Arkady Renko Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Seriously, this is what these people are. I do not care what their cause is. Animal "Rights" Activists Prosecuted Under Terror Law Since when is cleaning fluid in the eyes free speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Seriously, this is what these people are. I do not care what their cause is. Animal "Rights" Activists Prosecuted Under Terror Law Since when is cleaning fluid in the eyes free speech? 350521[/snapback] "... invading offices, damaging property and stealing documents ... spraying cleaning fluid into the eyes of employees -- smashing the windows of their homes and threatening to kill or injure members of their families ... " Of course they should be prosecuted, but the "new" law part is BS. All these things were already against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 "... invading offices, damaging property and stealing documents ... spraying cleaning fluid into the eyes of employees -- smashing the windows of their homes and threatening to kill or injure members of their families ... " Of course they should be prosecuted, but the "new" law part is BS. All these things were already against the law. 350525[/snapback] This isn't terrorism? They are using terror and physical violence to achieve their means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 This isn't terrorism? They are using terror and physical violence to achieve their means. 350528[/snapback] Yes. What I'm saying is breaking and entering, theft, assault, harrassment, and conspiracy to commit, etc. could have been enforced under existing laws. The "new" law is being used to prosecute "old" criminal activity. It's a device of politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 Yes. What I'm saying is breaking and entering, theft, assault, harrassment, and conspiracy to commit, etc. could have been enforced under existing laws. The "new" law is being used to prosecute "old" criminal activity. It's a device of politicians. 350534[/snapback] The issue here is that while each individual act was a crime in its own right, the overall organization and coordination of such activity in order to achieve a specific goal was not punishable. There is a difference between each act being prosecuted as individual acts and prosecuting the entire planning and coordinated execution of the plan as one larger crime. I therefore see value in it being prosecuted as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 "... invading offices, damaging property and stealing documents ... spraying cleaning fluid into the eyes of employees -- smashing the windows of their homes and threatening to kill or injure members of their families ... " 350525[/snapback] i would liek to see some guy try to spray me in the face with some cleaning fluid. or break my windows. they will be the ones calling the cops not me. but i think the point is that this "terrorist" charge is more serious than simply vandalism. 250,000 and/or 3 years in jail is serious stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I don't care what they call the law.....I call it woefully inadequate. A max of 3 years for these scumbags???? Maybe someday our society will deem violent criminals worthy of punishment befitting their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 i would liek to see some guy try to spray me in the face with some cleaning fluid. or break my windows. they will be the ones calling the cops not me. You got that right. "... and threatening to kill or injure members of their families ... " I'm not sure I'd give them the opportunity to make that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBXBILLSFAN Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I'm a conservative AND an animal rights activist/environmentalist, but sometimes protests and other actions by Greenpeace, PETA and other groups go too far. A criminal act, even in the name of animal rights, is still a criminal act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 The issue here is that while each individual act was a crime in its own right, the overall organization and coordination of such activity in order to achieve a specific goal was not punishable. There is a difference between each act being prosecuted as individual acts and prosecuting the entire planning and coordinated execution of the plan as one larger crime. I therefore see value in it being prosecuted as it is. 350540[/snapback] I see your point. Sort of a RICO act for terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 I'm a conservative AND an animal rights activist/environmentalist, but sometimes protests and other actions by Greenpeace, PETA and other groups go too far. A criminal act, even in the name of animal rights, is still a criminal act. 350563[/snapback] I care about animal welfare, although not I am an "animal rights" person myself, but I cannot stand these acts. It ends up having their arguments lose all their crediability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 For some reason, the bothering family members annoys me the most. It should be a cardinal rule of discourse that you do not get family members involved. Even the mafia understands this, at least um, er... