7 ms·

The goat became property of the new owner when it was sold at auction, which the family knew they were getting into. I hate defending someone who clearly was be

by vogt 4y ago

The goat became property of the new owner when it was sold at auction, which the family knew they were getting into. I hate defending someone who clearly was being an asshole in this situation by not having the heart to say “This little girl is clearly attached, I can simply buy another goat”, but there were no rights being violated here that I see.

johnklos 4y ago
Cops extrajudicially confiscating property isn't violating rights? Have someone try it on you and see whether you still think that. Cops in the US get off on forcing their will on others.
- vogt 4y ago
  The parents were the ones who confiscated someone else’s property when the goat was sold. But yeah, I agree, they do, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think you’re going to stick it to me with ACAB sentiment because I am no fan of the state or police. I am a fan of honoring contracts and sales.
  - joe_guy 4y ago
    > am a fan of honoring contracts and sales. It's perfectly acceptable to violate a contract. It doesn't matter you're not a fan of this. As long as you follow through with the terms of violating it. > Breach of contract is not a crime or even a tort. Punitive damages are generally not an available remedy. The only remedies are to make the non-breaching party whole. The main theory behind this rule is that the law should not punish economically efficient breach. The contract was not in the article but we can assume that it would be whatever financial compensation would be to make them whole. That's something they offered but the other party kept making threats that they would be criminally charged, even though the article states it was within their rights to not sell the goat. IANAL but I can't imagine what permitted the police to be involved.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > perfectly acceptable to violate a contract. It doesn't matter you're not a fan of this. As long as you follow through with the terms of violating it Every contract comes with its invisible body of law attached. For purchase and sale contracts, particularly those involving livestock auctions, property law comes into play. Withholding someone else’s property is criminal. The police showed discretion in not charging the family. But recovery is totally within their remit.
      - joe_guy 4y ago
        They offered to make the other party whole. If they were careless and a wild animal killed the goat, theyd not of unconditionally committed a crime, theyd only need to make the other party whole.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > were careless and a wild animal killed the goat, theyd not of unconditionally committed a crime Yes. Same way if I sell a car and then a tree falls on it, I didn’t commit fraud. But if I sell it and then refuse to deliver, the cops can execute a search-and-seizure warrant. Intent matters.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If you sell someone a car, and then go take it back, you’re not violating a contact, you’re stealing a car. If you never deliver it, maybe that’s arguable but even then it could often be considered theft.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - joe_guy 4y ago
        It would be more akin to selling someone a car, then telling them you're giving them the money back instead of the vehicle.
  - david38 4y ago
    So if I get your six year old daughter to sell me all her toys for 100 $1 bills, you would be ok with that?
    - choko 4y ago
      The kid didn't enter into the deal independently since children don't have that kind of autonomy. Your comparison is invalid.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  Police unilaterally recover stolen property all the time.
  - rascul 4y ago
    In this case, the police supposedly left their jurisdiction to seize property without a warrant. That doesn't seem normal to me.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > the police supposedly left their jurisdiction to seize property without a warrant. That doesn't seem normal to me. Counties are creatures of states. In some states, they’re jurisdictional boundaries. In California, they’re administrative entities [1]. (Cities, on the other hand, have jurisdictional characteristics.) [1] https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0 https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structur...
DanBC 4y ago
When was the goat sold at auction?
- kurupt213 4y ago
  At the fair. It’s part of the showing the animal process. While they are being judged, prospective customers are also evaluating the animals
411111111111111 4y ago
Sure, they probably had a previous agreement assuring the auction, but it wasn't the police's job to make that decision. They're the executive, not the judicative. A judge would've had to make this assertion, which clearly didn't happen as they didn't have a warrant. The officers still drove all over the state into a different jurisdiction (while using taxpayers money). They likely could've gotten the goat without making it into such a shit show, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > it wasn't the police's job to make that decision If my car is stolen and I see it in someone’s garage, I absolutely expect the police to do something about it. In this case, the facts about lawful ownership were straightforward.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    Although the conceptual boundary is thin, stealing is a crime and contractual violation is a tort. If we believe that our rights are secured by the counterbalancing of powers, then we ought not permit police to adjudicate torts.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > stealing is a crime and contractual violation is a tort Purchase and sale of livestock has a deep body of law attached. Judicial involvement isn’t always necessary, though either side can petition its review. (These cops had a warrant, by the way [1].) In this case, the parents waited until after the auction, after the seizure and after the slaughter to do that. [1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf
  - kittiepryde 4y ago
    An anecdote- my mother's car was stolen, stripped for parts, and the repair shop that stole out, had it visible and out in the open the entire time, police (Virginia, Hampton area, a decade ago) refused to recover property, and we couldn't afford to go to court.
alistairSH 4y ago
The way this article reads, goat was confiscated prior to auction.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > goat was confiscated prior to auction The parents told 4-H they changed their mind right before the auction, but the confiscation happened well after [1]. [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article265138311.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article265138311.html
Hizonner 4y ago
Wrong. The auction was not legally conducted, there was no actual transfer of ownership, and in any case what the auction falsely represented to the buyer that it had the right to sell was some meat, not a goat. You are making "factual" assertions without bothering to check them. Complaint: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vogt 4y ago
  Not sure why you’re repeating this comment in multiple places, but given that you are, I’ll repeat that this is not wrong, as I pointed out to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=32704877&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dvogt%2332704877 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=32704877&goto=threads%...
  - Hizonner 4y ago
    I'm repeating it because of the mind-boggling number of people making contrary assertions of "fact" based on nothing but how they would like things to be.
    - vogt 4y ago
      How many livestock auctions or 4H shows have you attended? If the answer is greater than zero, which I truly doubt, how many did not require the entrants to understand that entering your animal is putting it up for sale?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > the mind-boggling number of people making contrary assertions of "fact" based on nothing but how they would like things to be A judge executed a warrant for the seizure of the animal.
david38 4y ago
It didn’t. It wasn’t sold because the girl backed out. The auction chose to ignore that.

