Fascist Sherrif Joe at it again

[heavenlyboy34]

This shit make me :eek: and :mad: at the same time.

http://www.kpho.com/news/27272012/detail.html

PHOENIX -- Sheriff Joe Arpaio rolled out the tanks to take down a man suspected of cockfighting. West Valley residents in the neighborhood are crying foul after armored vehicles, including a tank, rolled into their neighborhood to make the bust.


VIDEO: Steven Seagal, Sheriff Raid Valley Home In Tank (http://www.kpho.com/local-video/index.html?grabnetworks_video_id=4600221)

Neighbor Debra Ross was so worried she called 911 and went outside where a nearby home had its windows blown out, was crawling with dozens of SWAT members in full gear, armored vehicles and a bomb robot.“When the tank came in and pushed the wall over and you see what's in there, and all it is, is a bunch of chickens,” Ross said.In a massive show of force on Monday, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office executed a search warrant and arrested the homeowner, Jesus Llovera, on charges of suspected cockfighting.Llovera was alone in the house at the time of the arrest, and he was unarmed.“I think taxpayers should be shocked,” said Robert Campus, Llovera’s attorney. Campus said he believes the operation costs tens of thousands of dollars.Deputies had no probable cause to believe Llovera was armed or dangerous, according to Campus.Campus said he believes the entire scene was basically a stage, to help actor Steven Seagal’s TV show, “Lawman.”Seagal was riding in the tank.The Sheriff’s Department has entered into a contract with Seagal and part of that contract gives Seagal carte blanche to go along with the sheriff as he arrests people.Thousands of dollars in damages were made to the property and 115 birds were euthanized on the spot.Llovera was convicted of a misdemeanor last year of attending a cockfight and has no history of owning weapons.Yet the sheriff’s office said they had reasons to believe Llovera might be armed.“We're going to err on the side of caution. We're going to make sure that we have the appropriate amount of force in case we do run into anything like that,” said Sgt. Jesse Spurgin.

[aGameOfThrones]

All of that because of chickens? FFS!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

All of that because of chickens? FFS!!!

Yep. For some reason, Sheriff Joe has long been militantly anti-cock fighting. Somehow, in his mind he can justify using tanks and so on just to stop it. That's government for ya.

[FrankRep]

All of that because of chickens? FFS!!!

Cockfighting is illegal. FYI.

[AFPVet]

LOL... wow! What a cock fighting fighter!

[heavenlyboy34]

Cockfighting is illegal. FYI.

I believe he was referring to the absurd, over the top use of martial force.

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL... wow! What a cock fighting fighter!

lolz ;)

[Carson]

Go Joe!

Good job.

Not afraid to do his job.

[specsaregood]

Cockfighting is illegal. FYI.

well there are often lots of dumb laws on the books that go unenforced.

[low preference guy]

Cockfighting is illegal. FYI.

so are competing private currencies. so what?

[FrankRep]

well there are often lots of dumb laws on the books that go unenforced.

Animal Cruelty Laws have some pretty strong lobbyists.

[aGameOfThrones]

I believe he was referring to the absurd, over the top use of martial force.

I believe you're right. :)

[BamaAla]

I've been at a cock fighting raid before, but never have they rolled in with tanks. Wow.

[specsaregood]

Animal Cruelty Laws have some pretty strong lobbyists.

and they won't be happy until we are a bunch of tofu eating vegan hippies.

[FrankRep]

and they won't be happy until we are a bunch of tofu eating vegan hippies.

They? A broad spectrum of people are against Animal Cruelty, especially having animals dueling to the death for gambling/sport.

[specsaregood]

They? A broad spectrum of people are against Animal Cruelty, especially having animals dueling to the death for gambling/sport.

"they" refers to the groups you referred to. so animal on animal violence is animal cruelty? well lets just make it illegal for animals to fight. next you know the poodle down the street will be asking for a restraining order against the neighbor's collie. I'm sure that will stop them from fighting.

[acptulsa]

Actually, I think it's the razor blades they're liable to attach to the roosters' talons that gets people up in arms.

[low preference guy]

They? A broad spectrum of people statist psychos are against Animal Cruelty, especially having animals dueling to the death for gambling/sport.

do you support this ridiculous law FrankRep?

[FrankRep]

do you support this ridiculous law FrankRep?
A state has the right to ban Animal death matches.

I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.

[low preference guy]

A state has the right to ban Animal death matches.

...and? a state has the legal power to impose a 100% income tax. so...?

[acptulsa]

A state has the right to ban Animal death matches.

I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.

Do you consider it an appropriate use of force to take tanks and SWAT teams in against roosters with razor blades on their talons?

[specsaregood]

I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.
I'm glad to hear you are a vegan.

[FrankRep]

...and? a state has the legal power to impose a 100% income tax. so...?

Sure, however, people will leave the state and the state will be forced to repeal the law or go bankrupt.

[low preference guy]

Sure, however, people will leave the state and the state will be forced to repeal the law or go bankrupt.

same thing with ridiculous animal cruelty laws. people can leave the state to scape from crazy legislators. still it doesn't mean passing them is a good thing.

[FrankRep]

same thing with ridiculous animal cruelty laws. people can leave the state to scape from crazy legislators. still it doesn't mean passing them is a good thing.

Good luck with that. Try to start a Pro-Animal Cruelty organization. I question how popular it will be.

[pcosmar]

A state has the right to ban Animal death matches.

I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.

But you support a SWAT team killing a hundred chickens. :rolleyes:


.Llovera was convicted of a misdemeanor last year of attending a cockfight and has no history of owning weapons.

And that is justification to raid his farm and destroy his stock.

This guy is going to sue so big.
I hope it Bankrupts the county.
:cool:

[specsaregood]

Good luck with that. Try to start a Pro-Animal Cruelty organization. I question how popular it will be.

define: animal cruelty

[low preference guy]

Good luck with that. Try to start a Pro-Animal Cruelty organization. I question how popular it will be.

interesting stuff coming from someone who claims to admire the founders. they were in favor of protecting individuals rights. nice to know that they wanted to protect people's life, liberty, and property, oh... and by the way... also animals!

you have an arbitrary issue that makes no sense whatsoever and runs against your professed philosophy. it's no different from someone who claims to be a libertarian and supports net neutrality, campaign finance laws, or any other pet issue.

[FrankRep]

interesting stuff coming from someone who claims to admire the founders. they were in favor of protecting individuals rights. nice to know that they wanted to protect people's life, liberty, and property, oh... and by the way... also animals!

you have an arbitrary issue that makes no sense whatsoever and runs against your professed philosophy. it's no different from someone who claims to be a libertarian and supports net neutrality, campaign finance laws, or any other pet issue.



define: animal cruelty

Let the People/State decide what "animal cruelty" laws they want.

It's a state issue.

[specsaregood]

Let the People/State decide what "animal cruelty" laws they want.

It's a state issue.

chicken.

[low preference guy]

chicken.

yes, he is a coward. he talks in circles and can't even admit that he favors laws to protect animals.

[FrankRep]

chicken.


yes, he is a coward. he talks in circles and can't even admit that he favors laws to protect animals.

What? Some states will have strict "animal cruelty" laws and others will have no laws against it. I think that's fair.

[low preference guy]

Let the People/State decide what "animal cruelty" laws they want.

It's a state issue.

it's interesting that you quoted my post in this response, considering what you wrote had nothing to do with my post.

[low preference guy]

What? Some states will have strict "animal cruelty" laws and others will have no laws against it. I think that's fair.

you just confirmed exactly what i wrote.


yes, he is a coward. he talks in circles and can't even admit that he favors laws to protect animals.

[angelatc]

yes, he is a coward. he talks in circles and can't even admit that he favors laws to protect animals.

I favor laws to protect animals at the state level. Pick on me if you need to crow.

[specsaregood]

What? Some states will have strict "animal cruelty" laws and others will have no laws against it. I think that's fair.

You also said:

I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.

So I asked you to define it. You obviously have a definition in mind since you claim to not support it. So what is it?
Is shooting an animal cruel? Slitting its throat? Dry humping it while on ecstacy?

[FrankRep]

you just confirmed exactly what i wrote.

I also say that Gay Marriage and Abortion are state issues. Does that make Ron Paul and myself a coward for saying these are state issues?

You guys need to chill out with your vicious attacks.

[acptulsa]

I favor laws to protect animals at the state level. Pick on me if you need to crow.

I'd never pick on you for that. But since no one else will answer my question, maybe you will. Tanks and SWAT squads appropriate force against fighting cocks?

[pcosmar]

It's a state issue.

It is a Property Rights Issue.
I love my animals, and care for them. And have a spot where I have buried many.
If I chose to eat a rabbit I take an axe and chop off a head.
It is none of anyone's business. The cats and dogs fight from time to time.
Roosters Fight each other. That is what they do and have done for thousands of years.
Breeding stronger animals has been going on as long.
Placing a bet on which is stronger or better is no different than a Blue ribbon at the fair.

[specsaregood]

I favor laws to protect animals at the state level. Pick on me if you need to crow.

Another vegan! I had no idea we had so many here. This is great.

[low preference guy]

I also say that Gay Marriage and Abortion are state issues. Does that make Ron Paul and myself a coward for saying these are state issues?

please don't talk about yourself and ron paul in the same sentence, especially when you're making a dishonest comparison.

[low preference guy]

So I asked you to define it. You obviously have a definition in mind since you claim to not support it. So what is it?

too bad the JBS doesn't have an article defending animal cruelty laws. that's because it contradicts the rest of the philosophy they defend. so maybe that's what happens when FrankRep needs to argue for a position for which there is no JBS article. he just doesn't know what to say.

[speciallyblend]

Go Joe!

Good job.

Not afraid to do his job.

suggest we take his budget out of your paycheck forever;) then he would be doing a great job!!!!

[nate895]

Why would a sheriff's department even own a tank? Why would you ever think you would need to use one? Maybe a single APC for the occasional high stakes bank robbery. But a tank?

[specsaregood]

too bad the JBS doesn't have an article defending animal cruelty laws. that's because it contradicts the rest of the philosophy they defend. so maybe that's what happens when FrankRep needs to argue for a position for which there is no JBS article. he just doesn't know what to say.

Their headquarters is even in the dairy state where many farmers keep cows in conditions that some might consider cruel. I mean afterall the cows can't just frolic throughout the countryside and pursue their own ambitions. They are locked up and forced to lactate much more/longer than nature intended.

[FrankRep]

please don't talk about yourself and ron paul in the same sentence, especially when you're making a dishonest comparison.

I strongly suspect Ron Paul would call "Animal Cruelty" laws a state issue. I'm comparing these issues because they are state issues.

[speciallyblend]

I also say that Gay Marriage and Abortion are state issues. Does that make Ron Paul and myself a coward for saying these are state issues?

You guys need to chill out with your vicious attacks.

i tend to agree but to be honest gay/straight marriage is a non-issue, the state and feds should have nothing to do with marriage period! gay and straight marriage is a non-issue unless it is forced gay,straight marriage!! If your not marrying someone then i say stfu and mind your own business is the issue!! If someone doesn't like who is getting married take it up with your church or stay out of their lives!!

