The claim here is that PETA is a hypocritical organization that kills animals. Therefore, any claim that PETA makes, such as the fact that you shouldn't abuse animals for your own entertainment and therefore shouldn't eat meat, is therefore null and void.
Sorry, I thought killing animals was ok. Now it's... not ok? What about if those animals lived a good life and were put down humanely? Or is the problem that those animals are the "good" kind not the "food" kind? But why should that matter?
PETA states that "While we transfer hundreds of animals to reputable shelter partners and place animals for adoption, our shelter mostly takes in aggressive, sick, elderly, injured, feral, or otherwise unadoptable animals for whom euthanasia is the most humane option, and we euthanize at the owners' request when they can't afford to pay for their sick and dying animals to be put to sleep".
PETA takes in every pet that people bring to their facility almost without exception. What I never get out of critics of PETA is, even if they put down perfectly healthy animals, what is a better plan? Let's review some options and see if any of them are immune to chastising:
Other plans are just vague things that PETA already does. "They should just concentrate on fixing animals". Okay, they do that by the thousands with their no/low-cost fixing program. So what was the actual plan here?
If PETA then makes an argument that you should torture animals for your own entertainment, that argument stands and falls on its own merits, not on the things PETA does or even on the basis that PETA said so. "Hey some people that work for PETA did thing X". Ok, well killing animals for your own pleasure is still wrong, and those employees were wrong for doing what they did if that's true.
Killing animals unnecessarily for your pleasure is wrong. "But, PETA kills animals too". Ok... great. Killing animals unnecessarily for your pleasure is still wrong, and you managed to list some other tangentially related fact that doesn't counter that at all.