Cow Abuse at Conklin Dairy Farm

[wrillo]

I'm sensing a bunch of wussies. hell yeah, I watched the whole video, but yeah... it was some fucked up shit

[chevysoldier]

Absolutely.

I don't hate people based on where they're from, what they look like, what gender they're attracted to, or what they believe.

Their actions, on the other hand, are a totally acceptable basis for wanting to see them weeping in a bloody pile on the floor of a prison shower.

Absolutely, 100%

[Fonzie]

the best part about this is the guy was all worried about taking his police exam to become a cop WTF....

Reinforces my theory that there are 2 overall personalities that want to become LEO's.... Those who genuinely want to be of service & help people, and then dBags like this guy who are insecure, &/or want to abuse their authority & hold it over people to make themselves feel bigger/more powerful

An investigator with Mercy For Animals was hired by Conklin Dairy and recorded hidden camera video during a four-week undercover operation. The video shows several employees, including farm owner Gary Conklin, abusing cows for no apparent reason. A well-known farmer in central Ohio, Conklin is seen on the video repeatedly kicking a downer cow in the face.

I'm confused by this?? So he hired an investigator to investigate himself/his farm, & then performed some of the abuse himself?? Or was he just playing along so they could catch the dBag working for him??

Edited May 28, 2010 by Fonzie

[wrillo]

it was an "undercover" operation done by Mercy For Animals. Conklin hired him to work for him without the knowledge of the investigation... it was just worded poorly

[Disclaimer]

I think there is too much gov't oversight here. This is a PRIVATE FARM, we don't need Obama's big government trampling on the Constitution by taking away the owners right to handle his PRIVATE property how he sees fit.

[jbot]

I think there is too much gov't oversight here. This is a PRIVATE FARM, we don't need Obama's big government trampling on the Constitution by taking away the owners right to handle his PRIVATE property how he sees fit.

isn't mercy for animals a private org?

[Disclaimer]

He's in a government jail right now.

[jbot]

oh i'm sorry, i thought you were saying that government's extremely capable investigation team uncovered this. Cause last I heard, the last gov org that audited that particular farm gave it a big thumbs up. But you meant it as a poke about how a law enforcement agency shouldn't meddle in the affairs of a private corp on private property even though the actions of the private corp and it's employees were clearly illegal since it's somehow relevant to private property... i guess...

but yeah, they did a great job once a private org handed them evidence and did all the leg work. does this mean I'm should congratulate Obama for Mission Accomplished or should I just blame Bush?

[Disclaimer]

Cause last I heard, the last gov org that audited that particular farm gave it a big thumbs up.

This intrigues me, send me moar info.

Of course, I don't beat my girlfriend around company either.

But you meant it as a poke about how a law enforcement agency shouldn't meddle in the affairs of a private corp on private property even though the actions of the private corp and it's employees were clearly illegal since it's somehow relevant to private property... i guess...

Why is it illegal? Animals are property. Gov't and their laws meddling with private property. We don't need gov't oversight or anyone to go to jail over this... capitalism will take care of the problem, people will just quit buying dairy from Conklin's, right?

Does this mean I'm should congratulate Obama for Mission Accomplished or should I just blame Bush?

What are we celebrating again?

[jbot]

This intrigues me, send me moar info.

OP has the link. you can't rely on everyone else to do your work for you, gawd!

Of course, I don't beat my girlfriend around company either.

that's a good point. unfortunately, that is how government regulation works... using punitive measures for the sake of prevention. It gets the job done in many respects, but at the end of the day those who are out to do illegal things will do them when people who might care aren't around. so is this a gold star for "big government" regulation or is it something else?

In this case, the only reason the guy is in a "government jail" is because a private org investigated these people and then handed all their evidence over to the people that are supposed to be doing it in the first place.

Why is it illegal? Animals are property. Gov't and their laws meddling with private property. We don't need gov't oversight or anyone to go to jail over this... capitalism will take care of the problem, people will just quit buying dairy from Conklin's, right?

it's illegal because a bunch of people voted on it to make it illegal. not always right, but it reflects the will of the people even if the people are a bunch of retards. for example, polygamy was made illegal. fucking retards. but i suppose i could see why you'd be upset about this if you wanted it to be ok for a sadistic and pathetic version of larry the cable guy to beat the milk out of dairy cows instead of just milking them. that is also a right guaranteed to you thanks to the constitution. say "thanks, constitution!".

but yeah, the constitution doesn't say you can do illegal things on your private property. not sure where you are going with that idea. have you read the constitution? it can halp you properly apply it by not applauding unconstitutionally over reaching federal governments. although it will tell you you're allowed to applaud it if that is what you so desire. again, thanks, constitution! you're teh bestest!

and then here you go into free market economics and mix it with misdemeanors and the constitution for some reason. you're right of course... once people heard about it, conklin's farm customers may stop purchasing their products as a reaction... so? how does that apply to the illegally inhumane abuse of animals? how does it apply to unconstitutional federal governments? capitalism is not a government, it is an economic system.

what was your point again?