[FrankRep]

too bad the JBS doesn't have an article defending animal cruelty laws. that's because it contradicts the rest of the philosophy they defend. so maybe that's what happens when FrankRep needs to argue for a position for which there is no JBS article. he just doesn't know what to say.

Animal Cruelty laws are state issues. What's your problem?

[speciallyblend]

I strongly suspect Ron Paul would call "Animal Cruelty" laws a state issue. I'm comparing these issues because they are state issues.

i agree!!

[pcosmar]

This whole thread is getting away from the point.
There was NO Cock Fight

This was a staged event. For a made for television propaganda show.

Animal Cruelty? Give me a break. The SWAT team slaughtered a hundred chickens.

They destroyed his property for no good reason.
And folks are defending this?
:confused:
:mad:

[FrankRep]

And folks are defending this?
:confused:
:mad:

The thread was derailed by people saying Cockfighting should be legal.

[low preference guy]

Animal Cruelty laws are state issues. What's your problem?

Why do you change the topic? What's your problem? The post of mine you're quoting is a comment on this one:



You also said:


I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.

So I asked you to define it. You obviously have a definition in mind since you claim to not support it. So what is it?
Is shooting an animal cruel? Slitting its throat? Dry humping it while on ecstacy?

I don't think he asked you whether animal cruelty is a states issue. So why do you bring that topic?

[acptulsa]

There was NO Cock Fight

This was a staged event. For a made for television propaganda show.

Animal Cruelty? Give me a break. The SWAT team slaughtered a hundred chickens.

Somebody finally answered my question! :)

[pcosmar]

The thread was derailed by people saying Cockfighting should be legal.
Whether it should be illegal or not is irrelevant.

Should a SWAT team and a Movie crew destroy a small farm simply because the owner had once attended a cockfight?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Come down in-between some of the posters arguing their positions here.

Don't think cockfighting should be illegal. But do support some animal cruelty laws. Don't think it should be legal to douse a live cat in gasoline and light it on fire just for fun or zap-fry a rabbit to death in a microwave oven. Regardless of the animal being ones' "property" or not.

Flame away, Libertarian purists.

[specsaregood]

The thread was derailed by people saying Cockfighting should be legal.

Actually, you put the fair maiden on the tracks by playing the role of sinister master of the obvious and pointing out that cockfighting is illegal.

[low preference guy]

This whole thread is getting away from the point.

This post derailed the thread:


Cockfighting is illegal.

[specsaregood]

Should a SWAT team and a Movie crew destroy a small farm simply because the owner had once attended a cockfight?

They killed the chickens in order to save them.

[low preference guy]

Flame away, Libertarian purists.

Saying this to me is equivalent to hearing someone opposing forcing food companies to label their products, even if they have to do it only if they have one specific ingredient, and then telling him: "Flame away, Libertarian purist."

[speciallyblend]

we can only hope the sheriff runs himself over with the tank!!

[heavenlyboy34]

Come down in-between some of the posters arguing their positions here.

Don't think cockfighting should be illegal. But do support some animal cruelty laws. Don't think it should be legal to douse a live cat in gasoline and light it on fire just for fun or zap-fry a rabbit to death in a microwave oven. Regardless of the animal being ones' "property" or not.

Flame away, Libertarian purists.

Why? Is it because they're cute mammals? People do worse things to insects and reptiles regularly. (Dogs used to be food in many cultures, btw) What animals need protecting? Do you have an objective standard, or are you picking and choosing randomly?

I personally think animal cruelty is wrong, but people either own their animals or they don't. Ownership means being allowed to do anything you want to your property as long as you don't affect others and their property. It would make sense to leave decisions about animal cruelty to local arbitrators who have expertise on the subject, like the ASPCA.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why? Is it because they're cute mammals? People do worse things to insects and reptiles regularly. What animals need protecting? Do you have an objective standard, or are you picking and choosing randomly?

People (usually, it appears) have the intelligence to distinguish between which classes and species of animals are to be protected by the law. It's why torturing a dog is illegal in this country but not an insect. It's why a murder charge can only be given to someone who has killed a human.

[heavenlyboy34]

we can only hope the sheriff runs himself over with the tank!!

Ha! QFT!!

[heavenlyboy34]

People (usually, it appears) have the intelligence to distinguish between which classes of animals are protected by the law. It's why torturing a dog is illegal in this country but not an insect. It's why a murder change can only be given to someone who has killed a human.

That's not what I asked. I asked why you choose some animals for special protection and not others.

[Imperial]

"they" refers to the groups you referred to. so animal on animal violence is animal cruelty? well lets just make it illegal for animals to fight. next you know the poodle down the street will be asking for a restraining order against the neighbor's collie. I'm sure that will stop them from fighting.

Really bad comparison. An animal fighting with another it encounters is different from setting them up to fight.



Why? Is it because they're cute mammals? People do worse things to insects and reptiles regularly. (Dogs used to be food in many cultures, btw) What animals need protecting? Do you have an objective standard, or are you picking and choosing randomly?

I personally like humans that are really cute mammals. Particularly the female ones.

I would be interested to see what your objective standard is. Most fall prey to certain problems. I find the Kantian notion that only humans have dignity absurd, but it is difficult to develop a coherent position.

My own support for animal cruelty laws notwithstanding, the force employed in this situation was clearly unwarranted. You could enforce the cockfighting law without bringing in an army; to do it in such a manner is simply reacting with disproportionate force AND wasting taxpayer money.

[acptulsa]

That's not what I asked. I asked why you choose some animals for special protection and not others.

Oh, well, let's see. We choose non-rabid dogs for special protection as opposed to rabid dogs because...

Well, farm animals were usually chosen because farms that neglected them were and are breeding grounds for disease, and some were singled out in fear that they would become as extinct as the passenger pigeon, and...

You know why. You don't need an answer to get carried away. Go for it.

[Justinjj1]

That's not what I asked. I asked why you choose some animals for special protection and not others.

It's because people think that some animals are cuter than others. I still think that it's absolute bullshit that horse-slaughtering plants are illegal in the U.S, just because most people wrongly think that horses are smarter than other animals. Pigs are a lot smarter than horses, and horse meat is delicious.

[low preference guy]

You know why.

I think this is a great approach to debating issues, and it can be adopted by elected officials. When somebody asks why the U.S. invaded Libya, Obama should answer: You know why.

[aGameOfThrones]

It's because people think that some animals are cuter than others. I still think that it's absolute bullshit that horse-slaughtering plants are illegal in the U.S, just because most people wrongly think that horses are smarter than other animals. Pigs are a lot smarter than horses, and horse meat is delicious.


Hmm...


http://images1.makefive.com/images/entertainment/television/best-tv-show-with-a-horse/mr-ed-7.jpg

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It's because people think that some animals are cuter than others, and that is it.

BS. Mammals are treated differently, regardless of their looks.

Also insects don't have nociceptors and can't feel pain.

(And yes, the ban on horse meat in this country is absurd.)

[acptulsa]

I think this is a great approach to debating issues, and it can be adopted by elected officials. When somebody asks why the U.S. invaded Libya, Obama should answer: You know why.

Smells like an admission to me. I don't think they're going to go there.

[specsaregood]

It's because people think that some animals are cuter than others. I still think that it's absolute bullshit that horse-slaughtering plants are illegal in the U.S, just because most people wrongly think that horses are smarter than other animals. Pigs are a lot smarter than horses, and horse meat is delicious.

I had a great horsemeat burger in canada years ago, it was fabulous.

[pcosmar]

Really bad comparison. An animal fighting with another it encounters is different from setting them up to fight.


You mean like Boxing? as opposed to Dueling?

or Martial Arts events. Or even "Wrestling". or other Gladiatorial games.

[Imperial]

You mean like Boxing? as opposed to Dueling?

or Martial Arts events. Or even "Wrestling". or other Gladiatorial games.

Like gladiatorial games. IE, the animals are forced to do it rather than given the option.

[specsaregood]

Like gladiatorial games. IE, the animals are forced to do it rather than given the option.

How do you know this? Have you queried said animals? Perhaps it is their nature.

[low preference guy]

(And yes, the ban on horse meat in this country is absurd.)

Out of curiosity, if you only had two choices, which one would you prefer?

1. There are no animal cruelty laws whatsoever.
2. The animal cruelty laws that you want exist, but there are also laws that you do not want, such as laws banning horse meat and cockfighting.

[pcosmar]

Like gladiatorial games. IE, the animals are forced to do it rather than given the option.

Forced to ?

How do you "Force" two animals to fight?
Are you saying that 2 aggressive male Rosters would not fight if they weren't "forced" to?

[acptulsa]

How do you know this? Have you queried said animals? Perhaps it is their nature.

It isn't their nature to take after each other with razor blades.

[aGameOfThrones]

It isn't their nature to take after each other with razor blades.


You know why. :)

[pcosmar]

It isn't their nature to take after each other with razor blades.
And that practice is not universal.
They have very sharp claws and beaks capable of killing their opponents. And will do so without human intervention in an open barnyard.

Cute fuzzy bunnies will kill each other. I find one dead and chewed up from time to time.

[acptulsa]

You know why. :)

Damned right I do. No opposable thumbs.

As for their views on non-escalation, well, there I'm ignorant.

[BamaAla]

interesting stuff coming from someone who claims to admire the founders. they were in favor of protecting individuals rights. nice to know that they wanted to protect people's life, liberty, and property, oh... and by the way... also animals!

Many of them also enjoyed cock fighting.

Regardless how you feel about cock fights, bull fights, hunting, etc.; I think we can all agree that the actions of the Sheriff were way over the top and most likely a publicity stunt.

[Kludge]

Many of them also enjoyed cock fighting.

Regardless how you feel about cock fights, bull fights, hunting, etc.; I think we can all agree that the actions of the Sheriff were way over the top and most likely a publicity stunt.
Actually, I believe the Good Sheriff's actions were to check for illegals. You may or may not know cockfighting is particularly popular among latinos. This was a good opportunity for Mr. Arpaio to get these Mexicans into prison and make sure they aren't sucking up gov't money.


.... er..... wait.

Well, at any rate, most Mexicans are drug lords with 10 cases of ammo on them at any time, so the response is pretty sensible, I think.

[aGameOfThrones]

And that practice is not universal.
They have very sharp claws and beaks capable of killing their opponents. And will do so without human intervention in an open barnyard.

Cute fuzzy bunnies will kill each other. I find one dead and chewed up from time to time.

I shouldn't incriminate my dogs but, they've killed 2 cats and injured 1(saved it in time) for trespassing on their property(mine). I got rid of the evidence, of course.

[acptulsa]

.... er..... wait.

You think three hots and a cot are cheap? Not with government markups they aren't!

[BamaAla]

Actually, I believe the Good Sheriff's actions were to check for illegals. You may or may not know cockfighting is particularly popular among latinos. This was a good opportunity for Mr. Arpaio to get these Mexicans into prison and make sure they aren't sucking up gov't money.


.... er..... wait.

Well, at any rate, most Mexicans are drug lords with 10 cases of ammo on them at any time, so the response is pretty sensible, I think.

When I first read the story, I didn't think twice about the man being latino, but that's a good point.

I don't think Joe would like me too much; I enjoy cock fights and employ 30 mexicans.

