adding the thrower's distinctive surname.

The Marines quickly began an investigation into the video and did not deny its authenticity. (Some viewers thought the puppy, which wasn't moving before it was thrown, might've been dead already or just a doll.)

Because the video has been reposted so many times, its origin is hard to pinpoint. But a version posted to a Dutch website two days before the story gained wide attention is still online and has received nearly 500,000 views.

With no facts to fill the information vacuum, the online hordes moved straight to conjecture. The crowd found a Marine with the same last name who had a personal Web page on the social network Bebo.com. And that was all they needed; the accusations, slander and intimations of violence came like a tidal wave.

Someone tried to leave this comment on the blog: "I hope he gets killed by insurgents and burned to death and thrown off a cliff." I didn't publish that or a dozen others like it, nor did I allow commenters to post the besieged Marine's address and telephone number.

Not that it mattered: Internet vigilantes and a number of angry bloggers had already plastered the Web with the man's contact information as well as the names, phone numbers and addresses of his mother and sister -- who in short order received a wave of harassing phone calls. The family eventually had its phone number disconnected.

"We feel like we're living in a nightmare," the Marine's sister, who lives in Washington, told Seattle radio host Dori Monson. Her family, the sister said, had received multiple death threats related to her brother's alleged -- but unsubstantiated -- participation in the video. "I do not want to confirm if this is real or not," she said. "Because I don't want to do anything to incriminate him."

In his show, Monson called the family's travail a "witch hunt." "We're talking about human lives that are not in any way connected to the video that's inspired such anger," he told listeners. "And people want to do to them what he did to the dog. I think this is a cautionary tale about how fast a life can get turned upside down on the Web."

And he's right. A presumption of innocence never entered the picture. It was straight to the gallows for the Marine and his family. No need for pesky facts or time-consuming due process -- the crowd's appetite for revenge had to be sated.

The Internet is often credited for enabling new kinds of communication and, by extension, new social patterns. But there's nothing new about vigilante justice.

In January, Wired’s Threat Level blog reported a case in which anti-Scientology hackers mistakenly targeted a 59-year-old Stockton man, thinking he had something to do with a cyber-attack on one of their websites. The man, who later said he didn't "even really know how to use a computer," had his phone numbers, address and wife's Social Security number posted online. A series of harassing phone calls -- and at least one death threat -- followed.

If this kind of virtual lynching is going to be a part of the online landscape, innocent people are sure to be caught in the crossfire. And that will not be a triumph of progress.

Troops weigh in

THE response was more measured at sites for service personnel such as Military.com. Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy members -- many under their real names -- debated the video's authenticity and significance and worried that the video could harm the reputation of men in uniform.

"If true, all the individuals who were there need to face legal action," wrote a commenter who identified himself as a retired Air Force major. "The military doesn't need the kind of publicity this kind of thing brings with it."

Others felt the outrage was unwarranted: "I don't know about your unit and training, but I was taught to view the enemy as something other than human because it makes them easier to kill," wrote a commenter whose profile indicated he was a former Marine lance corporal. "If the allegations are true, he killed a defenseless animal and should be punished. But this throwing the book at him, simmer down people. It was a puppy, not a human baby."

After the puppy video surfaced, the online crowd dug up several other online videos that appeared to depict service members engaged in other acts of violence against animals, including dogs and sheep being shot or tormented.

Might battlefield stress or military training play a role in such acts of cruelty? This is a touchy subject. UC Irvine's Raymond Novaco, who studies include the relationship between anger and post-traumatic stress disorder and said he has been working with armed forces personnel for decades and has "great compassion for them," said an event such as the one portrayed in the puppy video would be "very unusual."

"If the incident even happened, I'd say it was a stretch to connect that with combat stress. The Marines don't train people to do that.".

What is clear is that, real or not, the puppy video has been a lose-lose situation for all parties. Even if it's discredited, the Marines may find that the image of one of their men holding up the ill-fated puppy won't be easily erased. And the men involved may find it can't be erased at all.

But the biggest loser here is the Internet. As it becomes trivially easy to play vigilante without ever coming out from behind your sheet, too many people are confusing bravery with downright cowardice.

Note to commenters:  I know this story and its implications are upsetting to some people.  I only ask that any discussion on this incident keep the name-calling and inflammatory statements to a minimum.  More productive discussions result when the commentary is cool-headed.  Thank you for reading.

Comments

[Fredric L. Rice]

These Christian terrorists have raped, tortured, or murdered over a million innocent people since they invaded Iraq -- an innocent country that was no threat to anyone. Along comes another Christian terrorist killing a puppy and suddenly the world gets all upset.

Over a million innocent people murdered by Christianity's latest wave of religious war crime atrocities and there's hardly a whimper. Murder a dog and it's suddenly all some how wrong.

Amazing.