What are we celebrating again?

nobody knows.

[C-bus]

"Why is it illegal? Animals are property. Gov't and their laws meddling with private property. We don't need gov't oversight or anyone to go to jail over this... capitalism will take care of the problem, people will just quit buying dairy from Conklin's, right?" JRMMiii

Well, kind of. No, I don't want the government watching over us. But when a law is broken, I want the government to take action. The sadistic d-bag should go to jail. If the owner had knowledge of it, he should be punished AND "we, the people" shouldn't buy milk from them... hence shutting down the business. If the owner didn't have knowledge.... I mean REALLY didn't have knowledge, then it is up to him/her to make it right. If I owned it, I would have a large animal vet examin all animals, re-screen all employees, set up surveilance, and invite the USDA /whoever to periodic inspections. Dick-wads end up in every profession. Just think, this guy could have been your next moving violation.

[jessecwalters]

Absolutely, 100%

+1 to your +1

[Disclaimer]

OP has the link. you can't rely on everyone else to do your work for you, gawd!

In---->----> Out. Sry, I forgotted.

that's a good point. unfortunately, that is how government regulation works... using punitive measures for the sake of prevention. It gets the job done in many respects, but at the end of the day those who are out to do illegal things will do them when people who might care aren't around. so is this a gold star for "big government" regulation or is it something else?

My only point was saying that regulation is a deterrent, not a perfect one, but still a deterrent nonetheless. And typically, they're in the best interest of everyone regardless of what "market forces" dictate.

In this case, the only reason the guy is in a "government jail" is because a private org investigated these people and then handed all their evidence over to the people that are supposed to be doing it in the first place.

Like was said, I don't beat my g/f in public, and there's that 4th Amendment thing about not being allowed to barge in unannounced, unreasonably. I don't know if you give up that right when you sign up to farm?? Regardless, I don't necessarily chalk this up to a failure of a gov't org, but rather a score for a private org because they aren't bound by the same rules. Public and private working together in this case was pure win.

...then here you go into free market economics and mix it with misdemeanors and the constitution for some reason. ...capitalism is not a government, it is an economic system.

what was your point again?

I agree, the Constitution is not the same as capitalism (government structure vs. economic structure - as you pointed out). My point there was the typical GOP platform is less gov't + free market capitalism. While different, you do have to acknowledge that they commingle quite a lot. This is a case-in-point where neither of those structures would benefit anyone but the accused.

[NinjaNick]

If the owner had knowledge of it, he should be punished .

The owner was in the video kicking a cow while it laid on the ground.

[C-bus]

The owner was in the video kicking a cow while it laid on the ground.

Then he should be punished and I shall boycott his milk.

[SWing'R]

Sorry, just wanted to use the cow and milk carton images

[jbot]

In---->----> Out. Sry, I forgotted.

My only point was saying that regulation is a deterrent, not a perfect one, but still a deterrent nonetheless. And typically, they're in the best interest of everyone regardless of what "market forces" dictate.

i think we're saying the same thing. except i'm a little more pessimistic about regulation, i guess.

Like was said, I don't beat my g/f in public, and there's that 4th Amendment thing about not being allowed to barge in unannounced, unreasonably. I don't know if you give up that right when you sign up to farm?? Regardless, I don't necessarily chalk this up to a failure of a gov't org, but rather a score for a private org because they aren't bound by the same rules. Public and private working together in this case was pure win.

again, i look at it pessimistically. If there was enough suspicion by some outside or inside party, to the point where a private org with no law enforcement authority launched a semi involved infiltration and investigation, i find it unlikely that this info wasn't at least concurrently reported to the poh-lice. but who knows. maybe they just wanted to get mad hits on youtube.

I agree, the Constitution is not the same as capitalism (government structure vs. economic structure - as you pointed out). My point there was the typical GOP platform is less gov't + free market capitalism. While different, you do have to acknowledge that they commingle quite a lot. This is a case-in-point where neither of those structures would benefit anyone but the accused.

regardless of the "typical" GOP platform, the CURRENT platform of both major parties is more government (look at the massive increases in government spending, across the board!). Social programs, I'd almost say they are equally liberal with the balance of who benefits being drastically different.

