I have to admit, those are some very speculative claims to publish in the NYT, not to mention the fact a lot of big farm states also have castle doctrine laws. While I'm sure they won't shoot you (I haven't heard of that ever happening before), I wouldn't want to tempt them either
Castle doctrine applies to protecting ones-self in the home. [1] But I agree some states will look the other way when it comes to poachers and trespassers. It's risky for everyone involved because very few states have codified what is deemed appropriate use of lethal force for trespassers outside the home, so it's like a box of chocolates. And even when legal there is always the likely chance of civil suits from the persons family.
I cant read the article, but from the headline it seems insane.
I'm all for the proper treatment of animals. I live on a ranch with a herd of horses.
That said, if my neighbor was mistreating their animals I would call some authority like the sherriff or the USDA to deal with it.
I have neighbors who would shoot you where you stood if they caught someone rustling their cattle without a second thought or a challenge of why. You would be too dead to explain that your intentions were noble. The law would scold them then give them a nod and a wink and a pat on the back to boot.
Do not try to rescue animals from a farm or ranch or even your urban neighbor's back yard. You are basically asking to be shot.
If this is accepted, the problem is going to come when SPCA or someone decides to push a much broader definition of "cruelty" than everyone else had in mind when they accepted this as being a reasonable idea. From that will come anything from lawsuits to gunfire.
Does it not have a definition? Then it's all but useless as a word - at best purely aesthetic decoration taking up space in the language. Or is it subjective, like art or a kink, or humor?
Or is it one of those words that we're all going to tacitly agree should never get approached too closely, for fear that some people might end up on the wrong end of the definition?
It has a definition. The definition is fuzzy, like many words. If we're going to say "X should be legal", then for those purposes we'd better have a rather precise definition of X. Because lawyers gonna lawyer, and at least one lawyer will be willing to push the definition beyond the breaking point. The more precise the definition, the less room such lawyers have to push absurdity in a courtroom.
I think these people go about activism the wrong and counter-productive way. I think it would make more sense to take that hidden video footage they obtained and then get a large group of people to file class action lawsuits and find other methods of putting pressure on their business, their insurance, their investors, etc... Maybe even take it a step further and have private investigators and investigative journalists if they still exist to look into how certain governmental authorities conveniently look the other way and get them kicked out of office after gathering evidence of bribes and kick-backs. i.e. find the root cause of the systemic problem rather than playing whack-a-chicken-farm
Get John Oliver to do a segment on it to be more wide-reaching.
8 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 31.9 ms ] thread[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq3mafGHmK4
I'm all for the proper treatment of animals. I live on a ranch with a herd of horses.
That said, if my neighbor was mistreating their animals I would call some authority like the sherriff or the USDA to deal with it.
I have neighbors who would shoot you where you stood if they caught someone rustling their cattle without a second thought or a challenge of why. You would be too dead to explain that your intentions were noble. The law would scold them then give them a nod and a wink and a pat on the back to boot.
Do not try to rescue animals from a farm or ranch or even your urban neighbor's back yard. You are basically asking to be shot.
[1] - https://archive.ph/6bptx
If this is accepted, the problem is going to come when SPCA or someone decides to push a much broader definition of "cruelty" than everyone else had in mind when they accepted this as being a reasonable idea. From that will come anything from lawsuits to gunfire.
Or is it one of those words that we're all going to tacitly agree should never get approached too closely, for fear that some people might end up on the wrong end of the definition?
Get John Oliver to do a segment on it to be more wide-reaching.