I hate this but I think the judge is trying to keep the crimes seperate. The trial is not about what illegal things the farm was doing, it was a trial about this person breaking the law when they broke into the farm. I don’t know what the laws are exactly where this is but a lot of the time animals are owned which puts them in the category of property but with special protections. So the judge is looking at it from you broke into someone’s property to take video or whatever of someone treating their property poorly. I hate this because without doing this it’s incredibly hard to get evidence while going through the process legally. It’s usually setup in a way that gives ample opportunity for the offender to hide any wrong doing before inspection or other laws that hinder the animal rights people. If a police officer showed up without a warrant and walked in and collected evidence it probably couldn’t be used to prosecute them in court anyway so this is a bit like that. The judge might take the mitigating factors into consideration but the trial is still about them breaking into property illegally. The whole truth is primarily focused on the break in.
Also this is pure speculation and I’m talking out of my ass, so would need someone who actually knows something to varify
California law is supposed to allow a necessity defense, the fact is they knew the farms were abusing animals (they had undercover people find employment with them and see first hand, which is legal and not trespassing) and they found the same abuse on the day.
You’re definitely allowed to break into a car to rescue a baby. You might also be allowed to break into a hot car to save a dog, in which case you should also be allowed to break into a poultry farm to save abused animals.
They didn’t deny they broke in, but said there was good reason. The judge refused to allow the reason to be heard, and furthermore refused to file briefs from legal experts. What’s more, the prosecutors declined to proceed with the various theft charges, instead opting for a misdemeanor trespassing charge and suping that up with a felony conspiracy charge. Making a felony out of a misdemeanor and not allowing the defense to be heard points to a coordinated attempt targeted solely at the leader of this campaign group.
Yeh, that sounds fucked. Thanks for filling me in. Also if I spent half the time reading the article and listening as I do getting carried away and writing a long winded reply I would probably be able to make a better assessment. Thank you again
You don’t get to break into a car and rehome the baby or dog. They trespassed, broke in, and stole property. If they don’t like the practice, laws, or enforcement of existing laws there are legal ways to change those things. Vigilante Justice isn’t the answer and this criminal isn’t innocent of any of the crimes he’s been found guilty of.
You can find the practice of the slaughter house reprehensible and still maintain a life as a functional law abiding citizen while working towards progress at the same time.
And yet, the prosecutors here explicitly dropped the charges for breaking and entering and theft. They only went for trespass.
This is because they successfully argued against the other crimes in other trials, and convinced juries that the animals weren’t actually worth anything because they were dead or half dead.
The prosecution intentionally went for the weakest charge, then inflated it into a federal charge, and the judge intentionally didn’t let them defend against it. That reeks of collusion, and a disgustingly biased judge.
The practice of slaughtering isn’t at issue here. The issue is the welfare of the animals while they’re alive.
this criminal isn’t innocent of any of the crimes he’s been found guilty of.
He did not plead innocent to the crime. He admitted to doing the thing that was a statutory offense. However, in fair court proceedings, you should be allowed to give “special reasons” - that is, you should be allowed to present to the court that it was necessary to cause a lesser harm in order to prevent a greater harm. If the court had considered this and ruled against him, that would be one thing, but they didn’t even allow anyone to listen to that argument. That makes the ruling objectively wrong.
I hate this but I think the judge is trying to keep the crimes seperate. The trial is not about what illegal things the farm was doing, it was a trial about this person breaking the law when they broke into the farm. I don’t know what the laws are exactly where this is but a lot of the time animals are owned which puts them in the category of property but with special protections. So the judge is looking at it from you broke into someone’s property to take video or whatever of someone treating their property poorly. I hate this because without doing this it’s incredibly hard to get evidence while going through the process legally. It’s usually setup in a way that gives ample opportunity for the offender to hide any wrong doing before inspection or other laws that hinder the animal rights people. If a police officer showed up without a warrant and walked in and collected evidence it probably couldn’t be used to prosecute them in court anyway so this is a bit like that. The judge might take the mitigating factors into consideration but the trial is still about them breaking into property illegally. The whole truth is primarily focused on the break in. Also this is pure speculation and I’m talking out of my ass, so would need someone who actually knows something to varify
California law is supposed to allow a necessity defense, the fact is they knew the farms were abusing animals (they had undercover people find employment with them and see first hand, which is legal and not trespassing) and they found the same abuse on the day.
You’re definitely allowed to break into a car to rescue a baby. You might also be allowed to break into a hot car to save a dog, in which case you should also be allowed to break into a poultry farm to save abused animals.
They didn’t deny they broke in, but said there was good reason. The judge refused to allow the reason to be heard, and furthermore refused to file briefs from legal experts. What’s more, the prosecutors declined to proceed with the various theft charges, instead opting for a misdemeanor trespassing charge and suping that up with a felony conspiracy charge. Making a felony out of a misdemeanor and not allowing the defense to be heard points to a coordinated attempt targeted solely at the leader of this campaign group.
Yeh, that sounds fucked. Thanks for filling me in. Also if I spent half the time reading the article and listening as I do getting carried away and writing a long winded reply I would probably be able to make a better assessment. Thank you again
You don’t get to break into a car and rehome the baby or dog. They trespassed, broke in, and stole property. If they don’t like the practice, laws, or enforcement of existing laws there are legal ways to change those things. Vigilante Justice isn’t the answer and this criminal isn’t innocent of any of the crimes he’s been found guilty of.
You can find the practice of the slaughter house reprehensible and still maintain a life as a functional law abiding citizen while working towards progress at the same time.
And yet, the prosecutors here explicitly dropped the charges for breaking and entering and theft. They only went for trespass.
This is because they successfully argued against the other crimes in other trials, and convinced juries that the animals weren’t actually worth anything because they were dead or half dead.
The prosecution intentionally went for the weakest charge, then inflated it into a federal charge, and the judge intentionally didn’t let them defend against it. That reeks of collusion, and a disgustingly biased judge.
The practice of slaughtering isn’t at issue here. The issue is the welfare of the animals while they’re alive.
He did not plead innocent to the crime. He admitted to doing the thing that was a statutory offense. However, in fair court proceedings, you should be allowed to give “special reasons” - that is, you should be allowed to present to the court that it was necessary to cause a lesser harm in order to prevent a greater harm. If the court had considered this and ruled against him, that would be one thing, but they didn’t even allow anyone to listen to that argument. That makes the ruling objectively wrong.