As far as free market capitalism and laissez faire governance benefiting conklin's.... wat? free market capitalism would economically punish conklin's even more severely than socialist-ish or any other form of regulated market economy (in light of the horrific negative press via youtube) and the least intrusive of governments (even though most conservatives call for a more limited federal government, not so much state or local) would STILL punish illegal actions assuming the public believes the action to be illegal in the first place and that the law was being enforced... so just how "illegal" it is is left up to the public, as it should be. Unless you're saying anyone here is calling for NO law enforcement? but that wouldn't make any sense cause that's completely wrong.

Edited May 29, 2010 by jbot

[Disclaimer]

Yea, I think we are saying the same thing but our glass is at different levels of 'fullness', or 'emptyness' in your case.

As far as free market capitalism and laissez faire governance benefiting conklin's.... wat? free market capitalism would economically punish conklin's even more severely than socialist-ish or any other form of regulated market economy (in light of the horrific negative press via youtube) and the least intrusive of governments (even though most conservatives call for a more limited federal government, not so much state or local) would STILL punish illegal actions assuming the public believes the action to be illegal in the first place and that the law was being enforced...

And I guess that's my crux, "assuming the public believes the action to be illegal"... In the case of animal cruelty, the law has already determined animals are property. We have property rights/law. On the other hand, we as a society, have recognized animals should be treated humanely as 'organic beings'. So, they're property, but...they're not?

Regardless, I don't see how they market would punish them? I mean, if it's anything like the BP fiasco, that dairy farm probably supplies to multiple labels and is intertwined enough in the food chain that it would be almost impossible on a consumer level to boycott them. The distribution chain doesn't allow it. I may be wrong, but that's an assumption I'm making.

[jbot]

Yea, I think we are saying the same thing but our glass is at different levels of 'fullness', or 'emptyness' in your case.

And I guess that's my crux, "assuming the public believes the action to be illegal"... In the case of animal cruelty, the law has already determined animals are property. We have property rights/law. On the other hand, we as a society, have recognized animals should be treated humanely as 'organic beings'. So, they're property, but...they're not?

Regardless, I don't see how they market would punish them? I mean, if it's anything like the BP fiasco, that dairy farm probably supplies to multiple labels and is intertwined enough in the food chain that it would be almost impossible on a consumer level to boycott them. The distribution chain doesn't allow it. I may be wrong, but that's an assumption I'm making.

err... but the law does say abuse of animals is wrong even if they are property. most of the time, it ends up in fines or the animal being taken away but in some case, the bastards go to jail (i'm not sure if you heard of a guy named michael vick?). yeah the law says they're property, but as living things, responsibility is placed on the owner. i don't see any cause for confusion here.

the market punishes by not buying the product and in the scenario you bring up, demanding that distributors not carry the product. i have no idea how big conklin's farm is, but i'm doubting the supply chain is nearly as diverse or as complex as BP's so I'd imagine it's much easier to keep track of where it's sold. Also keep in mind, negative press in this case is on a different level of severe because there is malice and palpable suffering being displayed on video.... in the BP case, there isn't video of a oil rig worker beating at the safety mechanism to make it fail, and it is clear that the disaster is very financially harmful to BP (versus the economical harm of beating a cow already fated for the meat grinder) so they had no motivation to knowingly let the mechanism fail.

[Fonzie]

does this mean I'm should congratulate Obama for Mission Accomplished or should I just blame Bush?

[Disclaimer]

err... but the law does say abuse of animals is wrong even if they are property. most of the time, it ends up in fines or the animal being taken away but in some case, the bastards go to jail (i'm not sure if you heard of a guy named michael vick?). yeah the law says they're property, but as living things, responsibility is placed on the owner. i don't see any cause for confusion here.

I understand what the laws are, I just think it's interesting that animals are a special type of property class, and legally treated differently dependent on the circumstances involved in the situation.

...in the BP case, there isn't video of a oil rig worker beating at the safety mechanism to make it fail, and it is clear that the disaster is very financially harmful to BP (versus the economical harm of beating a cow already fated for the meat grinder) so they had no motivation to knowingly let the mechanism fail.

We have differing views on this as well. I have no empathy for BP regarding what happened. I couldn't care less that it's financially harmful to BP (boo hoo, here's my oil soaked mini violin)...They are just as culpable for having failed safety systems. And PEOPLE died because of it. As well as wasting natural resources and contaminating the environment. Their "disaster response" if you can call it that, is laughable. Seems like there was no "Exit strategy" or emergency plan if things went wrong (a la spill containment). I could rant on about the missteps regarding the BP issue, but we can take that to another thread.

