The GOAT.

[a_unique_person]

Only in America.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/02/goat-cedar-county-fair-auction-california



In July, “two sheriff’s deputies left their jurisdiction in Shasta county, drove over 500 miles at taxpayer expense, and crossed approximately six separate county lines, all to confiscate a young girl’s beloved pet goat”, the lawsuit states. “As a result, the young girl who raised Cedar lost him, and Cedar lost his life.”
According to the lawsuit, Long and her daughter purchased the baby goat while the child was enrolled in 4-H, a youth agriculture program popular in rural California. The intention of the program was that the goat would be raised by the family and eventually sold. But the girl, who is not even 10 years old, grew attached to Cedar. In June, when it was time to sell Cedar at a local fair livestock auction, she was “sobbing in his pen beside him”, the lawsuit states.
“[The girl] and Cedar bonded, just as [she] would have bonded with a puppy. She loved him as a family pet,” according to the lawsuit.

It's convoluted so I won't try explain it. You will have to read it all.


The important point is that the intent was that they bought a goat with the intention of raising it and selling it for a profit to be slaughtered as part of a program.

 

[jeremyp]

Only in America.






It's convoluted so I won't try explain it. You will have to read it all.


The important point is that the intent was that they bought a goat with the intention of raising it and selling it for a profit to be slaughtered as part of a program.

No. The important point is that the Fair Association is a bunch of *****.

 

[Myriad]

Lehto's Law (YouTube channel) did a video on the lawsuit a few weeks ago. My moral opinion aligns pretty well with his legal one:

Nothing wrong with the 4-H encouraging kids to think and act as agriculturalists, caring for their animals as valued business assets rather than emotionally bonded pets.

Nothing wrong with a girl and her family noping out on that path, and deciding to keep the animal, even at the "too-late" stage, given the buyer's consent to canceling the contract. (All sympathy for the buyer, who probably thought he was doing some kid a favor by helping her complete the final milestone of her 4-H project, then immediately accepted their change of mind with no complaint, and still risks being seen as the villain by people who don't read the whole story.)

The auction event manager falsely reporting the animal to the police as stolen, not based on any loss suffered by the event but on the ideology of "not teaching the wrong lesson" about how families should regard livestock, was an actionable tort, as was the police (or whoever the police turned the goat over to) immediately slaughtering the goat instead of treating it as disputed property to be adjudicated by a judge.

The issue of where deputies drove to and how much it cost is a local administrative matter irrelevant to the legal case.

Any damage award will probably be small (the market value of the goat or a small punitive multiple thereof) but the negative publicity is important, which is why I hope it all lands on the fair and not the buyer.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Destruction of Evidence (i.e. the goat) is not a minor thing in the legal sense.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Lehto's Law (YouTube channel) did a video on the lawsuit a few weeks ago. My moral opinion aligns pretty well with his legal one:

Nothing wrong with the 4-H encouraging kids to think and act as agriculturalists, caring for their animals as valued business assets rather than emotionally bonded pets.

Nothing wrong with a girl and her family noping out on that path, and deciding to keep the animal, even at the "too-late" stage, given the buyer's consent to canceling the contract. (All sympathy for the buyer, who probably thought he was doing some kid a favor by helping her complete the final milestone of her 4-H project, then immediately accepted their change of mind with no complaint, and still risks being seen as the villain by people who don't read the whole story.)

The auction event manager falsely reporting the animal to the police as stolen, not based on any loss suffered by the event but on the ideology of "not teaching the wrong lesson" about how families should regard livestock, was an actionable tort, as was the police (or whoever the police turned the goat over to) immediately slaughtering the goat instead of treating it as disputed property to be adjudicated by a judge.

The issue of where deputies drove to and how much it cost is a local administrative matter irrelevant to the legal case.

Any damage award will probably be small (the market value of the goat or a small punitive multiple thereof) but the negative publicity is important, which is why I hope it all lands on the fair and not the buyer.

That part is what gets me. I can understand that 4H has a goal (many of my friends were in 4H when I was a kid, local businesses buying kids' livestock at exorbitant prices was a big thing at the county fair, good publicity.)

But, if this girl wanted to opt out, just suggest that she not participate in 4h anymore. Treating it like a crime that she didn't want to slaughter her friend to prove some point is just asinine. You just know all the adults involved are going "You gotta teach those kids! Drive out that woke nonsense!"

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You just know all the adults involved are going "You gotta teach those kids! Drive out that woke nonsense!"

You don't understand. Let one person away with it and others will follow. Can you imagine what that would do to the economy? People have to be taught that farm animals are a resource to be exploited, not our friends.

