[Newsbot]

Title: Unapologetic woman charged with mischief for giving thirsty pigs water
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2015-11-04 12:37:00
Canadian

[BeaverFever]

I don't understand how this is mischief...where are the damages? Where is the harm?

[2Cdo]

The driver did have a point about what she was giving the pigs. Some "animal rights extremists" would think it would be okay to poison livestock meant for human consumption.
Still seems a bit much to formally charge her though.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't understand how this is mischief...where are the damages? Where is the harm?

The animals are not her property.

She doesn't have the right to touch them, feed them or provide them water because she thinks they're "thirsty".

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't understand how this is mischief...where are the damages? Where is the harm?

The animals are not her property.

She doesn't have the right to touch them, feed them or provide them water because she thinks they're "thirsty".

So what. That doesn't make it an offence to show it kindness. I would think the owner would still have to prove that the water somehow caused harm.

And keep in mind I'm completely allowing you to have "It's my property I'll mistreat if I want" argument even though I don't agree with it, simply because I know the law allows farmers a long leash in this area.

[raydan]

Giving her publicity by charging her is probably exactly what she wants.



OTI... you wouldn't give a thirsty dog water because he wasn't yours?

[CDN_PATRIOT]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't understand how this is mischief...where are the damages? Where is the harm?

I was saying the same thing when I saw the story on the news at lunch today. Giving parched animals some water isn't a crime.

The justice system needs to get it's head out of it's ass and go after real criminals.

-J.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So what. That doesn't make it an offence to show it kindness. I would think the owner would still have to prove that the water somehow caused harm.

If the owner has to show harm, the woman has to prove they were thirsty.

It's not her business nor her right to do that. The animals and vehicle aren't her property. It doesn't matter that she things she's doing something "right". She was asked to stop doing something and didn't. This was a planned and orchestrated incident that has happened more than once and when someone asks you to stop doing something to their property, you should listen or face the consequences.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And keep in mind I'm completely allowing you to have "It's my property I'll mistreat if I want" argument even though I don't agree with it, simply because I know the law allows farmers a long leash in this area.

Assuming of course that all farmers mistreat their animals.

This media whore will lose her case.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So what. That doesn't make it an offence to show it kindness. I would think the owner would still have to prove that the water somehow caused harm.

If the owner has to show harm, the woman has to prove they were thirsty.

It's not her business nor her right to do that. The animals and vehicle aren't her property. It doesn't matter that she things she's doing something "right". She was asked to stop doing something and didn't. This was a planned and orchestrated incident that has happened more than once and when someone asks you to stop doing something to their property, you should listen or face the consequences.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And keep in mind I'm completely allowing you to have "It's my property I'll mistreat if I want" argument even though I don't agree with it, simply because I know the law allows farmers a long leash in this area.

Assuming of course that all farmers mistreat their animals.

This media whore will lose her case.

No she doesn't have to prove the pigs were thirsty and at rate the fact that the pig drank the water would seem to he proof anyway.

And what you still abysmally fail to demonstrate is where a criminal wrong was committed. How was the farmer harmed? She didn't do anything wrong. By your logic, petting another persons dog is a crime because it doesn't belong to you.

I didn't say all farmers mistreat their animals, how does your brain work??

I don't see how this woman could be convicted I'll be the charges are dropped before trial.

[herbie]

$1:

If the owner has to show harm, the woman has to prove they were thirsty.

She did. They drank the water they were offered.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No she doesn't have to prove the pigs were thirsty and at rate the fact that the pig drank the water would seem to he proof anyway.

And what you still abysmally fail to demonstrate is where a criminal wrong was committed. How was the farmer harmed? She didn't do anything wrong. By your logic, petting another persons dog is a crime because it doesn't belong to you.

I didn't say all farmers mistreat their animals, how does your brain work??

I don't see how this woman could be convicted I'll be the charges are dropped before trial.

You need to understand what the charge of mischief entails. By your logic, I can come up to you and your dog, even reach into/onto your property and continue to feed and pet your dog, even if you as me to stop, right? I mean, dogs never eat when they're full.

The only reason you can't see a conviction is because you don't understand the charge and the law.

herbie herbie:

$1:

If the owner has to show harm, the woman has to prove they were thirsty.

She did. They drank the water they were offered.

My comment was sarcastic. Whether the pigs are thirsty is irrelevant. If she was asked to stop doing something to someone else's property, she has to stop. Period.

[Jabberwalker]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't understand how this is mischief...where are the damages? Where is the harm?

The animals are not her property.

She doesn't have the right to touch them, feed them or provide them water because she thinks they're "thirsty".

Animals are not simply " property" like mechanical devices, etc. Living being are a bit more than that, hence the animal cruelty laws we have created over the ages. There are no lawnmower cruelty laws.

This case is kooky bizarre and the Crown Prosecutor is going to come out of it looking like a total prat. I can't imagine why this is going forward. It's unbelievably good publicity for the animal rights activists, though.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't understand how this is mischief...where are the damages? Where is the harm?

Animals going to slaughter are specifically starved and deprived of water so their last hours are a little more 'bearable', and so that slaughter is easier. Who wants to be on the bottom level of a 3 tiered carrier of pigs that have full bladders and colons?

So giving them water means a gentle yellow rain can accompany them on their final journey as a 'little icing on the cake'.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Whether the pigs are thirsty is irrelevant. If she was asked to stop doing something to someone else's property, she has to stop. Period.

Exactly. If I had pigs and someone came on the property to water them without permission then they'd also end up feeding them.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

By your logic, I can come up to you and your dog, even reach into/onto your property and continue to feed and pet your dog, even if you as me to stop, right? I mean, dogs never eat when they're full.

I don't think it meets the test of "interfering with property". I'm pretty certain no police offer would come out to make an arrest if I complained the neighbour won't stop petting my dog.

Trespassing onto my property would be a different situation, but not sure if that applies here.

$1:

The only reason you can't see a conviction is because you don't understand the charge and the law.

We'll see. Given your recent Ontario and Federal election predictions you'll forgive me if I don't defer to your judgment.