Not really sure what to put here…I usually put relevant excerpts, but that got this post deleted for doing that
Just sub the title for “Wealthy people or corporations are far less likely to be punished than someone whistleblowing that makes them look bad.”
Generically apply that our legal system.
For those who aren’t necessarily concerned about a factory farm environment, they may not consider these animals as “valuable” enough to care.
However, to appeal to those people on a different level, that is the food you eat. And the people producing it are being very very very very protective about how it is produced. They are doing something to your food that they don’t want you to know about, and it certainly isn’t good that they’re trying to hide it.
Factory farming is a huge reason for disease outbreaks. Bird flu? Mad cow disease? Right here, folks. And they’ll package up your food without a thought other than the money they make from it.
Are you okay with the animals you eat living in conditions that could expose you to health risks? I hope you would be outraged if a food company was potentially putting you at risk because of their concern over their profits.
You should care.
It’s not illegal to “expose” animal cruelty in California, and no one has ever been charged with doing so. Animal cruelty is prosecuted all the time in California. The headline is stupid. The headline is wrong.
Laura Passaglia, the Sonoma County Superior Court judge who presided over the trial, barred Hsiung from showing most evidence of animal cruelty, depriving him of the ability to show his motives for entering the farms.
What a bitch.
There’s a bit of difference between “exposing animal cruelty” and stealing livestock.
Bit of a fucked up situation when conscious beings are considered property though.
My cat is a conscious being.
I still own her.
I also have a cat.
I am her legal custodian, she isn’t property.
They were stealing sick livestock that had no commercial value.
It’s not for them to decide.
If I decide your house, car, whatever is worthless, I can just take it?
houses and cars are inanimate objects.
Juries acquited these activists of theft in previous cases, because they were shown footage of the awful condition the stolen animals were in. Which was why, in this case, the prosecutors dropped the theft charges, put a gag order on the footage, and instead threw a “felony conspiracy to commit trespassing” charge at the leader of the group, who didn’t even participate directly in stealing the animals.
Sentient beings are not houses or cars. If parents abuse their babies, they will get them taken from them. Same should apply to animals.
If parents abuse their babies, they will get them taken from them.
By the state after a detailed legal process, not some rando off the street after a beer.
But with animals, the state won’t help them. If a baby was being tortured and the state wouldn’t save them, how could you blame someone for taking it into their own hands?
“Should” is irrelevant in this context…
This has been true for a long time. Upton Sinclair, writing over 100 years ago about improving working conditions (for humans) ended up missing the mark and the end result was food quality regulations. Now, folks are trying to expose animal cruelty but end up getting stronger protections for corporations 🤡 we just can’t seem to care about living things 🙁
The Jungle wasn’t about the animals, it was about the people. He was famously unhappy with the government’s response, and said “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.”
As soon as you suggest people stop eating meat, suddenly they have no moral standing or their change won’t make a difference. It’s just sad. People will hide behind ‘personal choice’ as if it absolves them of supporting the industry and any wrong doing that comes as a consequence of it. You can’t justify breeding an animal into existence for the sole purpose of killing and eating it when it is entirely unnecessary to do so. It’s probably the biggest example of injustice in the modern world, next to slavery.
Removed by mod
They are stealing sick animals of no commercial value in order to render medical aid. In cases where they have actually gone to trial for theft, they have won, because they show jurors footage of the awful condition these stolen animals were in.
Which was why the prosecutors dropped the theft charges, put a gag order on the footage, and instead threw a “felony conspiracy to commit trespassing” charge at the leader of the group, who didn’t even participate directly in stealing the animals.
So freeing livestock is a crime in your eyes?
My eyes don’t define crime. That’s not how it works. The law defines it. And the court looks at the law. I’m not a child so I understand this.
Do you consider Harriet Tubman a criminal too?
Removed by mod
So why do we need to differentiate between “arrested for exposing abuse” and “arrested for breaking unjust laws in the process of exposing abuse”?
Removed by mod
Ethically no, legally yes?
That’s sort of just how laws work. Legal doesn’t mean good.
Seems like it wasn’t for “exposing animal cruelty” so much as it was for, y’know, trespassing, breaking and entering, theft, etc.
The guy led a group that stole farm animals and Vox calls it a ‘rescue’. I wonder why he went to prison
Change “Farm animals” for “slaves” and you have your answer.
You don’t steal individuals who are held against their will. You free them.
Crazy that this is getting downvoted. We are still so far off from even basic general empathy towards non-human animals it’s making me cry…
Slaves are humans by definition. Every definition beings with
“A person who…”
Knowledge of definitions has nothing to do with empathy. It’s hard to take people seriously when they insist we don’t know the meanings of words.
The best definition I’ve seen of a “person” is “A being worthy of moral consideration.” (a commonly used concept in moral philosophy). So yeah, that definition can be applied to a cow, unless you believe that no amount of suffering imposed on a cow for any or no reason could ever constitute an immoral act.
It is a rescue
The law says stealing livestock isn’t. So he was prosecuted for breaking those laws, not “exposing animal cruelty.”
Maybe someone will rescue him when he is in prison.
Unless you take a broom and chase an endangered species away, then they will be sure to tell you how horrible you are.
Hey, to head off anything someone might say to this guy, he’s a pretty prolific troll picking fights. Take a look at his profile
So true, chasing off an animal with a broom is basically trolling in real life and therefore bad.
I’m just calling it how I see it
So true and relevant.
Just like how relevant and true to the topic it was when you called me a nazi, or a clown, or a tick, or schizophrenic (shortly after you chided me for “making fun” of dementia). Or any of the dozen less savory insults you tossed my way out of frustration because you didn’t like what I was saying?
Relevant like that?
Don’t remember any of this happening.
Unless of course you edit it out. Do it. Show us you’re not above changing your own words to prove yourself right
Lying is pointless. It’s in your post history, and not even that far down.
Unless of course you go edit it out. Do it. Show us you’re not above changing your own words to prove your point
Lying is pointless. It’s in your post history, and not even that far down