If they had let her keep the goat that would mean less pet food being produced. Hungry pets are dangerous. Just today a man in Minnesota died when the starving pit bull terriers he was looking after attacked him. People like that little girl are responsible for his death!

It's not just animals though. We have an epidemic of empathy in this country that is causing people to make bad economic decisions. If we don't fix that soon it will destroy Capitalism, with devastating consequences (for my investments).

Unfortunately this incident was not handled properly. The girl should have been forced to kill the goat herself and then eat it. That's the only way to drive out this woke nonsense!

 

[zooterkin]

I’m not clear on the ownership of the goat, and any implied contracts entered into.

Was the animal actually sold at auction at the fair, or did they back out before that? Was there a promise to sell the goat included in the original sale of the goat to the family?

(I only had access to the Grauniad’s story, the original was paywalled for me.)

 

[shemp]

That part is what gets me. I can understand that 4H has a goal (many of my friends were in 4H when I was a kid, local businesses buying kids' livestock at exorbitant prices was a big thing at the county fair, good publicity.)

But, if this girl wanted to opt out, just suggest that she not participate in 4h anymore. Treating it like a crime that she didn't want to slaughter her friend to prove some point is just asinine. You just know all the adults involved are going "You gotta teach those kids! Drive out that woke nonsense!"

I have a feeling that has been achieved.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unclear on the fine details

According to The Guardian, "The family told the Shasta Fair Association that the girl, as was within her rights, did not want to continue with the sale of the goat...Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income, but the fair association ordered her to return the goat and said she would face charges of grand theft if she failed to do so, according to the complaint." I am not clear on why the family offered to pay back the fair, if the goat were theirs. Of course, it could be that the family was trying to go the extra mile.

 

[crescent]

I’m not clear on the ownership of the goat, and any implied contracts entered into.

Was the animal actually sold at auction at the fair, or did they back out before that? Was there a promise to sell the goat included in the original sale of the goat to the family?

(I only had access to the Grauniad’s story, the original was paywalled for me.)

According to The Guardian, "The family told the Shasta Fair Association that the girl, as was within her rights, did not want to continue with the sale of the goat...Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income, but the fair association ordered her to return the goat and said she would face charges of grand theft if she failed to do so, according to the complaint." I am not clear on why the family offered to pay back the fair, if the goat were theirs. Of course, it could be that the family was trying to go the extra mile.

From what I understand, the goat was (initially) auctioned off as is normal in 4H. That transaction also typically includes a payment to 4H/fair as a sort of processing fee.

As I heard it, at the time the family changed their minds about the goat, neither payment had not yet been processed (not the payment to 4H nor the payment to the family that raised the goat).

So the Long family was proposing to pay the 4H processing fee, and the auction winning bidder (Dahle) was willing to (mostly) back out of the deal - he was proposing that the goat go to work in an invasive plant management role (which is a real thing, I have actually used goats that way in federal lands management). The goat might not be a pet, but would not be slaughtered either.

There is another legal aspect to this: the age of the person in the contract. California allows underage people to have quite a bit of leeway to back out of contracts. So if the contract was only between 4H and the girl, then the girl probably had some right to back out. If the girl's parents also signed the contract, then 4H is on more solid legal ground.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Lehto's Law (YouTube channel) did a video on the lawsuit a few weeks ago. My moral opinion aligns pretty well with his legal one:

Nothing wrong with the 4-H encouraging kids to think and act as agriculturalists, caring for their animals as valued business assets rather than emotionally bonded pets.

Nothing wrong with a girl and her family noping out on that path, and deciding to keep the animal, even at the "too-late" stage, given the buyer's consent to canceling the contract. (All sympathy for the buyer, who probably thought he was doing some kid a favor by helping her complete the final milestone of her 4-H project, then immediately accepted their change of mind with no complaint, and still risks being seen as the villain by people who don't read the whole story.)

The auction event manager falsely reporting the animal to the police as stolen, not based on any loss suffered by the event but on the ideology of "not teaching the wrong lesson" about how families should regard livestock, was an actionable tort, as was the police (or whoever the police turned the goat over to) immediately slaughtering the goat instead of treating it as disputed property to be adjudicated by a judge.

The issue of where deputies drove to and how much it cost is a local administrative matter irrelevant to the legal case.

Any damage award will probably be small (the market value of the goat or a small punitive multiple thereof) but the negative publicity is important, which is why I hope it all lands on the fair and not the buyer.

Cops frequently shrug their shoulders and do nothing when property is reported stolen, so it's not like a report like this means they have to act.

Police are very frequently criticized for hand-waving away criminal complaints as "civil matters", but this is one case in which such a response was probably appropriate. American cops not exactly known for their good judgment though.