[low preference guy]

When I first read the story, I didn't think twice about the man being latino, but that's a good point.

I don't think Joe would like me too much; I enjoy cock fights and employ 30 mexicans.

would you mind sharing what kind of business you have?

[South Park Fan]

Sigh, a valuable thread about the militarization of local police hijacked by legal positivists.

[BamaAla]

would you mind sharing what kind of business you have?

I have contracts to "catch chickens." Basically, I have crews that go to poultry farms and gather and load the chickens to go to the processing plant.

[low preference guy]

I have contracts to "catch chickens." Basically, I have crews that go to poultry farms and gather and load the chickens to go to the processing plant.

Thanks. Also, I didn't know there were many Mexicans in Alabama.

[acptulsa]

A chicken harvester. Much better than a reaper.

I'll just bet it gets entertaining from time to time.

[specsaregood]

./

[BamaAla]

Thanks. Also, I didn't know there were many Mexicans in Alabama.

They tend to be the only individuals I can get to work.


A chicken harvester. Much better than a reaper.

I'll just bet it gets entertaining from time to time.

Fittingly enough to this thread, my livelihood depends on chicken death.


That job pays well in Key West, except they load them up and take them to a humane sanctuary on the mainland. Where the chickens can frolic and kill each other in peace.

I need to run this idea by the companies that I work for; maybe I could sleep better at night ;-)

[specsaregood]

I need to run this idea by the companies that I work for; maybe I could sleep better at night ;-)

After having been woken up 20 too many times by them crowing at 3/4/5am under my trailer in KW, I'd prefer the processing plant option.

[acptulsa]

That job pays well in Key West, except they load them up and take them to a humane sanctuary on the mainland. Where the chickens can frolic and kill each other in peace.

Well. We should set up cameras. Think how many cocks we can save elsewhere by broadcasting the carnage in the sanctuary.


After having been woken up 20 too many times by them crowing at 3/4/5am under my trailer in KW, I'd prefer the processing plant option.

Yeah, where roosters are involved, someone's bound to lose sleep.

[pcosmar]

Best coverage of this story yet,
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/03/23/steven-seagals-latest-action-move-cock-killer/

Steven Seagal’s latest action move: Cock-killer
You know you are a washed-up has-been when you need to ride in a tank to save some chickens.

Note: Actual chickens were harmed in the making of this film.

Nevermind the irony of the excessive use of force on human beings to prevent animal cruelty.

[aGameOfThrones]

Best coverage of this story yet,
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/03/23/steven-seagals-latest-action-move-cock-killer/
LoL. Indeed!

[heavenlyboy34]

Best coverage of this story yet,
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/03/23/steven-seagals-latest-action-move-cock-killer/

lulz! Brilliant! :)

[BamaAla]

Best coverage of this story yet,
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/03/23/steven-seagals-latest-action-move-cock-killer/

What a great use of double entendre; that was hilarious.

I just can't wrap my head around a frickin' armored unit rolling down the street to arrest one man for a non-violent "crime."

[Vessol]

I think FrankRep may be a Steven Segal fan.

[pcosmar]

I think FrankRep may be a Steven Segal fan.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbVcv0mM8HK8_y3uSnLzqYouR18HBCX fd5EsAn_i1ijg2gS13wLg&t=1

Is that a dead chicken in his claws?

[1000-points-of-fright]

Cockfighting is illegal. FYI.

So is jaywalking. You need a SWAT team and an APC for that?

[Kregisen]

But you support a SWAT team killing a hundred chickens. :rolleyes:



And that is justification to raid his farm and destroy his stock.

This guy is going to sue so big.
I hope it Bankrupts the county.
:cool:

Thanks you asshole! That's my county LOL

[Kregisen]

For real though, sheriff joe has got to go....unfortunately he will never leave office. The same people who keep re-electing john mccain and jan brewer will also keep sheriff joe here to waste our taxpayer money.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Roosters Fight each other. That is what they do and have done for thousands of years.

Closer to 65 million years as Chickens are just tiny Velociraptors that haven't gotten it into their little Carnosaur brains that they aren't the biggest goddamn apex predator on the planet anymore. Roosters will fight each other at the drop of a hat and cockfighting is in no way comparable to dog-fighting (where you have to starve said beast and feed them gunpowder to get that pissed off).

As for Sheriff Joe, yea, proving yet again what a fascist douchebag he is to the world.

[Kregisen]

It doesn't seem to actually be a tank....just an APC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369596/SWAT-team-armoured-vehicles-Steven-Segal-Arizona-cockfighting-raid.html

This is the media that thinks every gun is an AK-47, afterall.


That's not to say that Sheriff joe doesn't own a tank though:

http://flickriver.com/photos/kingdafy/1067836710/#large

[LibertyRevolution]

Boston Legal on Cockfighting.
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ZKMDZWSI
Go to 19mins 45 secs on the video and play for amusement.

[zade]

Saying this to me is equivalent to hearing someone opposing forcing food companies to label their products, even if they have to do it only if they have one specific ingredient, and then telling him: "Flame away, Libertarian purist."

No, it's not the same at all. You are ridiculous.

[zade]

Boston Legal on Cockfighting.
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ZKMDZWSI
Go to 19mins 45 secs on the video and play for amusement.

Oh man that show was the best

[jmdrake]

Thousands of dollars in damages were made to the property and 115 birds were euthanized on the spot.

So let me get this straight. Cockfighting is banned because it's cruel to chickens, and so to "save" the chickens from this cruelty the state kills them? I'd had to see what would happen if this sheriff busted a prostitution ring. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

So let me get this straight. Cockfighting is banned because it's cruel to chickens, and so to "save" the chickens from this cruelty the state kills them? I'd had to see what would happen if this sheriff busted a prostitution ring. :rolleyes:

Yep. Government logic at its best. :rolleyes::( /facepalm

[Imperial]

Forced to ?

How do you "Force" two animals to fight?
Are you saying that 2 aggressive male Rosters would not fight if they weren't "forced" to?

No, but they would not have been stuck in a ring together if people had not put them there.


How do you know this? Have you queried said animals? Perhaps it is their nature.

That is looking at the question the wrong way. If coercion is such a big problem for libertarians, then my moral culpability only enters when I make the action happen.

A parallel example are FBI terror sting operations. When the FBI infiltrates someone into a group who constantly whispers get guns and go kill, do you blame the target group or the FBI? We can say that if the group does move towards terrorism the group is bad, but we should acknowledge that it may have been enabled by the FBI.

[pcosmar]

Thanks you asshole! That's my county LOL

You are welcome. It should be your hope too. Then sell off all that hardware to the local citizens. Close the welfare and other bureaucratic offices. And elect someone with sense.

But if there are really that many folks that support this kind of fascism, perhaps a move is in order.

[pcosmar]

No, but they would not have been stuck in a ring together if people had not put them there.
2 Alpha Males will fight if they come into contact. Regardless of the circumstances.
The fact that there is an audience , or the fact that there is a demand for and profitable business in this is another question.


That is looking at the question the wrong way.

A parallel example are FBI terror sting operations. When the FBI infiltrates someone into a group who constantly whispers get guns and go kill, do you blame the target group or the FBI? We can say that if the group does move towards terrorism the group is bad, but we should acknowledge that it may have been enabled by the FBI.

There is a whole lot of looking at the wrong side of this story.
They did NOT raid a cock fight. They raided an Hispanic farmer. ( who's only crime had been attending a fight in the past)
This Sheriff has a history of targeting, harassing and jailing Hispanics regardless of their immigration status.
This was another A&E channel Promotional Violent Television Production. (like the one in Detroit where a 7 yr old was shot in the head)

I have pets. I love animals and hate seeing them abused.
But this is ridiculous

This is not about animal abuse. This is about Police State Abuse.

[heavenlyboy34]

2 Alpha Males will fight if they come into contact. Regardless of the circumstances.
The fact that there is an audience , or the fact that there is a demand for and profitable business in this is another question.



There is a whole lot of looking at the wrong side of this story.
They did NOT raid a cock fight. They raided an Hispanic farmer. ( who's only crime had been attending a fight in the past)
This Sheriff has a history of targeting, harassing and jailing Hispanics regardless of their immigration status.
This was another A&E channel Promotional Violent Television Production. (like the one in Detroit where a 9 yr old was shot in the head)

I have pets. I love animals and hate seeing them abused.
But this is ridiculous

This is not about animal abuse. This is about Police State Abuse.

+rep :cool:

[mczerone]

What? Some states will have strict "animal cruelty" laws and others will have no laws against it. I think that's fair.

And some states will round up Japanese-looking humans and put them in "camps". And others will make black people segregated, and others will outlaw alcohol.

That all "fair" right? You are a massive statist who wants tyranny to be as local as possible so that you can have a chance at influencing it. Moral theory or economic efficiency arguments are lost on you, you just want power.

[acptulsa]

That all "fair" right? You are a massive statist who wants tyranny to be as local as possible so that you can have a chance at influencing it. Moral theory or economic efficiency arguments are lost on you, you just want power.

Just thank God you're in a different state and move on...

[FrankRep]

That all "fair" right? You are a massive statist who wants tyranny to be as local as possible so that you can have a chance at influencing it. Moral theory or economic efficiency arguments are lost on you, you just want power.

I called it a State Issue. Get over yourself.

[mczerone]

I called it a State Issue. Get over yourself.

Myself? I didn't inject anything, I just explained what calling things "State's Issues" leads to. Read what other people say, it might help you understand why they don't agree with you.

[FrankRep]

Myself? I didn't inject anything, I just explained what calling things "State's Issues" leads to. Read what other people say, it might help you understand why they don't agree with you.
I disagree with them. I support State Rights.

[pcosmar]

I disagree with them. I support State Rights.

States don't have rights.
People have rights.
States have limits.
And this was a county sheriff and a movie producer violating rights.(regardless of their given reason.)

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1737581/Michigan.News/Aiyana.Jones%27s.family.sues.A.and.E

[mczerone]

I disagree with them. I support State Rights.

Who is "them"? What are you talking about?

And I told you what I think of you supporting "State's Rights"; its a veil for tyranny that doesn't have to appeal to any type of theoretical proof or empirical evidence in deciding what types of laws are appropriate or beneficial. Again, you just want your tyranny to be local so that you can help run it.

I'm done with you, and I can't recall ever getting anything of substance from your posts, so welcome to ignore.

[Kotin]

States don't have rights.
People have rights.
States have limits.
And this was a county sheriff and a movie producer violating rights.(regardless of their given reason.)

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1737581/Michigan.News/Aiyana.Jones%27s.family.sues.A.and.E

damn right.. I am sorry but I will not support a state violating the rights of the individual anymore than I will support the Federal Government doing it.

[FrankRep]

damn right.. I am sorry but I will not support a state violating the rights of the individual anymore than I will support the Federal Government doing it.

What about the Tenth Amendment? The States are allowed to have "Animal Cruelty" laws.

[jmdrake]

A state has the right to ban Animal death matches.

I don't support Animal Cruelty, sorry.

Hello Frank. Did you miss this part of the article?

