WARNING: This isn't a place meant to be read for minors. If you are a minor, do not read. I do not know if it's too much, but I put this warning here anyway.
A while back ago, there has been a bunch of evidence suggesting Kero The Wolf (A large known 'furry') is guilty of zoosadism. One behavior was deadly to the animal, and there were specific other offenses involved. As someone who has a care for many animals, I certainly wouldn't trust such a person to be around my pets, and seeing how he has shown no regret for his actions he did to those animals, I can see and understand a lot of concern involving this individual.
For some reason, some people's ways of handling him, just stinks. For some weird, strange, and somewhat mind boggling reason, some furries are acting like they can gatekeep the fandom (they literally aren't allowed to do that due to human rights) and seem to act as if him being "in" the fandom is somehow the ultimate crime and that the ultimate goal seems to be that he should be witch hunted out of it, as if that will solve the problem. It's as these people seem to forget the fact that he's outside of prison still, still has no evidence of him being fixed (getting proper treatment, which is destroying his evil desires from inside), making him still a threat, and is possibly around real animals. I sometimes wonder if these furries even really care about real animals, or cares about clout and/or wants to protect an 'image' that doesn't even exist? When I see an individual being a threat to animals, I really don't give a rat's ass about him being a furry. I would care how risky it is involving him being outside of a proper facility, it's not him being technically part of a specific community that nobody owns and isn't itself a real place.
If I had to care about him being online, the only risk I can really see is that he might start finding other people online to aid offensive behavior involving animals and/or contact finding more animals. Him leaving a certain fandom having nothing to do with real animals, isn't going to fix that problem. If I was worried about him existing online, I would be worried about him being around the wrong people. This could either be him having a large enough platform (furry or not), possibly finding the wrong places in private, and/or probably one or more than one other things. If he wants to be a furry so badly, but prefer him doing so safely with good people alone lawfully, then I don't think I would care.
Am I saying that he should come back to main online when he's still a threat? No. Despite that, I mainly just don't get the obsession with trying to kick him out of a place that has nothing to do with real animals, as if that will break apart the entire surface. People in the fandom are not anymore or less morally obligated to do something right about him than anyone outside of the fandom and these people need to realize that going after Kero's innocent's interest (such as him being furry) is not magically going to save animals or restore what happened, and you know what? It might just make it worse to do so.
Are Furries Pushing Him Into Re-Offending?
When dealing with bad people, society has a type of responsibility as to how they handle it, similar to how prisons do. Science clearly shows that psychological effects from other people are real, and it's been proven that if you treat criminals like animals, they will less likely be fixed and have a higher chance of reoffending (here is an interesting video). There has been evidence for this involving prisons, and there has been evidence suggesting how main society treats a specific group of people actually increases the risk of further abusing. -article 1- -article 2- These are mainly examples, of course, but they do go in favor of this theory involving specific individuals not in prison and not on some registry.
Some might argue that the criminals in prison are different because they are in prison. Remember, they do release many people eventually, so the chance of
re-offending outside of prison due to past-treatment is obviously there and therefor can be compared with social issues dealing with certain other people outside of prison. There might also be indirect effects from what happens in prisons too.
For a while, I have often seen god-awful responses to how they handled Kero, and recently I've seen some furries on Twitter stooping down to a low level by intentionally promoting harassment by asking people to bully Kero, and even going out of the way to even shame people for refusing to engage (so much for nazi-free furry fandom). This right here is what ticked me off as someone that believes in human rights and realizes this type of trash likely pushes certain people into re-offending. If this was just an alert that Kero simply changed his appearance online for example, then I would care way less.
In my theory, I would argue that these types of furries are responsible for animal abusive behavior. I have argued this with some people and it seems they can't understand the problem. Perhaps I blame Twitter for making it hard to explain... I'll explain here...
The Main Issue?
I would like to remind that just because a person is currently a threat, doesn't mean rehabilitation isn't possible. They are a threat, so enough restriction must be obligated and that may be fair, at the same time, they MUST be treated properly and legally. If you handle it wrong, then you become responsible for the reaction of said person wrongly. If you leave less room for improvement, then you have accelerated the push of him possibly re-offending. Remember Norway prisons? They are to take in people believed to currently be a threat, and because rehabilitation is possible, they must treat them fairly while they are restricted enough. If they get treated like crap, they will more likely react negatively to the treatment. They will likely respond with more hatred too. Remember, many of these people do get released eventually.
Now it is true that Kero still has too much freedom, possibly online too. If he's too free while a threat, it's not like welcoming him back with open arms is going to much solve anything too. Yeah, I don't think it will save animals from him either. I want to point out that I'm not exactly trying to argue that we should completely welcome him back at this moment. It's mainly just that when one responds negatively to bad people, one needs to be careful, especially when they aren't that restricted in real life.
A good example response would be warning about him while he's a threat, criticizing him arguing that he's a threat and shouldn't be around animals, while encouraging him to get professional good treatment by arguing that he can get another chance at society if he puts in the right effort. Warning pet stores about him would be a good idea too.
A bad example response would be sending him death threats, doxxing him for vigilante reasons, strongly discouraging proper treatment by saying anything that means "Even if you changed, you can't come back!", and/or telling him to die. - One of these or more than one of these not only push him away from getting proper treatment, it likely creates simulation of hatred, causing him to hate other people more, possibly making him prefer staying away from getting proper treatment. That type of stuff is a complicit.
Remember, Kero the Wolf is still too free. He's not in a proper prison as far as I know, so the way he's treated is likely going to have an even larger impact involving animals (and maybe even humans too) while he's still free. There might be a chance that the good example might not fully be enough to fix the problem alone (clearly there has to be a better handling), however that doesn't change the fact that treating him wrongly likely causes him to offend faster, which is still a complicit.
Some people seem to have this idea that fully welcoming Kero back would somehow be a complicit to animal abusive behavior. There is also the idea that poorly handling Kero will also be a complicit to animal abusive behavior. You can't pick only one to be concerned about in this situation. It also doesn't matter what you call those poor handling, whether one calls it "consequences" or "justice", it won't change how debatable they are.
_____________
NUTSHELL KINDA: If you want to call out Kero assuming he's a threat, do it right. Warn people about him, tell him to get proper treatment, report any criminal activity to law, warn certain pet stores, have big main media places ban him. There can be other good things to do involving him too. If you only did one of these things for example, it's still better than nothing I guess.
Also, certain furries need to stop weirdly going after neutral furries for wanting nothing to do with it assuming the law doesn't make them do so. If people are allowed to not join the police force, then I'm pretty damn sure furries are not obligated to specially be part of special predator hunting. I'm not interested into being an active predator hunter (but I might have some sayings intentionally for the better like this main article). As long as I am not responsible for causing anyone doing harmful things, leave me out of it. I've seen some 'hunters' call out wrong people, promoting harassment, and some is anti-"feral" (don't even get me started on that one). My hatred to that side of furry cancel culture is high, even if there was some good things in it.
_____________
Article might get updated.
