Dammit man this is INGO; we don' need no steenking facts!
Right?
Pfft, lawyers.
Dammit man this is INGO; we don' need no steenking facts!
How do you prosecute an anonymous source and how do you prove PETA new it was a false when they passed it on?
I just posted an article here about fur harvesting.
Alright, alright....I'll back it down to law school theoretical where things like actually gathering the evidence to support the charges is irrelevant.
If they can determine who made the doctored recording and that they intended to have it reported to law enforcement then that is a crime. Also IF there is evidence that can prove that a specific person at PETA knew that the video was portraying the situation in a false light when they reported it, then that may be a crime also.
back before the hamas coup in gaza, fatah/pal.auth. sent a donkey loaded with explosives to wander over to a border check point. The Israeli soldiers sized up the situation and shot the donkey. newkirk then sent a letter to arafat, sympathizing with his agenda of killing Jews but asked him not to endanger anymore animals.Seeing as how PETA, and leftists in general, promote policies that would radically lower food production, both animal and plant based, I would say they value animals far above humans.
How do you prosecute an anonymous source and how do you prove PETA new it was a false when they passed it on?
I would say that once it was discovered that the video had been doctored and the people making the video were trespassing, law enforcement should have widened the investigation to PETA. Specifically, they should have executed a warrant to review PETA's various communications (email, etc.). This may have revealed that PETA was instrumental in the frame-up operation against the farmer. At a minimum, it may have led to the identification of the "anonymous" video maker(s) who then should have been prosecuted.
This scum is trying to ruin people's lives. Law enforcement and prosecutors need to take that more seriously and go after the perps.