Popular YouTuber Ross Creations is currently under investigation by the Florida State Attorney’s Office following the release of a controversial video featuring a homemade device called the "Opossum Launcher." The video, posted on November 30, 2025, shows an American opossum being launched several meters into the air after stepping onto a catapult baited with food. The animal landed without apparent injury, but viewers expressed outrage over what they perceived as animal abuse.

The backlash prompted multiple reports to law enforcement from concerned citizens, leading to an official investigation by both the Florida State Attorney’s Office and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The FWC emphasized their commitment to wildlife protection and encouraged anyone with information about the incident to reach out via their Wildlife Alert Hotline.

PETA has also condemned Ross's actions, describing the video as "sickening" and highlighting it as an example of cruelty against animals. According to Florida law, cruelty to animals can result in severe penalties including jail time and substantial fines. This incident marks not Ross's first legal trouble; he has previously faced arrests for trespassing and impersonating a police officer.

As of now, Ross has not publicly commented on the ongoing investigation, and his original video has been removed from his social media accounts.

Original article (trespassing) (outrage) (investigation) (fines)

The article discusses a controversial incident involving YouTuber Ross Creations and a video that allegedly depicts animal cruelty. Here’s an evaluation of its value based on the outlined criteria:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide clear steps or choices for the average reader. While it mentions that concerned citizens can report incidents to law enforcement or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), it lacks specific guidance on how to do so effectively. There are no direct actions readers can take regarding the situation beyond reporting, which is somewhat vague.

Educational Depth: The article touches on animal cruelty laws in Florida but does not delve deeply into what constitutes animal cruelty or the legal ramifications involved. It lacks detailed explanations of wildlife protection laws, how they are enforced, or statistics related to animal abuse cases. Therefore, it does not teach enough about the broader context of wildlife protection or legal frameworks.

Personal Relevance: The information primarily affects those interested in animal rights and welfare rather than a broad audience. While it raises awareness about potential animal abuse, its relevance is limited for individuals who may not be directly impacted by this specific case.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service function by highlighting an issue of potential animal cruelty and encouraging people to report such incidents. However, it could have provided more context about why reporting is important and how individuals can contribute to wildlife protection efforts.

Practical Advice: There is little practical advice offered in terms of what individuals can do in response to witnessing similar situations or concerns regarding animal welfare. The mention of contacting authorities is too general without providing specific contact information or tips on effective reporting.

Long-Term Impact: The article focuses on a singular event without offering insights into long-term implications for wildlife protection or community involvement in preventing similar incidents in the future. It does not encourage readers to engage with ongoing issues related to animal welfare beyond this case.

Emotional and Psychological Impact: While the article highlights outrage over potential cruelty, it may evoke feelings of shock or helplessness among readers without providing constructive ways to respond or engage with these emotions positively.

Clickbait Language: There are elements that sensationalize the incident (e.g., "sickening" actions) but overall, it maintains a focus on factual recounting rather than exaggerated claims aimed at attracting attention through shock value alone.

Missed Chances to Teach/Guide: The piece presents an important issue but fails to provide actionable steps for readers who want to learn more about preventing animal cruelty or advocating for wildlife protection effectively. It could have included resources for education on responsible pet ownership, community advocacy groups focused on animals, and ways individuals can support local wildlife initiatives.

To add real value that was missing from the original article, readers should consider educating themselves about local laws regarding animals and wildlife protections within their state. They could also look into volunteering with local shelters or conservation organizations that work towards protecting animals from harm. Engaging with community forums discussing responsible pet ownership practices would also be beneficial for fostering awareness around these issues while promoting humane treatment of all animals within their communities. Lastly, if someone witnesses potential abuse, they should document their observations clearly before reaching out to authorities with as much detail as possible; this helps ensure proper investigation while reinforcing personal responsibility toward safeguarding animals' welfare.

The text uses strong words like "outrage" and "sickening" to describe the public's reaction to Ross Creations' video. This choice of language evokes strong emotions and paints the situation in a very negative light. It helps to position the viewers as morally superior while framing Ross as someone who has committed a serious wrongdoing. This kind of word choice can influence readers to feel more strongly against Ross without presenting a balanced view of his actions.

The phrase "animal abuse" is used to describe what happened in the video, which suggests that Ross intentionally harmed the opossum. However, it does not provide context about whether there was any intent to harm or if the animal was indeed injured. This wording can lead readers to believe that Ross's actions were malicious rather than potentially misguided or thoughtless. The use of such charged language can mislead people about the nature of what occurred.

