Worst Woman In The World Burns Dog Alive, Is Caught After Bragging About It On Facebook

from the i-hate-you dept

Normally when we write up posts discussing idiot criminals and their internet exploits, they’re a bit of levity in an otherwise maddening world. Whether they’re taunting law enformcement or posting pictures of the meals they’re eating with the feds, their stupidity is typically enjoyable. This is not one of those stories. Instead, this is a story about a stupid criminal who may well be the worst woman currently in existence.

Adrienne Martin was apparently taking care of her sister-in-law’s dog. Claiming the dog had acted aggressively, she chained the animal in the backyard and lit it on fire. The dog died shortly after it was found and taken to a stray rescue. Then Martin did what any psychopath would do: bragged about it on Facebook.

Martin, who has been charged with felony animal abuse, reportedly said on Facebook, “I’m on killa mode… kill dogs… today. I mean what I say and I say what I mean… all dogs don’t go to heaven.”

Martin is the kind of person that makes people hope there’s a Hell to which she may eventually retire. The cruelty is obviously astounding as is her depraved commentary on her social media page. Thankfully, those investigating her crime were tipped to her comments and she’s been arrested and charged with two felonies.

So, while I typically mock dumb criminals for posting about their exploits, I want to thank Ms. Martin for doing so in this case. Any action that expedites the stripping of your freedom is good in my book.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Worst Woman In The World Burns Dog Alive, Is Caught After Bragging About It On Facebook”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

‘And here’s your release from jail. I’m afraid I have some bad news though, your house seems to have caught fire(in two dozen locations at once strangely enough), while you were in there waiting for trial, and wouldn’t you know it the entire fire department were celebrating at some fundraiser, for the animal shelter I think it was, when it went up… anyway, see you in a few days for the trial.’

Would never suggest such a thing would or should be done of course, even if the woman does deeply deserve punishment for her inhuman actions(let the system take care of her, anyone but Cruela DeVille is liable to throw her away for as long as possible given the crime and the attitude she showed towards it), but wouldn’t exactly be shedding many tears if I heard about it either.

out_of_the_blue says:

"they're stupidity is typically enjoyable." -- If only yours were, Timmy.

First, if you’re going to write, at least learn to SCAN it for howler typos like these TWO in one sentence: “Whether they’re taunting law enformcement or posting pictures of the meals they’re eating with the feds, they’re stupidity is typically enjoyable.”

Anyhoo, disagree with your take; counter-examples are not too difficult to find. I’d say any of these women are actually worse:
“Some wealthy Manhattan moms have figured out a way to cut the long lines at Disney World ? by hiring disabled people to pose as family members so they and their kids can jump to the front, The Post has learned.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Don't feed the troll

“But it is censorship, Deborah, even if it’s a low-flying, somewhat malign, “opt-in” version of censorship”

This is Masnick talking about ‘filtering’ he is calling it censorship, saying that even if something is available, and even if it is “opt-in” it’s STILL CENSORSHIP.

Now reporting a comment is also censorship, it’s also ‘opt-in’, it’s a road block to free speech..

you need more citations ??

that one is enough..

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Don't feed the troll

“Masnick calls it censorship if some other group or web site do it..”

Citation needed. Hint: trying to shut down an entire site or removing comment from view completely is VERY different from letting people hide it – and it’s not Mike, but the community here that’s quickly tiring of the trolls. Asking people to click if they want to view a comment that’s been reported as trolling or spam is not censorship.

So come on, cite where Mike has called such an action censorship. Besides, if it’s censorship, how can I view your bleating idiocy in order to respond to it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Don't feed the troll

it also has a lot to do with WHY you ‘hide’ a comment “REPORT” or censor.

You don’t do it because you don’t like the language used, the ONLY reason you choose to “REPORT” the comment is because you don’t agree with what is said.

You are using a power to stifle free and open speech. To supress or censor comments that you do not agree with.

That’s what censorship is, I am sure if you had the ability to delete the post you would exercise it to supress comments YOU don’t agree with..

You are so against censorship, yet you routinely use it without a second thought.. ALL THE TIME..

“Oh I don’t agree with that”… REPORT

“Oh I don’t agree with that!! ” ,…. REPORT

“I don’t agree with what he is saying either…. REPORT

Ahh job done, now what else can I censor..

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Don't feed the troll

You know what I love here? Assholes that attack me for things I’ve never seen nor done then try to pretend they have a point.

I rarely use the report button myself, and usually only for openly racist and/or homophobic comments that I find extremely offensive, or outright spam that’s bypassed the filters. That’s rare here, thankfully.

I certainly don’t use the button to hide things I disagree with, as evidenced by the thousands of replies to such comments I’ve written, which you can openly read if you wish. But hey, don’t let the fact that you have to outright lie about me get in the way of attacking that strawman .Maybe you’d like to explain how I can still read the drooling idiocy emanating from your keyboard in order to reply to it, if it’s censored.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Don't feed the troll

you might not, you might be righteous and all that, but I am saying there comments that are censored here, and not done because of the language but because of the message is something you (or someone else) does not agree with.

If your not one of those who engages in censorship here to stifle speech, good for you, then why are you so offended ?