Thousands of dollars in damages were made to the property and 115 birds were euthanized on the spot. Llovera was convicted of a misdemeanor last year of attending a cockfight and has no history of owning weapons.Yet the sheriff’s office said they had reasons to believe Llovera might be armed.“We're going to err on the side of caution. We're going to make sure that we have the appropriate amount of force in case we do run into anything like that,” said Sgt. Jesse Spurgin.

I don't support animal cruelty either. But isn't mass murder of chickens itself cruel? Michael Vick should have gone to work for Sheriff Arpaio.

[jmdrake]

What about the Tenth Amendment? The States are allowed to have "Animal Cruelty" laws.

The full text of the 10th amendment.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people.

Anyway, killing 115 chickens in order to "save them" is just plain stupid, whether the state has a "right" to do that or not. And this is a ridiculous amount of force for a misdemeanor raid against someone with no history of violence.

[FrankRep]

The full text of the 10th amendment.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people.

"The People" are allowed to legalize "Animal Cruelty" if they wish. They haven't.

[jmdrake]

"The People" are allowed to legalize "Animal Cruelty" if they wish. They haven't.

Sure they have. Sheriff Arpaio was cruel to 115 chickens and he won't be arrested for it. Same thing happens whenever the police shoot your dog.

Edit: Makes me wonder what happened to all of those chickens. Is the sheriff having a BBQ?

Edit 2: I see little difference between the argument your making here and the argument BenIsForRon was making in the "Agenda 21" thread with regards to sustainability legislation at the "local level". Whether the state has a "right" to do it or not doesn't make it "right".

[FrankRep]

Sure they have. Sheriff Arpaio was cruel to 115 chickens and he won't be arrested for it. Same thing happens whenever the police shoot your dog.

If Joe Arpaio caused property damage, I would certainly agree that he should be held responsible for it. We can agree on that.

[acptulsa]

If Joe Arpaio caused property damage, I would certainly agree that he should be held responsible for it. We can agree on that.

Realistically, you'd have better luck suing Segal for egging him on.

[pcosmar]

"The People" are allowed to legalize "Animal Cruelty" if they wish. They haven't.

Frank, This has nothing to do with "Animal Cruelty".There was NO COCK FIGHT. The man was alone on his farm.
They destroyed his property without cause or necessity.
Suspicion is not proof. It may be a reason to investigate, but it is not a reason to seize and destroy property

I hope this guy has a competent Lawyer.

[specsaregood]

If Joe Arpaio caused property damage, I would certainly agree that he should be held responsible for it. We can agree on that.

But hey, animal cruelty is ok as long as the state does it.

[FrankRep]

But hey, animal cruelty is ok as long as the state does it.

Well, what does the law say?

[specsaregood]

Well, what does the law say?

So you determine what is "right" or "wrong" based on the law?

[jmdrake]

Well, what does the law say?

http://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

[acptulsa]

Well, what does the law say?

If you're Nixon, the law tells you that you are completely above the law. Do you subscribe to his view?

[specsaregood]

If you're Nixon, the law tells you that you are completely above the law. Do you subscribe to his view?

Better yet, I guess Frank supports abortion as well since the law says it is perfectly ok.

[FrankRep]

...

I get facepalmed for asking what the Law says? I'm not an Anarchist you know.

[FrankRep]

Better yet, I guess Frank supports abortion as well since the law says it is perfectly ok.
I never said I "support" something just because there's a law. There are many laws I don't agree with.

[pcosmar]

Well, what does the law say?

Which law????
The ones that protect property against theft, or destruction?
The ones that allow stealing property?
or the ones that require compensation for property taken?

Perhaps the ones that require a judgment against the accused?

I don't remember anything mentioned about a court decision to seize and destroy the chickens.( not to mention fences and windows)

[jmdrake]

I get facepalmed for asking what the Law says? I'm not an Anarchist you know.

You get facepalmed for asking what the law says in response to the question But hey, animal cruelty is ok as long as the state does it. Let's be honest here. Again you have taken the same position that BenIsForRon took in the Agenda 21 thread, that being that oppressive laws are ok just as long as they are "local". You don't have to be an "anarchist" to be against bad local laws. If the state law allows the sheriff to get away will killing 115 chickens for no good reason in the name of fighting "animal cruelty", then that state law is morally bankrupt regardless of whether it is "constitutional" or not. Good people across this great land have a reason to be outraged the same way we would if some local sheriff started confiscating guns or abusing power in some other way.

[jmdrake]

I never said I "support" something just because there's a law. There are many laws I don't agree with.

Be consistent Frank. In another thread you posted information on how to "fight Agenda 21". I totally agreed with you there. One of the New American articles talked about local states implementing Agenda 21. If the JBS wants its members to fight local "sustainable development laws" that the states have a RIGHT to pass, then it's inconsistent of you to yell "States rights - let the people decide" when other people are complaining about a severe overreach by a sheriff where he needlessly destroyed property and was cruel to animals in the name of fighting animal cruelty. Really, if this had been some liberal sheriff killing 115 chickens because they weren't being "raised sustainably" would you be singing the same tune?

[FrankRep]

You get facepalmed for asking what the law says in response to the question But hey, animal cruelty is ok as long as the state does it.

Cockfighting was explicitly targeted as being illegal in 1998.


Harris v. Citizens Against Cockfighting [ Maricopa County - Supreme Court ]
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf1998/cv980437.pdf


1998 - Proposition 201 - AN INITIATIVE MEASURE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29 OF THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO COCKFIGHTING (http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusaz1998proposition201cock.htm)

Status: Passed



Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting a person from knowingly:

1. Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock.

2. Causing any cock to fight with or injure another cock for the amusement or gain of the person.

3. Allowing any of the above described acts to occur on the person's property. In addition, state law would prohibit a person from knowingly being present at a place where preparations are being made for a cockfight or where a cockfighting exhibition takes place.

Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting.

[BamaAla]

Frank's not a big sportsman.

[pcosmar]

Cockfighting was explicitly targeted as being illegal in 1998.



Irrelevant, As there was NO COCK FIGHT taking place.

There may have been suspicion that he was raising a chicken to fight.
That is reason to INVESTIGATE.
Not reason to destroy property.

It is quite apparent that no investigation was done at all or they would have known that he was both alone and unarmed.

But that doesn't make a good TV show.

[FrankRep]

Irrelevant, As there was NO COCK FIGHT taking place.

Read the law again....


Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting a person from knowingly:

1. Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock.
...

3. Allowing any of the above described acts to occur on the person's property. In addition, state law would prohibit a person from knowingly being present at a place where preparations are being made for a cockfight or where a cockfighting exhibition takes place.

[low preference guy]

"The People" are allowed to legalize "Animal Cruelty" if they wish. They haven't.

And they are also allowed to impose a 100% income tax. How is any of that relevant?

[pcosmar]

Read the law again....


I read that.

No Cock fight had taken place there.
He was arrested a year ago for attending a fight. Not hosting it.


Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock
Intent would be something that would have to be PROVEN in a court of law.
There was no judge or jury present for the destruction of his property.

[FrankRep]

And they are also allowed to impose a 100% income tax. How is any of that relevant?

Cause and Effect. A 100% income tax will make businesses and people to leave your state. People vote with your feet.


Examples:

Illinois Increases Income Tax; Caterpillar Inc Plans to Leave the State in Protest!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285234-Illinois-Increases-Income-Tax-Caterpillar-Inc-Plans-to-Leave-the-State-in-Protest!

Illinois Targets Amazon.com With Sales Tax Legislation; Amazon.com Fights Back!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/6673-illinois-sales-tax-law-leaves-amazon-affiliates-high-and-dry

[low preference guy]

Cause and Effect. A 100% income tax will make businesses and people to leave your state. People vote with your feet.

You have an amazingly low reading comprehension. Let me remind you of the post you were responding to.


Anyway, killing 115 chickens in order to "save them" is just plain stupid, whether the state has a "right" to do that or not. And this is a ridiculous amount of force for a misdemeanor raid against someone with no history of violence.

See? He is talking about what is morally right. Then you respond with "the states have a right do it". But what the states can do legally does not determine what is morally right. Otherwise, having a 100% income tax would be morally right. That's why your post made no sense.

[pcosmar]

Read the law again....


Read the story again.
I am not defending Cock Fighting. And that is only a lame excuse used by this sheriff for a Made for TV episode.

Contrast it with an actual Cock Fight arrest.
http://current.com/news/91824889_169-arrested-in-raid-on-parker-county-texas-cockfight

169 Arrested in Raid on Parker County (Texas) Cockfight - 114 Roosters Seized
Sheriff’s deputies arrested 169 people and seized 114 roosters after raiding a cockfight Saturday in Parker County, authorities said.

The raid occurred about 3:30 p.m. in north Parker County near Poolville, Sheriff Larry Fowler said. The site had been under surveillance for two weeks, he said.

[low preference guy]

And some states will round up Japanese-looking humans and put them in "camps". And others will make black people segregated, and others will outlaw alcohol.

That all "fair" right? You are a massive statist who wants tyranny to be as local as possible so that you can have a chance at influencing it. Moral theory or economic efficiency arguments are lost on you, you just want power.

Exactly. Tyranny at the state level is all he wants.

[zade]

Exactly. Tyranny at the state level is all he wants.

tyranny=not being allowed to torture animals?

[FSP-Rebel]

f the joe..

[BamaAla]

tyranny=not being allowed to torture animals?

Tyranny=using an armored division to arrest individuals for using their property as they see fit.

[dbill27]

Has anyone on here had chickens before? Two roosters will fight for seriously hours and hours until they are bloody and one of them collapses... The big thing with cockfighting is that often people will put razor blades on the rooster's spurs to shorten the time span, but a rooster's spurs are already wicked sharp, they draw blood on people pretty quickly. I guess I can see local laws not allowing people to put blades on them, that does seem excessively cruel but other than that it's a pretty stupid law.......... Certainly not tank worthy. Roosters are mean little bastards with or without people though.

[Kludge]

Has anyone on here had chickens before? Two roosters will fight for seriously hours and hours until they are bloody and one of them collapses... The big thing with cockfighting is that often people will put razor blades on the rooster's spurs to shorten the time span, but a rooster's spurs are already wicked sharp, they draw blood on people pretty quickly. I guess I can see local laws not allowing people to put blades on them, that does seem excessively cruel but other than that it's a pretty stupid law.......... Certainly not tank worthy. Roosters are mean little bastards with or without people though.
Maybe the state gov't should vote for sedating the roosters or researching a drug specifically to make roosters "well-adjusted" and then mandate all roosters be given the drug.

I'd vote for it, and when it's published it costs PA taxpayers $5b every year, you know there'll be someone out there saying "It's the law. It's what The People want. There's no problem here. You support animal cruelty and the abolishment of states' rights if you oppose it."

[acptulsa]

Damn it, Kludge, you're giving Big Pharma ideas again. I'll just bet they have a lobbying campaign ready to go tomorrow morning.

[Kludge]

Damn it, Kludge, you're giving Big Pharma ideas again. I'll just bet they have a lobbying campaign ready to go tomorrow morning.
Nah. I tried promoting the "TIN" (Temporary [uhh... whatever the "I" was] Notes) idea a while back and the gov't didn't take me up on it.