PETA's description of Ross's actions as "cruelty against animals" reinforces a negative view without offering evidence for why they consider it cruelty specifically. The text presents this condemnation as an absolute fact, which may lead readers to accept it without question. By quoting PETA in this way, it strengthens their stance while leaving out any counterarguments or differing opinions on animal treatment in media content. This one-sided presentation can skew public perception against Ross.

The mention of previous arrests for trespassing and impersonating a police officer serves to paint Ross in a negative light by highlighting his past legal troubles. This could create an impression that he is untrustworthy or prone to illegal behavior, even though these incidents are unrelated to the current investigation regarding animal welfare. By including this information, the text subtly shifts focus from the specific incident at hand and reinforces a narrative that portrays him negatively overall.

The statement about Florida law regarding cruelty to animals implies severe penalties but does not specify what those penalties might be or how they would apply in this case specifically. This vagueness could lead readers to assume that Ross faces significant consequences without understanding how laws are applied based on context and intent. Such wording creates an atmosphere of fear surrounding potential legal outcomes without providing clarity on actual legal processes involved.

The text mentions that concerned citizens reported the incident leading to an official investigation but does not provide details on who these citizens were or their motivations for reporting it. By omitting this information, it suggests widespread disapproval from the community but does not give insight into whether these reports represent genuine concern or simply sensationalism fueled by social media outrage. This lack of detail can mislead readers into thinking there is unanimous condemnation when opinions may vary widely among individuals.

When discussing wildlife protection efforts by FWC, phrases like “emphasized their commitment” suggest unwavering dedication without providing evidence for how effective those efforts have been historically or currently are in practice. Such phrasing promotes trust in authority figures while glossing over potential shortcomings within wildlife protection policies themselves. It encourages readers to accept FWC’s statements at face value rather than critically examining their effectiveness or accountability measures.

Overall, phrases like “official investigation” create an impression that wrongdoing has already been established when no conclusion has yet been reached regarding guilt or innocence concerning animal cruelty allegations against Ross Creations at this point in time; thus implying guilt prematurely through suggestive language choices instead of sticking strictly with factual reporting until proven otherwise through due process within legal frameworks governing such cases.

The text conveys a range of emotions that contribute to the overall message regarding Ross Creations and the controversy surrounding his video. One prominent emotion is outrage, which is expressed through phrases like "viewers expressed outrage over what they perceived as animal abuse." This emotion is strong and serves to highlight public disapproval of Ross's actions, suggesting that many people feel deeply disturbed by the treatment of the opossum. The use of the word "outrage" indicates not just discontent but a passionate response, encouraging readers to align with this sentiment and consider the ethical implications of animal treatment.

Another significant emotion present in the text is concern, particularly from law enforcement and wildlife protection agencies. The statement about multiple reports leading to an official investigation reflects a serious commitment to addressing potential cruelty, which evokes feelings of worry for the well-being of animals. This concern is amplified by mentioning organizations like PETA condemning Ross's actions as "sickening," further emphasizing societal values regarding animal rights. The emotional weight here serves to inspire action from readers who may feel compelled to support wildlife protection efforts or report similar incidents.

Fear also emerges subtly in relation to potential legal consequences for Ross, as indicated by references to Florida law on animal cruelty resulting in "severe penalties including jail time and substantial fines." This fear not only pertains to Ross but also extends to anyone considering similar actions against animals, reinforcing societal norms against cruelty. By highlighting these legal repercussions, the text aims to guide readers toward understanding that such behavior can lead not only to public backlash but also serious personal consequences.

The writer employs emotionally charged language throughout the piece—terms like "controversial," "sickening," and "animal abuse" are deliberately chosen for their strong connotations rather than neutral descriptors. Such word choices enhance emotional impact and draw attention away from any possible defense of Ross’s actions toward a more critical view. Additionally, phrases such as “encouraged anyone with information” suggest an active role for readers in reporting wrongdoing, fostering a sense of community responsibility.

In summary, these emotions work together effectively within the narrative framework: they create sympathy for animals while simultaneously building trust in institutions like FWC that advocate for wildlife protection. By using emotionally loaded language and framing Ross's actions within a context of legal scrutiny and public outrage, the writer persuades readers not only to condemn his behavior but also inspires them toward protective action regarding animal welfare issues.