To read the censored comments I have to take specific actions to ‘get around’ this form of censorship..

To quote Masnick..

“But it is censorship, Deborah, even if it’s a low-flying, somewhat malign, “opt-in” version of censorship

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Don't feed the troll

Well, you’ve quoted something twice, but failed to mention what the hell you’re referring to or what context it was written in. Learn how to cite a source, please. I might even agree with you, but you have to do a little work, I’m sure as hell not chasing around to see what you’ve quoted when all you’ve done so far is launch personal attacks.

“If your not one of those who engages in censorship here to stifle speech, good for you, then why are you so offended ?”

Because I’m tired of you morons whining about censorship whenever your regular lies, personal attacks and other crap is reported by those tired of reading them. It’s usually just another way for you people to attack others rather than actually take part in a discussion about the points actually being raised, rather than the strawmen and fantasies you usually attack. You (or other ACs) simply use them as an excuse to derail the thread in another direction rather than actually discuss the matter at hand.

Your post was also phrased as a personal attack against me, which I have every right to get offended about when not a word of it was true. Sorry if I got “offended” by naked slander personally directed at me. Perhaps you’d consider not resorting to lies and slander so next time.

Beta (profile) says:

advocatus diaboli

It is possible that this woman has some kind of psychiatric imbalance, e.g. bipolar disorder. I knew a man who had that one; he was a kind, gentle, generous soul who loved animals– and threatened to kill the neighbor’s dog when he went off his meds.

If it’s something like that, then although this woman’s act was horrifying, punishment doesn’t really make any sense, and if we are civilized people we won’t relish the idea of her suffering for it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: advocatus diaboli

Well, yes and no.

If it truly was a medical/mental issue that caused it, then no, she shouldn’t be ‘punished’ per say. However, by the same token mental illness or no she has proven herself to be incredibly dangerous to animals, and potentially humans, and should very much be kept in a situation like an asylum(if it’s mental illness), or a prison(if she’s just plain twisted and sadistic) where she wouldn’t have the ability for a repeat performance.

Anonymous Coward says:

she wont go to prison

it’s the US it is not ?

you can shoot 15 year old black kids and get away with it, you can most certainly burn a dog to death and get away with it. She will claim diminished responsibilities, it’s clear she does have something like bipolar disorder.

Hoping she gets punished ‘in Heaven or Hell’ is not going to help either.

BTW: what has this got to do with Techdirt ??

As sad and regrettable as this is, it will not result in her imprisonment.

But if she did that to my dog, I would simply fucking kill her, then do my time.. (then burn her house down).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: she wont go to prison

“But if she did that to my dog, I would simply fucking kill her, then do my time.. (then burn her house down)”

Let me correct that for you…

“But if she did that to my dog, I would simply fucking kill her by burning her alive in her house, then do my time..”

Anonymous Coward says:

There are far worse than this running around loose

Much as what she has done is disgusting, there are far worse running around. Shall we name but just a few:

President Obama – happily wanting to take out both Manning and Snowden for revealing the atrocities done in the name of the USA, without wanting to stop and fix the abuses being done.

AG Holder sending letter saying he will not demand death for Snowden, when he actions suggest that all he wants.

All the NSA sods – details elsewhere
All the CIA sods – acceptable losses

Your typical Colombian drug lord and his colombian necktie

Your typical white supremacist and actions to a non-white who stands up to them

Shall we continue?

Much as the actions reported are appalling, there is far worse and more important things to get you ire up over. Those who have responded about doing likewise to her (in a fit of pique) are actually coming across as no better than she (I know she is the cat’s mother).

She has been caught and there is no need for mob rule.

anton says:

Re: There are far worse than this running around loose

Boy, do I disagree. Nothing is worse than burning an innocent, sentient being alive.

You list a lot of evil things, but this bitch personally lit the fire and let the poor creature die in agony, then bragged about it. She might be a good candidate for the CIA or Obama’s Brown Shirt Army, but doesn’t deserve freedom ever again. I suspect that if there is an afterlife, she’ll eventually twig to what’s she’s done; the life review is supposed to be quite disturbing. But, for now, please drag her sorry ass out of society and toss it into a federal prison or an insane asylum.

I agree with the article’s author: Adrienne Martin may very well be the worst woman currently in existence. Or at least among the very worst. I hope her sister-in-law gets some kind of justice. I hope the dog has found peace and happiness in another world.

Hagen (profile) says:

innocent until.. what again?

We only know very little about the case, so it seems unreasonable to make such a fuss about it. Granted, if everything is the way it seems to be at the moment, this woman has a serious problem and committed an act of barbarism for which she should be punished. However, the duty of finding the truth and determining the punishment is up to the judicial system and a jury of her peers and hopefully the revenge minded emotions will be left out of it as much as possible.

So I recommend to take a deep breath instead of calling for instant crucification.

Irian says:

Hell? Really?

You’re hoping that a person will be tortured for all eternity for hurting a dog? In a horrible way, true, but we’re still talking about an animal here. Do you really think eternal torture is justified here? Really? I hope you are all vegans, otherwise I have some really bad news about where your meat comes from and how happy the cows are…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...