Give $50k to all US citizens in the form of TINs. Declare TINs legal tender, but also declare that while they are to remain assets to be counted for banks, they expire as legal tender one week after issuance to the citizen. Only give them out in $50,000 bills. Declare banks unable to place holds on TINs and eliminate the FDIC/NCUA.

People exchange their TINs for FRNs @ the banks. Because TINs can be declared assets at their original face value, banks are at no risk of being legally insolvent, and they get 90% (not 100% due to reserve req's) of that to reinvest. Best of all, this program to stimulate the economy and put money in everyones' pockets neither devalues the FRN (banks would essentially just convert TINs to FRNs for people, putting money that was already there into circulation) nor puts the USG at any risk, just the banks everyone seems to hate.

[acptulsa]

Oh, you mean TIINs? Temporary Invisible Ink Notes?

Beats Jerry Ford's WIN buttons. Easier to recycle.

[FrankRep]

So when are you all going to move to New Hampshire and free yourself from the tyranny of Illegal Cockfighting?

[heavenlyboy34]

So when are you all going to move to New Hampshire and free yourself from the tyranny of Illegal Cockfighting?

Did you forget the /sarcasm tag or are you just being a douchebag?

[BamaAla]

So when are you all going to move to New Hampshire and free yourself from the tyranny of Illegal Cockfighting?

No need. While gaff fighting is "illegal" here, it isn't really enforced. I'm going to buy a grey and name him Frank in your honor;)

[zade]

Tyranny=using an armored division to arrest individuals for using their property as they see fit.

What if people don't wish to view animals simply as property in the sense that objects are? Or to phrase it a different way, why does RPF get to be the final word on what is and isn't property?

[BamaAla]

What if people don't wish to view animals simply as property in the sense that objects are? Or to phrase it a different way, why does RPF get to be the final word on what is and isn't property?

Then take that all the way rather than selectively enforcing it. Criminalize clothing, food, and shelter made from animals. Criminalize dog and cat ownership. Criminalize hunting and animal racing.

[FrankRep]

No need. While gaff fighting is "illegal" here, it isn't really enforced.

Not enforced?

Legislators try to crack down on cockfights
‎http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/03/26/article/legislators_try_to_crack_down_on_cockfights

5 arrested in Chesco on cockfighting charges | Pennsylvania
http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-23/news/29178728_1_animal-cruelty-cockfighting-pennsylvania-state-police

California bill would raise fines for cockfighting
‎http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/19/3487490/california-bill-would-raise-fines.html

Dallas Police Bust Cockfighting Ring 3/17/11
‎http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=24327

Solano County to zero in on cockfighting
‎http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_17616627

Cedar Hill cockfighting ring busted
‎http://www.wfaa.com/news/entertainment/pets/Cedar-Hill-cockfighting-ring-busted-117968089.html

Cockfighting bust in Southwest Bexar County
‎http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Cockfighting-bust-in-Southwest-Bexar-County/znnv3tItDEGlvgQ4qcy1HQ.cspx

Birds taken in Chesco raid will get new home | Philadelphia
http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-25/news/29188934_1_cockfighting-operation-state-police-raid-roosters

Cockfighting? We're better than this
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_17697943

State police arrest cockfighting suspects in Chesco
http://delcotimes.com/articles/2011/03/23/news/doc4d8a06a4241a7044160819.txt

Cockfighting an issue for county authorities
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_17644418

Hundreds of roosters seized at Texas cockfighting site, charges to follow
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20043878-504083.html

S Bexar Co. Cockfighting Ring Busted
http://www.ksat.com/news/27185370/detail.html

Discovery of injured gamecocks leads to animal cruelty charges for father, son
http://www.macon.com/2011/03/11/1482960/discovery-of-injured-gamecocks.html

Man held in cockfighting case
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/03/10/20110310cockfighting0310.html

MCSO busts cockfighting operation
http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20110309/Sheriff-investigating-rooster-fights

Cock Fighting Ringleader Facing 115 Counts
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/mcso-investigates-alleged-cock-fighting-ring-03092011

Deputies arrest man at suspected cockfighting operation in Laveen
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Deputies-arrest-man-at-suspected-cockfighting-operation-in-Laveen-117681633.html

Texans CB Kareem Jackson in hot water for cockfighting photos
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/4219650-419/texans-cb-kareem-jackson-in-hot-water-for-cockfighting-photos.html

Owner charged after police find cock fight
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110309/NEWS02/103090377/Owner-charged-after-police-find-cock-fight

Deputies raid Ventura county cockfighting arena, find dead animals and euthanize aggressive gamecocks
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/deputies-raid-ventura-county-cockfighting-arena.html

Hearing held for suspects in Knox cockfighting bust
http://www.wsbt.com/news/wsbt-hearing-held-for-suspects-in-knox-cockfighting-bust-20110304,0,6049758.story

[heavenlyboy34]

What if people don't wish to view animals simply as property in the sense that objects are? Or to phrase it a different way, why does RPF get to be the final word on what is and isn't property?

People are free to have their respective views of what is and isn't property, but they haven't any right to impose their views on anyone else with force (or legislation-violence by other means). AFAIK, there is no question as to whether animals are/aren't property-the question is whether owners can be told what to do with them. It is not clear that there exists any reason why you (or anyone) should be able to tell me what I can/can't do with my rightly acquired animals(my property), so perhaps you could supply a good reason/reasons why?

[low preference guy]

It is not clear that there exists any reason why you (or anyone) should be able to tell me what I can/can't do with my rightly acquired animals(my property), so perhaps you could supply a good reason/reasons why?

they're too cute? :p

[Carson]

So when are you all going to move to New Hampshire and free yourself from the tyranny of Illegal Cockfighting?

Don't they have a whole country to go to, to do this sort of thing.

[BamaAla]

Double Tap

[BamaAla]

Not enforced?

You did manage to get one article in there from Alabama.

Only gaff fighting is illegal in Alabama and it is rarely enforced. When it is enforced, it carries a $50 fine.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/01/alabama_cockfighting_law_the_n.html

laws are supposed to have teeth to be effective, Alabama's law against cockfighting is pretty much toothless, according to rankings released today by the Humane Society of the United States.

In the rankings, which cover the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Alabama's law was listed 51st. Cockfighting in Alabama is a misdemeanor punishable by a minimum fine of $20 and a maximum fine of $50. It is legal to attend a cockfight, own fighting birds, and own cockfighting paraphernalia.

"Cockfighters find safe haven in Alabama because the state's nominal penalties for the crime can be easily offset by gambling winnings," the Humane Society said in a press release. "In cockfights, roosters have knives strapped to their legs and are forced to fight to the death for the preverse sake of revelry."

[zade]

Then take that all the way rather than selectively enforcing it. Criminalize clothing, food, and shelter made from animals. Criminalize dog and cat ownership. Criminalize hunting and animal racing.

Why should I have to? What is stopping those who are compassionate to animals from advocating a unique set of property rules which recognizes the subordination of animals to humans and yet maintains a humane standard?

As it often does, this comes down to the fact that property and property rights are not black and white, which usually is not accepted on this forum despite the fact that there are many existing grey areas in the institution of property. An example that is somewhat related would be what parents are allowed to do with babies and young children. Apart from any supernatural or religious answers defining human life as sacred, what stops babies from being defined, and treated, as property?, being that they are a class of beings that cannot survive or exercise rights on their own (and may be less intelligent than many animals), and they have been brought into existence by the parents and are a physical burden to the parents.

And yet while we don't view children as mere property, in some ways parents are "allowed" to treat their children in ways fit only for property (ie they aren't "allowed" to do these things to any other person) such as using force and restraining measures. And this is fine, the libertarian response usually being "it's their child, let them do what they want." From that sentence alone it almost sounds like the child is being defined as property. But there are hazy areas (the circumcision debate comes to mind) and there are also lines which anyone can recognize cannot be crossed. Where do they come from? Well, it's the fact that in a society which aims to be civil, civil and logical rules relating to property (and life) must be made to fill in the gray areas. And so the rules are such that they recognize the subordinance of children to parents, "propertizing" them in certain legal ways, and permit parents a large degree of autonomy as far as what they are permitted to do with children, and at the same time also establishing rules about child abuse and such.

The case of animals could also be taken to be in one of these grey areas, demanding rules which basically do not have to go nearly as far as you suggested in your post, but establish limits for the sake of other conscious life.

[BamaAla]

Why should I have to? What is stopping those who are compassionate to animals from advocating a unique set of property rules which recognizes the subordination of animals to humans and yet maintains a humane standard?

"Humane" in and of itself is purely subjective. As to the above quoted, what you're asking is why shouldn't people, through democracy, use force to dictate what I do with my property. That's a pretty easy answer if one is already a member of this forum.


As it often does, this comes down to the fact that property and property rights are not black and white, which usually is not accepted on this forum despite the fact that there are many existing grey areas in the institution of property. An example that is somewhat related would be what parents are allowed to do with babies and young children. Apart from any supernatural or religious answers defining human life as sacred, what stops babies from being defined, and treated, as property?, being that they are a class of beings that cannot survive or exercise rights on their own (and may be less intelligent than many animals), and they have been brought into existence by the parents and are a physical burden to the parents.

And yet while we don't view children as mere property, in some ways parents are "allowed" to treat their children in ways fit only for property (ie they aren't "allowed" to do these things to any other person) such as using force and restraining measures. And this is fine, the libertarian response usually being "it's their child, let them do what they want." From that sentence alone it almost sounds like the child is being defined as property. But there are hazy areas (the circumcision debate comes to mind) and there are also lines which anyone can recognize cannot be crossed. Where do they come from? Well, it's the fact that in a society which aims to be civil, civil and logical rules relating to property (and life) must be made to fill in the gray areas. And so the rules are such that they recognize the subordinance of children to parents, "propertizing" them in certain legal ways, and permit parents a large degree of autonomy as far as what they are permitted to do with children, and at the same time also establishing rules about child abuse and such.

The case of animals could also be taken to be in one of these grey areas, demanding rules which basically do not have to go nearly as far as you suggested in your post, but establish limits for the sake of other conscious life.


The rest of this is just long-winded conjecture aimed at rationalizing why you should be afforded the ability to force me to treat certain animals one way and others another.

[zade]

"Humane" in and of itself is purely subjective. As to the above quoted, what you're asking is why shouldn't people, through democracy, use force to dictate what I do with my property. That's a pretty easy answer if one is already a member of this forum.

The rest of this is just long-winded conjecture aimed at rationalizing why you should be afforded the ability to force me to treat certain animals one way and others another.

Yes it is subjective, the whole point of what i'm saying is that rules about property are subjective. You're attempting to use your pre-existing position to prove you're argument. I'm talking about the definition of property, and in particular questioning the idea that property is "natural," "self-evident" and "black and white" by pointing out grey areas. And the only response that can be gotten on this forum is, 'that's wrong because property rights are natural rights.'

The point of the rest of it was that if there are grey areas in property theory relating to children and child abuse that we color in with laws (are you arguing against child abuse laws?), why can't the same be done for animals?

[Carson]

This thread kind of reminds me why we used to have countries with borders and laws and such. People used to have some sort of say in the way they wanted to live.