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 terror is terror, plain and simple, it doesnt matter for what cause...if you are using physical violence to protest something, thats terror and you should be prosecuted... I've done animal research before, and if one of these bastards ever tried spraying cleaning fluids in my eyes at work, going to prison would be the least of their worries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 They will be the ones calling the cops not me. 350541[/snapback] How do dead scummers dial 911? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 That bunch of animal rights wackos is active in the SF area too. They aren't too smart. They broke windows on the house of a VP of Chiron , which hasn't used that company for several years. One nut job exploded bombs outside of Chiron and Shakelee (luckily at 4 AM). Shakelee makes vitamins/ supplements and has never used that company. The guy that did the bombings has been profiled on America's Most Wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Just wondering... if the animals in the lab got intelligent, organized, and revolted, would they be considered terrorists? And is it illegal for deer to defend themselves against hunters? Or just illegal for people to help them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Just wondering... if the animals in the lab got intelligent, organized, and revolted, would they be considered terrorists? And is it illegal for deer to defend themselves against hunters? Or just illegal for people to help them? 350792[/snapback] no, no, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I see your point. Sort of a RICO act for terrorists. 350564[/snapback] Pretty much just that. And the validity of RICO has been questioned more than once. But SHAC...they're a bunch of certifiable loons. We're not talking "normal" PETA-type protests, where someone dresses up in a bloody chicken suit and pickets a KFC. SHAC (and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and a host of other underground organizations that are roughly the same, having lots of cross-pollenation between their leadership and membership rosters) advocate actions and methods in pursuit of a political goal that's not dissimilar to what you'd see from Islamic Jihad or Hamas or the like. Hell, some of their leadership have long criminal records related to environmental extremism (one in particular, whose name I can't remember, did at least 10 years for felony arson...and when released from prison, immediately advocated arson and homocide against research scientists doing animal experiments). That these extreme organizations like SHAC are terrorist groups is, to me, an entirely appropriate way of considering them. And charging them under these "anti-terrorism" statutes...well, I have little problem with that, and what problems I do have relate not to SHAC's seriously warped idea of free speech (arson is free speech? ), but to the questionable and what I consider overly-broad structure of the law itself. But then, I feel the same about RICO, too. And if they tried lobbing either of those laws at PETA, I'd be aghast, even as much as I completely loathe those PETA morons. But SHAC doesn't deserve much better treatment in the criminal justice system than Red Army Faction or Hisballah deserves, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 That bunch of animal rights wackos is active in the SF area too. They aren't too smart. They broke windows on the house of a VP of Chiron , which hasn't used that company for several years. One nut job exploded bombs outside of Chiron and Shakelee (luckily at 4 AM). Shakelee makes vitamins/ supplements and has never used that company. The guy that did the bombings has been profiled on America's Most Wanted. 350789[/snapback] Shaklee? Last I heard (last August, from a distributor), they were against animal testing and supported animal rights. Some people are just too stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I bet it was the putting greens that did it. Some rich guy got mad over his poor putting greens and had to do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Couple a' points. 1) please do not regard these idiots as ambassadors for the animal rights cause. it is a good and worthy cause, which for some reason attracts deranged cultists 2) I regard as highly suspicious the use of the so-called "Animal Enterprise Protection Act" to prosecute these individuals. The previous posters were wrong - there ARE existing laws covering this - such as state law conspiracy laws and statutes. The reason this law is being used is that it empowers the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to prosecute these people, predicated upon the dubious notion that their conduct somehow employs interstate commerce (i.e., they used telephones/faxes/emails/mail in committing their crimes). This is YET ANOTHER BLATANT ATTEMPT by the Federal Government to usurp and expand its power, needlessly I might add. See: the 1970 Federal Drug legislation, which expanded Federal FBI power tenfold overnight. Be afraid, be very afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 I'm all for animal testing. My father died of lung cancer. if the death of a billion mice could have saved him, I'm all for it. We could test on inmates if you don't want to use animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 We could test on inmates if you don't want to use animals 350976[/snapback] but... but... but... We could have signed one of those convicts to play Left Tackle!!! Why didn't TD Get 'er Done???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts