JKb over at Gunfreezone gets angry at the cops because they went to a girl’s home to retrieve a goat. I would have commented over there, but I just don’t want to pay to make comments, seeing as how I already pay for this website, so here is my answer. He says:
I read shit like this and I wonder how anyone can “back the Blue” anymore.
How about the entire story without all of the tear jerking spin?
Mom bought daughter a goat last April. They named it, fed it, and raised it. Then mom sold the goat at a livestock auction. The auction sold the goat at auction June 25 for $902, of which $63.14 was supposed to go to the state fair and $838.86 to the mother and daughter.
It was at this point that the daughter found out that the goat was to be slaughtered and eaten, a fact which mom was well aware. Daughter promptly threw a fit and demanded that mom rescue the goat. It’s proper to point out that the rules of the state fair say that all sales are final, and that’s that. So when the fair wouldn’t undo the sale, mom stole the goat right out of the auction’s barn. Mom then hid the goat on someone else’s property (an animal rescue organization) so that the fair and the police could not recover the stolen property. The stolen goat was eventually recovered, slaughtered, and barbecued.
Now mom is suing, and JKb has his panties in a bunch because he thinks that police should ignore grand theft, conspiracy to commit theft, and fraud because someone’s snowflake child is upset.
So I guess he is now OK with California decriminalizing theft if someone is really upset? Or are the cops wrong for enforcing the law? Just what should the cops do when someone buys something, the seller then steals the item back, and then hides the stolen property in order to prevent its discovery?
The response should be that the cops arrest mom for grand theft, the animal rescue for conspiracy to traffic in stolen goods, and conspiracy to commit grand theft.