At least Uncle Joe is keeping us a little bit attached to reality and a little bit attached to respect for our laws. Not his.

I can think of a lot worse scenarios with cops and their tanks.

[heavenlyboy34]

This thread kind of reminds me why we used to have countries with borders and laws and such. People used to have some sort of say in the way they wanted to live.

At least Uncle Joe is keeping us a little bit attached to reality and a little bit attached to respect for our laws. Not his.

I can think of a lot worse scenarios with cops and their tanks.

Between 2004 and 2007 alone, Joe there were 2700 lawsuits filed against Joe. Trust me, this is not the kind of guy you would describe as "keeping us a little bit attached to reality and a little bit attached to respect for our laws. Not his."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Notorious Record
(http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/resources/sheriffjoe.pdf)

[BamaAla]

Yes it is subjective, the whole point of what i'm saying is that rules about property are subjective. You're attempting to use your pre-existing position to prove you're argument.

I'm not; I'm simply pointing out that what you're advocating is tyranny. The laws you want passed are based on the feelings of a group of individuals wholly independent of the feelings of another group of individuals. Laws should never be passed because one group feels this way or that.


I'm talking about the definition of property, and in particular questioning the idea that property is "natural," "self-evident" and "black and white" by pointing out grey areas. And the only response that can be gotten on this forum is, 'that's wrong because property rights are natural rights.'

Sure there are gray areas; they were created by arguments just like this. Either what I own is mine or it isn't. It really shouldn't be any more difficult than that. Maybe if we had left the emotional and otherwise ill conceived riff raff out, we might not have the amount of ridiculous laws that are in existence today.


The point of the rest of it was that if there are grey areas in property theory relating to children and child abuse that we color in with laws (are you arguing against child abuse laws?), why can't the same be done for animals?

You keep coming back to this argument about children. Why? We aren't talking about children; we are talking about chickens. No matter how many times you draw this analogy, chickens will never be children; they will always be chickens. They have no natural rights and what legal rights they have been afforded are non-uniform and tend to cause more trouble than good.

Hell, a very good argument could be made that gamecocks live much better lives than the broilers that Americans eat tens of millions of each month.

[cindy25]

this shows the problem with the GOP base; the more fascist he acts, the more popular he becomes

[ds21089]

So they blew down a wall with a tank to "save the poor chickens being subject to cockfighting" yet in the process, KILL them, damage property, and waste taxpayers money. Is it worse to have chickens fight or to kill them? Why aren't cops ever charged with anything? Of course there will be damage when you go around shooting a fucking tank. I'm starting to just not care about these stories of cops being shot in the face now.

[moostraks]

Yes it is subjective, the whole point of what i'm saying is that rules about property are subjective. You're attempting to use your pre-existing position to prove you're argument. I'm talking about the definition of property, and in particular questioning the idea that property is "natural," "self-evident" and "black and white" by pointing out grey areas. And the only response that can be gotten on this forum is, 'that's wrong because property rights are natural rights.'

The point of the rest of it was that if there are grey areas in property theory relating to children and child abuse that we color in with laws (are you arguing against child abuse laws?), why can't the same be done for animals?

I can't believe you are equating children with game cocks. However you want to go there so lets go. The problem with social service laws are that they are subjective and enforced based upon who understands how poisoned the system is and brings high powered attorneys to the table to refute the charges. There is a kickback to the agencies that seize the children. This provides an incentive to agencies to fudge the "data" and in return they receive funding and job promotions. The health field (psychiatrists) receive government funding and streams of citizens forced to attend meetings and they force the parents to medicate children (or they are being uncooperative and the state will seize the children) with drugs that are not suited for children. In return the medication companies give a kickback to the doctors for using and promoting their drugs.

The child abuse laws are being horrendously abused by the state. They also use this idea that the village owns the children to push forth businesses such as planned parenthood and they in turn have their own agenda known to be targeting specific types of people. This crap infiltrates the public school system and you end up with generations of people become more dehumanized and degenerate then if the government had stayed out of things in the first place.

Yet you and your like in your infinite wisdom would like to have this type of policy carried over to favored animals for protective status? PETA would just LOVE to grab a hold of legislation like social services has to continue to fund their bizarre, ill thought ideology.

I love animals and have worked with rescue agencies previously. I have also seen how local animal control agencies can be used just like social services by vicious neighbors to abuse the very same citizens that are helping take care of the unwanteds in these rescue groups. Few want to accept the consequences of these animals once they become shelter pets and so in saving them large scores are euthanized. It is completely asinine.

Finally to the pp who said you have to starve dogs and feed them gunpowder to get them to fight, bull crap. Alpha animals are vicious and will fight even if they have another animal completely submit itself. Some are just plain mean and just like humans, genes may be a part of it or environment may be to blame. It is not that cut and dry.

I have also seen violent bunnies that will eat their own children. Caged chickens which will peck other chickens to death because of a vitamin deficiency (no malice but once they developed the idea their cage mate improved their diet it was a habit impossible to break because chickens have very low intelligence and no diet change will change the habit). Frogs will eat anything in their cage that fits in their mouth even cannibalizing their own. The list goes on and on.

[acptulsa]

What if people don't wish to view animals simply as property in the sense that objects are? Or to phrase it a different way, why does RPF get to be the final word on what is and isn't property?

LOL Animals have been viewed that way since long, long before anyone typing on this forum was born. and your implication of arrogance in that way is terribly misplaced.

If you're asking is it possible for people to be limited in what they can do with said property, it happens all the time. And the property doesn't have to be breathing for that to happen.

[LibertyEagle]

I have to admit that this animal cruelty issue is extremely difficult for me. I guess because many are creatures who cannot defend themselves against our cruelty. I absolutely hate some of the things that go on and if I saw it, I'm fairly sure my reaction would land me in jail. But, as far as wanting laws to stop it, well, I just try to sit on my hands, because I know that when you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

That said, we all agree that this shouldn't be decided at the federal level and if you asked Dr. Paul, you know he would agree. In fact, you know as well as I that he would say it's not the federal government's business per the Constitution, and he would push the decision down to the state and the people. Some states and communities would have laws against it, and some would not. But, the closer the decision was to us, the more influence we would have.

We don't want a one-size-fits-all, remember? Because for that to happen, there would have to be a federal law.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-property-basis-of-rights/

[LibertyEagle]

This thread kind of reminds me why we used to have countries with borders and laws and such. People used to have some sort of say in the way they wanted to live.

Yup and we still need them. But, since the greatest danger we have to our liberty right now is in D.C., we have to deal with that, before we could have much of a say in how we wanted to live.

[pcosmar]

I have to admit that this animal cruelty issue is extremely difficult for me.

This is not an "Animal Cruelty" issue. Though many have tried to turn it in that direction.
This is about violent "Reality TV'. This was about a manufactured event for the cameras, very little different from the A&E COPS raid that ended up with a 7 tr old shot in the head in Detroit.
This is about an unnecessary use of force (for the cameras) and the violation of property rights.

The Chicken shit is a smoke screen.

[specsaregood]

You did manage to get one article in there from Alabama.
Only gaff fighting is illegal in Alabama and it is rarely enforced. When it is enforced, it carries a $50 fine.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/01/alabama_cockfighting_law_the_n.html

If one was going to be travelling through Alabama, how hard do you think it would be to find a cockfight to attend? Are they mainly rural or are they also held in the suburbs of say: birmingham as well? Just wondering.

[acptulsa]

The Chicken shit is a smoke screen.

Nineteen pages of pissy roosters. God I love free speech.

Actually, pc (did I just call you that? You need a middle initial), I think this is the first time animal cruelty laws have come up on the forum. So, it was bound to get aired out.

I stll say the (former) chicken farmer will have more luck suing Segal than Sheriff Joe.

[pcosmar]

http://www.alternet.org/media/150380/reality_tv_turns_surreal_as_celebrity_cop_steven_s eagal,_fleeing_sexual_assault_investigation_in_lou isiana,_joins_joe_arpaio_in_cockfighting_raid
Reality TV Turns Surreal as Celebrity Cop Steven Seagal, Fleeing Sexual Assault Investigation in Louisiana, Joins Joe Arpaio in Cockfighting Raid

After the action, Seagal told reporters that he had been operating “on loan” from the Jefferson Parrish sheriff's department outside New Orleans, which had been hosting his A & E “reality” show, Steven Seagal: Lawman. But according to Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times, Seagal, who had been a reserve officer in Jefferson Parrish, wasn't in fact “on loan” from the sheriff's department – he had resigned his position rather than face an internal affairs investigation into “allegations of sex trafficking and sexual assault raised in a 2010 lawsuit by an ex-employee.
"the rest of the story" gets interesting. Not too surprising.
This was all staged. and had nothing to do with the law or enforcing it.




Actually, pc (did I just call you that? You need a middle initial),.

"C" is my middle initial, (Clayton, after my Dad)
:cool:

[acptulsa]

Politically Counter Culture. That's more like it.

[Vessol]

I can't believe that there is actually people here defending the use of a fucking tank to tear down a guys house because he was SUSPECTED of ATTENDING a cock-fighting match.

[BamaAla]

If one was going to be travelling through Alabama, how hard do you think it would be to find a cockfight to attend? Are they mainly rural or are they also held in the suburbs of say: birmingham as well? Just wondering.

As long as it isn't molt season, it shouldn't be very hard if you can contact someone who knows a little about it. It goes on statewide, but it is more concentrated in the rural areas.

[scottditzen]

Not surprised at all on this, re: Seagal fleeing Louisiana.

He is allegedly connected to the mafia:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/scams/steven_seagal/index.html


http://www.alternet.org/media/150380/reality_tv_turns_surreal_as_celebrity_cop_steven_s eagal,_fleeing_sexual_assault_investigation_in_lou isiana,_joins_joe_arpaio_in_cockfighting_raid
Reality TV Turns Surreal as Celebrity Cop Steven Seagal, Fleeing Sexual Assault Investigation in Louisiana, Joins Joe Arpaio in Cockfighting Raid

"the rest of the story" gets interesting. Not too surprising.
This was all staged. and had nothing to do with the law or enforcing it.



"C" is my middle initial, (Clayton, after my Dad)
:cool:

[JCLibertarian]

Go Joe!

Good job.

Not afraid to do his job.

Because it takes real courage to use a government funded arsenal to suppress individual from fighting chickens:rolleyes:. If I had a little Army behind me to suppress petty human vice, I wouldn't be "afraid" either.

[LibertyEagle]

This is not an "Animal Cruelty" issue. Though many have tried to turn it in that direction.
This is about violent "Reality TV'. This was about a manufactured event for the cameras, very little different from the A&E COPS raid that ended up with a 7 tr old shot in the head in Detroit.
This is about an unnecessary use of force (for the cameras) and the violation of property rights.

The Chicken shit is a smoke screen.

Pcosmar, I obviously don't agree with what the Sheriff did. A tank? You've got to be kidding. I didn't bother to denounce him, because I figured that went without saying. What I was responding to was what was being discussed in the vast majority of this thread and yes, it's animal cruelty and whether there should be laws and if so, at what level.

