Rhetorical Analysis about an Article

As I was checking my mails from hotmail.com I checked out some Today’s news. There was a lot of news. There was something about Obama’s health care plan, something about man getting arrested because of crime, etc. But one topic really interested me and made me laugh. The title of the article was “Man who killed ex’s fish gets probation”. From the title, I had a sense of what the story was going to be like.
“A Portland man who attacked his ex-girlfriend and impaled her pet fish this summer has been sentenced to two years probation, a psychological evaluation and community service.
Donald Earl Fite III, 27, pleaded guilty Tuesday to animal abuse and domestic violence assault.
According to court records, Sarah Harris had broken up with Fite but returned to her Portland apartment July 25 to find him lying on her bed, saying he wanted to get back together.
Donald Earl Fite quoted that, ‘If she can’t have me, she can’t have the fish’ to the police.”
This was basically the whole article, not even 100 words long and yet I though this article would a great source to analyze rhetorically. This article concluded that killing of a fish was an animal abuse and Donald Earl deserved the punishment for it. I would say that a lot of people would oppose such judgment yet other people might agree to it. Personally I think the punishment was bit little harsh. When I think of animal abuse and domestic violence assault, I usually think of abusing mammals, such as dogs, cats, or as far as reptiles. But a fish? I do understand that fish can be a pet but for one thing it does not have “brains” like dogs and cats do. Dogs and cats recognize their owners but fish never do. Only thing that fish recognize is fish food.
I think the way the author approached this crime shows that author also tried to say this situation was bit odd. I mean if it was some serious issue, the author would have not used that tone. The tone of this article tells me that author is sort of playing around. For example, other than killing fish the main reason for such a harsh punishment was maybe because Donald attacked his girlfriend physically. But the author does not emphasize on that idea, rather he focuses metaphorically how Ronald stabbed the fish as if fish is some kind of mammal or a human, and focuses on animal abuse. The way that the author just briefly talks about Ronald attacking his girlfriend might show that his girlfriend was not really attacked after all. If she was attacked and hurt badly, the main focus would be on the girl not on the fish. The way that Ronal just invaded his girlfriend’s house was wrong and it is considered domestic violence. Still, punishment is little too harsh.
I also think that this article brings up the argument about whether or not fish is a pet. I believe fish is a pet but not dog and cat like pets. One should not be accused of animal abuse just because he/she killed a fish. Pouring a toxic into a lake and killing a thousands of fish is a definitely a crime because it actually impacts that population. Killing a pet fish also can be a crime in this case because fish was other people’s property. But I think unless Ronald killed large number of fish, he should have been accused for destroying other people’s property rather than animal abuse. I mean, we could accidently kill some fish while we fish but we do not get punishment for that. On the other hand, if we accidently kill dog or cat we get fined or even jailed because that is an animal abuse. Both fish and dogs or cats are pets but not to the same degree.
This article also brings up the idea about how crazy and psychotic some people actually can be. I mean who actually thinks like if she can’t have me she can’t have the fish. The quote from Ronald gave me laughter. He actually broke into his ex’s house and killed a fish just because he thought his ex does not deserved to have fish if she did not have him. In this sense, Ronald definitely deserves psychological evaluation because Ronald may commit a bigger crime when his ex dates a new guy and Ronald might actually try to “stab” him too.
By reading this article I do agree with the author and this crime to a certain point but some things just does not make sense. I think author also tried to mock this situation by his word choice such as “stabbing” the fish. I, too, think that this article deserved to be mocked because it is not that of a serious crime to be up in the news, I mean killing a fish? Really? But I also think that author tried to tell us that this world is very funny and there are people who are just unthinkable. Or maybe author just tried to give us laughter by posting a comical situation.