[Travis]

I can understand being against the war. But to say that all soldiers are Christian terrorists, where is the logical in that idea.

[dg3]

The sister says she doesn't want to say if the video is real or not. That tells me it IS real, otherwise she'd simply say it was all a hoax.

[Leslie]

Just FYI, I believe the first post of the video was on Liveleak.com. Here's the video posted on January 28th of this year.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a2_1201076580

[Sarah]

WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE ADMITTED THROWING THE LIVE PUPPY ON HIS OWN MY SPACE PAGE ?WHY IS THIS FACT-FACT-NOT REPORTED IN THIS STORY????

[David Sarno]

Sarah, thanks for the comment. I saw the MySpace pages but was not able to verify their authenticity. As with many elements of this story, there has been a fine line between reporting information and spreading misinformation. I've tried to stay with elements that I felt were real, and shy away from the ones that I could not substantiate.

[Kelly]

Whether the puppy was alive or had passed; whether this was a sickly deranged act of a morally bankrupt human being or the prank of the strangest proportion, the anger, threats and fury aimed at the US marine's family is what is referred to as a "consequence of action". Perhaps if the notion of consequence was more firmly and consistently taught to this person, he would have thought twice about how his actions might affect other people in his life.

Ironically, there are those who condemn the internet for its immediacy of laying a "guilty" verdict based solely upon the rather incriminating video - to those people I ask: did the US marine at any point - before doing what he did - consider anyone or anything other than himself? I suggest that he did not. For it would seem to me - again, whether real or staged - the bottom line is quite obvious - this US marine lacks the minimal moral fibre of a human being. Moral fibre, as society seems to have forgotten from time to time, or dismisses with convienience so as to distribute blame upon others, is the quality of character that you are taught by your parents; that you witness in your family and demonstrate and contribute to your community. So regardless of age, where is this US marine's moral fibre? Where does the bar lie to measure his character?

Ask yourself these questions

[Otis Campbell]

Typical Governmental / Pentagon response. They are more upset over the publicity than the actual act and what the act signifies. We have become no better than the "enemy" we are fighting. It is a dark day in America

[Francis]

My theory: the soldiers were out in the desert and found a puppy that had been separated from it's litter mates and mother. Seeing a puppy, they said: oh how cute--a puppy! They go to pick it up--it attacks them. It's a feral puppy--that's what feral puppies do to humans. My brother once found one at our farm, and he said the cognitive dissonance between the puppy expectation and discovering it's wild was immense. My brother didn't have the good sense to kill the puppy--an invasive species in the wild-- right then and there. Maybe that's what these Marines were doing? The cognitive dissonance lead to the rather cruel treatment--but they were actually doing the right thing--killing an animal that has no place in that environment was placed there by humans. What do you do when you find a rat in the Galapagos? You kill it--it's invasive--maybe so was the puppy. The nearest no kill adoption shelter was few thousand miles away--so they killed the puppy. What else, if my theory is correct, could they do?

[Luke]

Frederic,

That's a very silly comment you made. That's what the professionals call an "emotion based statement." You have no idea what religion this Marine adheres to, if any. Maybe he's an atheist.
Further, "not a threat to anyone." You sure about that? Maybe you should ask the Kuwaitis and Iranians if they felt threatened by Iraq.

[c-t-m]

Frederic:

Your statement of both "a million murdered" and "Christian terrorists" are both so verifiably wrong they qualify as lies.

Your own "Skeptic Tak" website says extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you have none.. and for only one reason: none exists.

[Tom The Patriot]

"It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy... My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man."

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

[bravo]

Bravo, Kelly. I'd love to read Mr. Sarno's response to that.

[Sophie]

Every time I read or hear anything about this story, I am reminded of the millions of American and Iraqi men, women and children in Iraq who've been slaughtered in the name of this stupid genocide or "war." No one cares enough even about the deaths of American soldiers. If you did, you'd be clamoring to end this deadly political charade. Just because those those people weren't hurled over a cliff, it doesn't make their deaths any less cruel than a puppy's.

[Asim]

A couple of hundred thousands civilians dead due to OUR misguided war on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not a pipsqueak from the blogs or the on/offline mobs.

Abu Ghraib torture stories come out in the open and we as Americans do not express our disgust, dismay and shock at what those soldiers, OUR soldiers did in the name of our country to other human beings.

But a puppy allegedly thrown off a cliff and a hell storm rises up. I guess it is better to be a dog under US occupation than a human. History will judge us harshly.