by vogt 4y ago

johnklos 4y ago

Cops extrajudicially confiscating property isn't violating rights? Have someone try it on you and see whether you still think that. Cops in the US get off on forcing their will on others.

vogt 4y ago
The parents were the ones who confiscated someone else’s property when the goat was sold. But yeah, I agree, they do, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think you’re going to stick it to me with ACAB sentiment because I am no fan of the state or police. I am a fan of honoring contracts and sales.
- joe_guy 4y ago
  > am a fan of honoring contracts and sales. It's perfectly acceptable to violate a contract. It doesn't matter you're not a fan of this. As long as you follow through with the terms of violating it. > Breach of contract is not a crime or even a tort. Punitive damages are generally not an available remedy. The only remedies are to make the non-breaching party whole. The main theory behind this rule is that the law should not punish economically efficient breach. The contract was not in the article but we can assume that it would be whatever financial compensation would be to make them whole. That's something they offered but the other party kept making threats that they would be criminally charged, even though the article states it was within their rights to not sell the goat. IANAL but I can't imagine what permitted the police to be involved.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > perfectly acceptable to violate a contract. It doesn't matter you're not a fan of this. As long as you follow through with the terms of violating it Every contract comes with its invisible body of law attached. For purchase and sale contracts, particularly those involving livestock auctions, property law comes into play. Withholding someone else’s property is criminal. The police showed discretion in not charging the family. But recovery is totally within their remit.
    - joe_guy 4y ago
      They offered to make the other party whole. If they were careless and a wild animal killed the goat, theyd not of unconditionally committed a crime, theyd only need to make the other party whole.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > were careless and a wild animal killed the goat, theyd not of unconditionally committed a crime Yes. Same way if I sell a car and then a tree falls on it, I didn’t commit fraud. But if I sell it and then refuse to deliver, the cops can execute a search-and-seizure warrant. Intent matters.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If you sell someone a car, and then go take it back, you’re not violating a contact, you’re stealing a car. If you never deliver it, maybe that’s arguable but even then it could often be considered theft.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - joe_guy 4y ago
      It would be more akin to selling someone a car, then telling them you're giving them the money back instead of the vehicle.
- david38 4y ago
  So if I get your six year old daughter to sell me all her toys for 100 $1 bills, you would be ok with that?
  - choko 4y ago
    The kid didn't enter into the deal independently since children don't have that kind of autonomy. Your comparison is invalid.
kurupt213 4y ago
Police unilaterally recover stolen property all the time.
- rascul 4y ago
  In this case, the police supposedly left their jurisdiction to seize property without a warrant. That doesn't seem normal to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > the police supposedly left their jurisdiction to seize property without a warrant. That doesn't seem normal to me. Counties are creatures of states. In some states, they’re jurisdictional boundaries. In California, they’re administrative entities [1]. (Cities, on the other hand, have jurisdictional characteristics.) [1] https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0 https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structur...

