You’re more likely to go to prison for exposing animal cruelty than for committing it
vox.com
Not really sure what to put here...I usually put relevant excerpts, but that got this post deleted for doing that
You are viewing a single comment
Not really sure what to put here...I usually put relevant excerpts, but that got this post deleted for doing that
You an idiot. Read beyond the headline and you'll see that in California activists are being charged for being attention to deplorable conditions in animal farms yet the farms they exposed have no charges against them.
Activists aren't given carte blanche to break the law. That's called vigilantism. And it's illegal.
?
I was just showing one of many examples from the article that the activists weren't "being charged for being attention to deplorable conditions in animal farms" but actual other crimes.
I was agreeing with you, sorry, should have been more specific!
Anyone know what the difference is between a misdemeanor conspiracy to trespass and a felony conspiracy to trespass?
The first sentence literally contradicts the headline. Headline says you could get in trouble for "exposing animal cruelty" while the first sentence says an activist is being charged for "rescuing animals." They did more than just expose cruelty; they took it upon themselves to stop it and in doing so broke the law. That's what they are being charged for; not the exposure to the cruelty which is only being exposed because these activists are being arrested for trespassing and theft and it made the news.
The headline is wrong. The headline is stupid.
Message board hypocrisy, a concerto in three movements:
Moderato: In which the villain claims someone who hasn't read or understood the article is an idiot.
Adagio cantabile: the friendly townspeople read the article and lo! The villain himself did not understand the article!
Allegro scherzando: where it is revealed to all that, by their own criteria, the villain actually called themselves an idiot. Bravo!