[ike warren]

I've seen the video. The puppy is moving his mouth and tongue in the beginning and is very much alive. I agree that it's frustrating to see such a reaction against the death of a dog when so many soldiers and Iraqis have been killed, children blown up by terrorists right on the road, American soldiers' bodies are degraded and posted on the Internet. I wonder if we are becoming numb to human suffering. You watch the news and you see cameras catching people in moments of grief, wailing; bodies on the road having been hit by cars; stories of grotesque murders of children; shootings at schools; the worst life has to offer and it's on t.v. every night at 10 and 11. Maybe we have just become numb as to what man can do to man. But, if you have a dog, you know that dog loves you regardless of what you look like and how much you weigh, how much you earn. It won't turn on you the way your neighbor or even your spouse might and will lick your face in your sorrow. And here's this little dog hanging there -- it's a baby -- who can't have ever harmed anyone or committed an act of terror and there are these soldiers -- adult men representing our country and in our uniforms -- who just fling it like it's garbage and we hear it hit and can only hope it died right away and did not suffer broken in the dirt for very long. And they laugh about it. Many people aren't sure we are doing right by being in Iraq and then here's this video in which our soldiers are acting with cruelty and laughing about it that convinces them that we are wrong to be there. We want to bring the Iraqis democracy and make them like "US" but look at how us acts. We criticize them for our culture but then look at the way this soldier has behaved and gotten zillions of hits. We went in there unasked, and now we have to be perfect, and if we are flawed, it can't be like this. The dog is just a dog, but it's also a symbol of every child who's been blown up and every rape and every civilian casualty and every American soldier whose family has been told that they have been killed. Its death is wrong and unjustified and a mistake. Nobody cares about the puppy more than a baby, at least I hope. But the puppy may very well stand for every victim of this conflict who never got on youtube, who never had a voice and makes the ambivalent say, we are wrong.

[Calvin Lawsone]

Great article, due process of law is so incredibly important; it's very troubling to see this sort of internet vigilante justice. It is important to emphasize that this sort of behavior is nothing new; the internet is just a convenient platform for it.

But it is also a very convenient platform for protesting this sort of behavior, where before it might just be swept under the table. The pictures of Guantanamo Bay detainees were spread on the internet, and have raised awareness of our own government's systemic violation of due process. the growing awareness of Scientology's vigilante behavior has also come through the online actions of bloggers, chatters and script kiddies.

It's important to remember that it is much easier for those who have money and power to violate the intent of the law, and get away with it. The internet instead favors the masses, and this is a VERY GOOD THING as long as the masses behave in an upright and moral fashion.

[ken]

Well, three obvious points you just glossed over. 1) Why didn't the sister just say it wasn't real? Obviously she know something she isn't telling. 2) Where is the marine? Why isn't he out saying the tape isn't real and telling us how it was made? This would stop the harrassment much quicker than the interviews and stories like yours. 3) If it isn't real isn't it still wrong? Portraying that kind of animal abuse as funny is wrong, and the people who made the vidoe are getting just what they deserve. Furthermore, if someone runs out into moving traffic and gets hit, or starts waving around hundred dollar bills in bad nieghborhood and gets robbed, or binge drinks and gets put in the hospital for alcohol poisoning should we absolve them of all responsibility for their misfortune? Or, should we say their stupidity played a major role in what happened to them and that they need to start behaving more responsibly and less like an irresponsible nitwit? Are we supposed to feel sorry for this idiot for putting himself and his family in this situation?

[Laura]

I could not agree more with Ken. The only thing I would add is that there is no reason to harass the moron's family because of his mistake. However, Ken is completely right. The fact that the sister won't say whether or not it's real because she DOESN'T WANT TO INCRIMINATE HIM, and his own silence on the matter, clearly point to his guilt. And there would be absolutely NOTHING funny about it even if it had been a joke.

So why have we heard nothing about the investigation? Are you telling me the military has spent a month investigating this? Doubtful. I guess it's just one more military cover-up and one more slap on the wrist for another animal abuser.

I would honestly be quite happy to see him hurled over a cliff. Only I would hope he'd suffer in agony for a few days before he died. And that IS me being cool-headed. After all, it's no worse than what he did to that poor innocent animal.

[Eyegore]

The writer of this article is gutless for dancing around the issue of the marine's name. We already know who he is, obviously. Bad reporting. I want to see a follow up report. What charges were filed against this horrible person? Will he be dishonorably discharged? Why hasn't that happened already?

[Mike]

No matter what your feelings on the war are or that many humans have been killed the act of throwing a defenseless puppy over a cliff is unacceptable. If the puppy was indeed feral and indeed attack the soldiers than kill the puppy quickly & humanely and dont make a f'ing video of it...they have knives & guns. to do so. These two need to have their own butts kicked.

[DivaB]

I have a real problem with the sister's comment also...if it isn't real, then it saves her bother a lot by just saying so. The behavior is outrages on both ends.

I also have a real problem with those accusing the service men for the war and the many who have died...on both sides. Many didn't have a choice years ago when they enlisted as to what our country would be asking of them. Blog about presidential choices and bad decisions of our Commander in Chief.

As for those who are enlisting now?? I would have to wonder about their "choices" and ask "why?"