DanBC 4y ago

When was the goat sold at auction?

kurupt213 4y ago
At the fair. It’s part of the showing the animal process. While they are being judged, prospective customers are also evaluating the animals

411111111111111 4y ago

Sure, they probably had a previous agreement assuring the auction, but it wasn't the police's job to make that decision. They're the executive, not the judicative. A judge would've had to make this assertion, which clearly didn't happen as they didn't have a warrant. The officers still drove all over the state into a different jurisdiction (while using taxpayers money). They likely could've gotten the goat without making it into such a shit show, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> it wasn't the police's job to make that decision If my car is stolen and I see it in someone’s garage, I absolutely expect the police to do something about it. In this case, the facts about lawful ownership were straightforward.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  Although the conceptual boundary is thin, stealing is a crime and contractual violation is a tort. If we believe that our rights are secured by the counterbalancing of powers, then we ought not permit police to adjudicate torts.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > stealing is a crime and contractual violation is a tort Purchase and sale of livestock has a deep body of law attached. Judicial involvement isn’t always necessary, though either side can petition its review. (These cops had a warrant, by the way [1].) In this case, the parents waited until after the auction, after the seizure and after the slaughter to do that. [1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf
- kittiepryde 4y ago
  An anecdote- my mother's car was stolen, stripped for parts, and the repair shop that stole out, had it visible and out in the open the entire time, police (Virginia, Hampton area, a decade ago) refused to recover property, and we couldn't afford to go to court.

alistairSH 4y ago

The way this article reads, goat was confiscated prior to auction.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> goat was confiscated prior to auction The parents told 4-H they changed their mind right before the auction, but the confiscation happened well after [1]. [1] https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article265138311.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article265138311.html

Hizonner 4y ago

Wrong. The auction was not legally conducted, there was no actual transfer of ownership, and in any case what the auction falsely represented to the buyer that it had the right to sell was some meat, not a goat. You are making "factual" assertions without bothering to check them. Complaint: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vogt 4y ago
Not sure why you’re repeating this comment in multiple places, but given that you are, I’ll repeat that this is not wrong, as I pointed out to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=32704877&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dvogt%2332704877 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=32704877&goto=threads%...
- Hizonner 4y ago
  I'm repeating it because of the mind-boggling number of people making contrary assertions of "fact" based on nothing but how they would like things to be.
  - vogt 4y ago
    How many livestock auctions or 4H shows have you attended? If the answer is greater than zero, which I truly doubt, how many did not require the entrants to understand that entering your animal is putting it up for sale?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > the mind-boggling number of people making contrary assertions of "fact" based on nothing but how they would like things to be A judge executed a warrant for the seizure of the animal.

david38 4y ago

It didn’t. It wasn’t sold because the girl backed out. The auction chose to ignore that.