Not really sure what to put here…I usually put relevant excerpts, but that got this post deleted for doing that

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a bit of difference between “exposing animal cruelty” and stealing livestock.

    • Zozano@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bit of a fucked up situation when conscious beings are considered property though.

      • rbhfd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Still, that’s a few steps further than just “exposing animal cruelty”.

        Not saying what they did was wrong at all, but the headline is definitely clickbait.

        (Note: I haven’t read past the headline or some of the comments, so I might be way off)

        • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Juries didn’t view it as wrong in past court cases. This was the first one to land a conviction, and they did it by putting a gag order on all the footage the activists took, which in previous cases was instrumental in swaying juries.

        • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Emerald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sentient beings are not houses or cars. If parents abuse their babies, they will get them taken from them. Same should apply to animals.

          • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Emerald@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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?