Contrast this to a few sick-in-the-head farmhands getting their jollies off of beating cows. No harm was done to the environment, no disruption in the food chain, no people were killed... but this outrages people more than destroying a large portion of the oceanic ecosystem.

Perspective.

[Fonzie]

Their "disaster response" if you can call it that, is laughable. Seems like there was no "Exit strategy" or emergency plan if things went wrong (a la spill containment).

You mean FIVE friggin' weaks isn't a perfectly normal/acceptable timeframe to deal with this kind of thing?? Nor is trying the whacky idea of pumping "heavy mud" into the pipe/break to try & plug'er up??

I thought this was lightning quick reaction & service, coupled with cutting edge technology/ideas

[jbot]

I understand what the laws are, I just think it's interesting that animals are a special type of property class, and legally treated differently dependent on the circumstances involved in the situation.

We have differing views on this as well. I have no empathy for BP regarding what happened. I couldn't care less that it's financially harmful to BP (boo hoo, here's my oil soaked mini violin)...They are just as culpable for having failed safety systems. And PEOPLE died because of it. As well as wasting natural resources and contaminating the environment. Their "disaster response" if you can call it that, is laughable. Seems like there was no "Exit strategy" or emergency plan if things went wrong (a la spill containment). I could rant on about the missteps regarding the BP issue, but we can take that to another thread.

Contrast this to a few sick-in-the-head farmhands getting their jollies off of beating cows. No harm was done to the environment, no disruption in the food chain, no people were killed... but this outrages people more than destroying a large portion of the oceanic ecosystem.

Perspective.

i was supporting my point that while they intermingle, distinctions need to be made between constitutional rights, legislation/law, and economics, and arguing against the idea that big government and economic regulation would've helped in this case. but ok yeah, i guess it's interesting kittehs are not treated like lamp. although i love lamp. i also love sticking to the subject being discussed, since i only go off topic when a gang bang is involved.

as far as BP goes, we have differing views because you're taking my contrast of the two cases on a completely different application from what it was intended. You likened the two cases and said it would be difficult for consumers to "punish" conklins like it would be for people to avoid BP. I pointed out, in practical generalities, the reasons why the BP disaster won't have as much immediate acute impact on consumer opinion versus conklin's animal abuse as it relates to the free market's version of "punishment"... not a defense of BP.

so yeah, perspective is right.

[Disclaimer]

i was supporting my point that while they intermingle, distinctions need to be made between constitutional rights, legislation/law, and economics, and arguing against the idea that big government and economic regulation would've helped in this case. but ok yeah, i guess it's interesting kittehs are not treated like lamp. although i love lamp. i also love sticking to the subject being discussed, since i only go off topic when a gang bang is involved.

If a cop comes into your house and shoots your dog, or shoots your lamp -- they are treated equally in the eyes of the law. The State has to pay for civil damages, they aren't charged with murder or cruelty.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/family-mourns-after-pet-shot-by-cop

And as a CCW holder, you know that you don't have legal justification to shoot someone that is hurting/stealing/killing your pet because they are property.

I don't know how that is off topic?

as far as BP goes, we have differing views because you're taking my contrast of the two cases on a completely different application from what it was intended. You likened the two cases and said it would be difficult for consumers to "punish" conklins like it would be for people to avoid BP. I pointed out, in practical generalities, the reasons why the BP disaster won't have as much immediate acute impact on consumer opinion versus conklin's animal abuse as it relates to the free market's version of "punishment"... not a defense of BP.

And I don't think EITHER BP or Conklin will have an acute impact other than emotional outrage, and here's why. People see the Conklin and BP things and may be disturbed, upset, or outraged, but if anything - human psychology says people are resistant to change. They love the status quo. So, how many people do you think went out of their way to research Conklin/BP connections within the supply chain, write letters to those companies, willing to change their buying habits and preferences (even if it means finding a more expensive substitute) in order to make any sort of economic difference?

That was a rhetorical question - they're not. Look at Toyota - people still buy those cars regardless of the bad press, and the failure-mode there has potential to KILL you.

So, I contend there really isn't 'free market' punishment as people like to think because the "free market" isn't really as free as you like to think. You have limited income and therefore limited options to take your economic/political stand. You are constrained by that, which is why I have a little more optimistic view on regulations and laws (not necessarily the execution of the agencies that enforce them) as a deterrent. There are also a few other benefits from basically having a semi-standardized level playing field for all the industry players.

[max power]

I'd love to beat that guy in the face with a metal bar. Fucker.