[pcosmar]

Pcosmar, I obviously don't agree with what the Sheriff did. A tank? You've got to be kidding. I didn't bother to denounce him, because I figured that went without saying. What I was responding to was what was being discussed in the vast majority of this thread and yes, it's animal cruelty and whether there should be laws and if so, at what level.

Perhaps so, at a local level.
I really don't see a need for these laws. Certainly not for a response such as this.
If a community is opposed and offended by this, they can have an ordinance. But on that same issue, if the community is truly opposed there will be little or no support for or interest in attending such an event.

The same with a strip club. If there are no customers it will close. A law would be unnecessary.

[juleswin]

Is a person who wants the power over the inhabitants of a state given to the state govt not a statist? So now using democratic (we all know the flaws that comes along with democracy) votes to run the lives of free citizens now a good move. People should realize that state right is just as evil and would continue the tyranny of the ruling class against the people, this is the another version of the better of 2 evils.

Btw the constitution be damned, I never signed my name to it

[heavenlyboy34]

Is a person who wants the power over the inhabitants of a state given to the state govt not a statist? So now using democratic (we all know the flaws that comes along with democracy) votes to run the lives of free citizens now a good move. People should realize that state right is just as evil and would continue the tyranny of the ruling class against the people, this is the another version of the better of 2 evils.

Btw the constitution be damned, I never signed my name to it

+rep

[jmdrake]

So when are you all going to move to New Hampshire and free yourself from the tyranny of Illegal Cockfighting?

:rolleyes: When are you going to stop standing up for mass murder of chickens by a stupid sheriff?

[Kludge]

//

[jmdrake]

Pcosmar, I obviously don't agree with what the Sheriff did. A tank? You've got to be kidding. I didn't bother to denounce him, because I figured that went without saying. What I was responding to was what was being discussed in the vast majority of this thread and yes, it's animal cruelty and whether there should be laws and if so, at what level.

There are several themes here. One is animal cruelty. The other is animal cruelty when done by the state. (Even if the sheriff didn't use tanks, "euthenizing" 115 chickens in order to "save" them from cruelty is beyond the pale). A third is that this is an example of what happens when the state is allowed to run amuck in order to "solve" some "problem". I don't like people being cruel to animals. I don't like kids growing up without an education. I don't like people not being able to afford to go to the hospital. But often when government tries to "solve" these problems it only makes them worse as in this case.

[acptulsa]

And then there's the Segal theme. I've generally been tolerant of these live action cop shows as they seem to both educate people on what not to do if they like their Constitutional rights and keep the cops in check (at least while the cameraman is there).

In this case, however, we have a cop who is nuts going nuttier just because he's a ham and there's a camera there. Will nothing keep this meglomaniac in check?

[LibertyEagle]

Who is "them"? What are you talking about?

And I told you what I think of you supporting "State's Rights"; its a veil for tyranny that doesn't have to appeal to any type of theoretical proof or empirical evidence in deciding what types of laws are appropriate or beneficial. Again, you just want your tyranny to be local so that you can help run it.

I'm done with you, and I can't recall ever getting anything of substance from your posts, so welcome to ignore.

I've read through this entire thread and I don't see why you are jumping all over FrankRep for him saying that it is not a federal issue and that it should be left to the states and to the people.

Of course there are a lot of horrible state and local laws. And if we do not like them, it is our job to get them removed or changed. That is the whole idea of having government as close as possible to us.

[jmdrake]

I've read through this entire thread and I don't see why you are jumping all over FrankRep for him saying that it is not a federal issue and that it should be left to the states and to the people.

Of course there are a lot of horrible state and local laws. And if we do not like them, it is our job to get them removed or changed. That is the whole idea of having government as close as possible to us.

1) Nobody has said that the federal government should take away the states right to have stupid laws.

2) Nowhere in the thread has FrankRep been willing to admit that this was an abuse of state power. Even when that issue was isolated and put directly to him, he immediately dodged back to the "The law says so and it's local" argument.

3) FrankRep has taken quite a different position on local implementation of Agenda 21. (There focusing on the need to fight such laws rather than pointing out the obvious repeatedly that the state has a right to pass them.)

[pcosmar]

I've read through this entire thread and I don't see why you are jumping all over FrankRep for him saying that it is not a federal issue and that it should be left to the states and to the people.
.

I'm not jumping on Frank for supporting "States Rights" or State v Federal jurisdiction. (not even an issue in this case)

I am calling him on support of a Fascist Sheriff and the "entertainment" (propaganda) industry actions.
For failure to recognize the obvious violation of rights. and abuse by the state.
He turned this into an "animal rights" in defense of the Sheriff and his actions.

I have little use for the Federal Government, But Overseeing and preventing abuse by local elected officials would be one purpose.

[FrankRep]

I'm not jumping on Frank for supporting "States Rights" or State v Federal jurisdiction. (not even an issue in this case)

I am calling him on support of a Fascist Sheriff and the "entertainment" (propaganda) industry actions.
For failure to recognize the obvious violation of rights. and abuse by the state.
He turned this into an "animal rights" in defense of the Sheriff and his actions.


Straw Man. I don't support Joe Arpaio causing Property Damage!


Read:


If Joe Arpaio caused property damage, I would certainly agree that he should be held responsible for it. We can agree on that.


It's funny: the Libertarians are about to burn me at the stake for supporting the Law and States Rights.

[pcosmar]

The animal rights issue was started by Frank. post #4

Cockfighting is illegal. FYI.
And continued through the thread, despite the fact that there was NO COCK FIGHT.

This was a thread about abuse of Police Powers, The entertainment industries involvement in another police abuse case.
And the ongoing abuses by one particular Sheriff.

It was effectively derailed into an emotional "hot button" issue that had little or nothing to do with the thread.

[FrankRep]

And continued through the thread, despite the fact that there was NO COCK FIGHT.


Read the law again.... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285223-Fascist-Sherrif-Joe-at-it-again&p=3179935&viewfull=1#post3179935)



Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting a person from knowingly:

1. Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock.
...

3. Allowing any of the above described acts to occur on the person's property. In addition, state law would prohibit a person from knowingly being present at a place where preparations are being made for a cockfight or where a cockfighting exhibition takes place.

Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting.

[acptulsa]

Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock.

Bring in the thought police.

Yeah, I trust Sheriff Joe to correctly judge my intent. :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

[


[INDENT]Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting a person from knowingly:

1. Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock.
...


Irrelevant to the use of force, property damage, Seizure of property without a judgement. Not to mention the involvement and instigation of the "entertainment" industry.

But just how do you prove INTENT on a Chicken Farm?

It seems at best they had suspicion of intent, or he was just a good target for the show.

[FrankRep]

Irrelevant to the use of force, property damage, Seizure of property without a judgement. Not to mention the involvement and instigation of the "entertainment" industry.


Straw Man. I don't support Joe Arpaio causing Property Damage!


Read:


If Joe Arpaio caused property damage, I would certainly agree that he should be held responsible for it. We can agree on that.

[jmdrake]

Read the law again.... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285223-Fascist-Sherrif-Joe-at-it-again&p=3179935&viewfull=1#post3179935)



Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting a person from knowingly:

1. Owning, possessing, keeping or training a male chicken ("cock") with the intent that the cock fight with another cock.
...

3. Allowing any of the above described acts to occur on the person's property. In addition, state law would prohibit a person from knowingly being present at a place where preparations are being made for a cockfight or where a cockfighting exhibition takes place.

Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting.


The law doesn't change the facts. There was no cock fight. And what you have here is a thought crime statute. It thought (no pun intended) that conservatives were against those? (Well conservatives in Tennessee support thought crime laws since they seek to ban "Sharia terrorism" while leaving terrorism motivated by other reasons untouched).

Anyhow, say hello to karma when someone raids your house over you having "guns with the intent to use them against the state".

[jmdrake]

It doesn't seem to actually be a tank....just an APC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369596/SWAT-team-armoured-vehicles-Steven-Segal-Arizona-cockfighting-raid.html

This is the media that thinks every gun is an AK-47, afterall.


Great comment on the above article:


It's stupid for the government to even be concerned about cockfighting as millions of chickens are killed and eaten eveyday.Game chickens are well pampered and can live many years if they can fight well enough.Even the ones that die in their first fight live for a couple of years in conditions that tend to make them healthy and strong. Contrast that to a Tyson chicken that lives for six weeks in crowded conditions and then has it's throat cut so it can bleed to death.If you were a chicken which lifestyle would you prefer? Besides, where's the justice in putting a man in prison over a chicken?I hope that Seagal shows this episode to the whole world so that the public may better see how asinine these PC laws against cockfighting are.I also hope that Seagal has to pay Mr. Llovera for the damage he did to his property and Mr. Llovera is aquitted of all charges.If you somehow get on Mr Llovera's jury remember, Thomas Jefferson said "A jury must judge the law as well as the man"
- snakemeister, Birmingham-America, 25/3/2011 00:43



That's not to say that Sheriff joe doesn't own a tank though:

http://flickriver.com/photos/kingdafy/1067836710/#large[/QUOTE]

Another view of Joe's tank.

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/529/assets/98WZ_RP_hunt_arizona_tank.jpg

Government using inordinate force to enforce dubious laws that it itself breaks. Common theme?

[pcosmar]

Straw Man. I don't support Joe Arpaio causing Property Damage!




But you do apparently support Joe Arpaio. and have been using the Straw Man argument of States Rights.

[acptulsa]

They? A broad spectrum of people are against Animal Cruelty, especially having animals dueling to the death for gambling/sport.

I think that if push came to shove, a wider spectrum of people would be against the Thought Police. So, this guy got busted for attending an illegal cockfight. Does this mean he must forever refrain from raising chickens, for fear he'll daydream about training one to fight?

The fact that he once attended a cockfight seems to have been the whole 'probable cause' that secured the warrant. Yet I'll just bet that the man wasn't somehow psychically 'probed' (or even asked) to see if he enjoyed it. So much for the Thought Police.

[EndDaFed]

Joe is insane. The people are just as insane for electing him over and over.

[Zeeder]

Joe is insane. The people are just as insane for electing him over and over.

While it's true that the people are partly responsible. It's also the fact that corrupt/crazy sheriffs still have alot of power. Who is going to run against him that's qualified? In the town where I work the sheriff is into drugs and everything else. Only a minority of people know or believe that, but who is going to run against him? An honest cop would fear for his job if he lost etc..... Corrupt sheriffs are scary.

I'd also like to say, that this is the gayest thread ever. Way too much cock.

[low preference guy]

It's funny: the Libertarians are about to burn me at the stake for supporting UNJUST Laws and States Rights local tyranny.

Fixed.

I support states rights, but not local tyranny.

[pcosmar]

Fixed.

I support states rights, but not local tyranny.

States Rights ? Sorry, but no.
I support Individual Rights. I support Constitutional protections. I support Liberty.
Freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights to be armed, the right to a speedy trial, protections against self incrimination, etc, etc.
These are not at the discretion of states or local tyrants.

Or they shouldn't be.

[low preference guy]

States Rights ? Sorry, but no.
I support Individual Rights. I support Constitutional protections. I support Liberty.
Freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights to be armed, the right to a speedy trial, protections against self incrimination, etc, etc.
These are not at the discretion of states or local tyrants.

Or they shouldn't be.

Supporting states powers (some people call it states rights) just means that one supports the locals deciding the local laws instead of the Federal Government. Do you really oppose that?

[acptulsa]

Supporting states powers (some people call it states rights) just means that one supports the locals deciding the local laws instead of the Federal Government. Do you really oppose that?

He didn't say he did. What he said is the federal government has a legitimate role in preventing the states and municipalities from violating the Constitutional rights of their citizens.

And I agree with him.

[low preference guy]

He didn't say he did. What he said is the federal government has a legitimate role in preventing the states and municipalities from violating the Constitutional rights of their citizens.

And I agree with him.

I see. I don't think that's a good strategy, because at some point they might just decide that giving you healthcare is a right that must be protected. I prefer the states to have more autonomy so that there is some competition in the quality of the laws, which occurs because people have the ability to vote with their feet.

[RonPaulRocksMyWorld]

I will happily give rights to animals the day they petition for them.

[pcosmar]

Supporting states powers (some people call it states rights) just means that one supports the locals deciding the local laws instead of the Federal Government. Do you really oppose that?
Sort of twisting what I said. But i do oppose laws in contradiction of Constitutional protections and of Liberty.
I posted in response to another,



Pcosmar, I obviously don't agree with what the Sheriff did. A tank? You've got to be kidding. I didn't bother to denounce him, because I figured that went without saying. What I was responding to was what was being discussed in the vast majority of this thread and yes, it's animal cruelty and whether there should be laws and if so, at what level.

Perhaps so, at a local level.
I really don't see a need for these laws. Certainly not for a response such as this.
If a community is opposed and offended by this, they can have an ordinance. But on that same issue, if the community is truly opposed there will be little or no support for or interest in attending such an event.

The same with a strip club. If there are no customers it will close. A law would be unnecessary.


Where I live there is no law against strip clubs. But there are none.
There was an Adult Book Store. It went out of business due to being unprofitable.

I do not see a need for stupid laws, and I believe that we have entirely too many of them.

[acptulsa]

I see. I don't think that's a good strategy, because at some point they might just decide that giving you healthcare is a right...

What pcc was talking about results in state laws being struck down, not being added.

[low preference guy]

What pcc was talking about results in state laws being struck down, not being added.

It doesn't work that way in reality.

[acptulsa]

It doesn't work that way in reality.

Sure it does. I've seen it.

Now, you're going to argue it works the other way. Well, it often has. But that doesn't mean the point isn't valid. It just means someone has gotten up to some $#!+.

[low preference guy]

Sure it does. I've seen it.

What has worked? I say that having the government protect just rights and not impose any unfair obligations or burderns on states hasn't worked. Affirmative action laws is an example.


Now, you're going to argue it works the other way. Well, it often has. But that doesn't mean the point isn't valid. It just means someone has gotten up to some $#!+.

I think the point is as valid as saying that central economic planning didn't work in the Soviet Union because the soviets didn't implement it well. When you give a huge central government the ability to impose their will on states, they will obviously abuse it. I say a much better system is one in which states have more autonomy and competition, which is the original design of the Founders.

[acptulsa]

I think the point is as valid as saying that central economic planning didn't work in the Soviet Union because the soviets didn't implement it well. When you give a huge central government the ability to impose their will on states, they will obviously abuse it. I say a much better system is one in which states have more autonomy and competition, which is the original design of the Founders.

I agree with that. Now, tell me why the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down Washington state loyalty oaths or Texas anti-sodomy laws.

[jmdrake]

I see. I don't think that's a good strategy, because at some point they might just decide that giving you healthcare is a right that must be protected. I prefer the states to have more autonomy so that there is some competition in the quality of the laws, which occurs because people have the ability to vote with their feet.

As long as people are educated on positive versus negative rights that's not a problem. Also it's kind of hard to "vote with your feet" in certain circumstances (slavery for instance).

[low preference guy]

I agree with that. Now, tell me why the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down Washington state loyalty oaths or Texas anti-sodomy laws.

It was wrong because it perpetuates a system in which states aren't mostly autonomous entities, so states can't function as laboratories as democracy or innovation. If they acted according to the law, then the law is wrong. At least that's my POV, and we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

[low preference guy]

As long as people are educated on positive versus negative rights that's not a problem. Also it's kind of hard to "vote with your feet" in certain circumstances (slavery for instance).

I agree that it's hard to vote with your feet. But I think it is a better system than the alternative, and over time people do respond to incentives and encourage better laws.

Regarding slavery, I think that was the result of an overall fucked up society and morality rather than the consequence of one particular type of political system.

[pcosmar]

I say a much better system is one in which states have more autonomy and competition, which is the original design of the Founders.

What we have is a far cry from what should be. The only role I see for the Federal Govt is in securing the Constitutional rights Protected by the constitution, resolving conflicts between states regarding Trade and travel and as a representative to the larger world.

They have no business dictating laws to the states. The States on the same hand have no business restricting the Constitutional Rights of individuals.
I am not an anarchist, But I do believe that we would be much better off with a lot less Law. Especially unnecessary Law.

[whoisjohngalt]

With the prisons already full and Arpaio rolling down residential streets in a Panzer, I'm confused as to how any Libertarian could support such an absurd event.

States do have the right to make their own law, but when those laws or unconstitutional we need not obey them. Likewise, laws that are examples of failed policy (the cost to enforce them is greater than the end benefit) should be loosely followed, if at all. As a taxpayer, I am outraged and that trumps any issues of animal cruelty.

[acptulsa]

At least that's my POV, and we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

If you think a federal bill of rights is too restrictive of the states, I guess we will. Because in this case, what restricts the states creates liberty for their citizens.


Regarding slavery, I think that was the result of an overall fucked up society and morality rather than the consequence of one particular type of political system.

And monarchy was close enough to placing all of its citizens in slavery that some of them needed to have slavery just to make the serfs happy to have what little freedoms they did enjoy.

[low preference guy]

If you think a federal bill of rights is too restrictive of the states, I guess we will. Because in this case, what restricts the states creates liberty for their citizens.

The original purpose of the Bill of Rights was only to restrict the Federal government. You're talking about the 14th Amendment. And as I said, I think when the Federal government can impose its will on the states for good, it can also impose its will for evil, and the negative effects outweigh the positive effects.

[acptulsa]

The original purpose of the Bill of Rights was only to restrict the Federal government. You're talking about the 14th Amendment. And as I said, I think when the Federal government can impose its will on the states for good, it can also impose its will for evil, and the negative effects outweigh the positive effects.

Not a bad argument, actually. Even deserves better than to be aired on Page 24 of the Formerly Pissy Arizona Roosters thread.

[low preference guy]

Not a bad argument, actually. Even deserves better than to be aired on Page 24 of the Formerly Pissy Arizona Roosters thread.

Thankfully Mises also talked about it and some people also read him. :)

[jmdrake]

The original purpose of the Bill of Rights was only to restrict the Federal government. You're talking about the 14th Amendment. And as I said, I think when the Federal government can impose its will on the states for good, it can also impose its will for evil, and the negative effects outweigh the positive effects.

The 14th amendment was motivated by the Dred Scott case which brings us back to the effects of slavery and its aftermath. No slavery was not caused by the form of government, but then neither was "sheriff" Steven Segal's chicken raid. (It seems to have been done for his benefit). In general I think it's better to decide things locally. The federal government should be much more circumspect in how far it goes in asserting its authority. But most of the damage was done not as a result of the 14th amendment, but as a result of the Federal Reserve Act and later FDR bullying the courts into giving him virtually unlimited power under the commerce clause. Even if the 14th amendment didn't exist, the usurped commerce clause power could still be used to justify almost anything imaginable. People keep fighting the wrong constitutional battle.

[low preference guy]

The 14th amendment was motivated by the Dred Scott case which brings us back to the effects of slavery and its aftermath. No slavery was not caused by the form of government, but then neither was "sheriff" Steven Segal's chicken raid. (It seems to have been done for his benefit). In general I think it's better to decide things locally. The federal government should be much more circumspect in how far it goes in asserting its authority. But most of the damage was done not as a result of the 14th amendment, but as a result of the Federal Reserve Act and later FDR bullying the courts into giving him virtually unlimited power under the commerce clause. Even if the 14th amendment didn't exist, the usurped commerce clause power could still be used to justify almost anything imaginable. People keep fighting the wrong constitutional battle.

She was talking specifically about applying the Bill of Rights against the states. That is not a result of the Federal Reserve.

[jmdrake]

I agree with that. Now, tell me why the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down Washington state loyalty oaths or Texas anti-sodomy laws.

I split the difference on those two. Striking down the Washington state loyalty oaths was at least grounded in the 1st amendment applying the incorporation doctrine to the 14th. But Lawrence v. Texas required the court to further step into the dubious Griswold v. Connecticut rationale where the court basically made up a new right not mentioned in the constitution. The Lawrence court could have instead ruled for the defendant in a way that strengthened constitutional protections for everybody. In that case the police were called to the home of the defendant by his ex-lover who was angry at being jilted. But he (the ex lover) told the police that there was a shooting. Imagine how life would be like if the ruling was that if the police were called to your house for one reason, and then witnessed a totally unrelated crime, they couldn't get involved unless someone's life was in danger? So if someone was smoking weed and playing Grand Theft Auto on the home theater system and the police responded to what they thought was a shooting, they couldn't then turn around and say. "Oops! Sorry about that. But while we're here, you're under arrest."

[jmdrake]

She was talking specifically about applying the Bill of Rights against the states. That is not a result of the Federal Reserve.

I realize that. But I was going a step further. I'm saying that the abuses that you are concerned about are not so much the fault of the 14th amendment as they are the Federal Reserve + the expansion of the commerce clause. Really the expansion of the commerce clause is the worst.

[low preference guy]

I realize that. But I was going a step further. I'm saying that the abuses that you are concerned about are not so much the fault of the 14th amendment as they are the Federal Reserve + the expansion of the commerce clause. Really the expansion of the commerce clause is the worst.

Your claim that I'm "fighting the wrong constitutional battle" is wrong. I only mentioned that the 14th amendment is the reason the states can't legally violate freedom of speech and such, and that it wasn't the original purpose of the Bill of Rights.

[jmdrake]

Your claim that I'm "fighting the wrong constitutional battle" is wrong. I only mentioned that the 14th amendment is the reason the states can't legally violate freedom of speech and such, and that it wasn't the original purpose of the Bill of Rights.

I was specifically referring to this quote:


I think when the Federal government can impose its will on the states for good, it can also impose its will for evil, and the negative effects outweigh the positive effects.

I don't think the "negative effects" we've seen from the federal government are all that related to the 14th amendment.


What has worked? I say that having the government protect just rights and not impose any unfair obligations or burderns on states hasn't worked. Affirmative action laws is an example.


Can you cite a specific example where the federal government has imposed affirmative action on the states? I'm pretty sure that has never happened. There has been affirmative action in federal contracting, and more recently the federal government has barred states from using affirmative action. But that's about it.

[low preference guy]

I don't think the "negative effects" we've seen from the federal government are all that related to the 14th amendment.

I have not claimed that. I mentioned that the 14th amendment is the true reason why the states can't legally violate freedom of speech and such. That is all.