Ag Gag supporters are opening a horrible door, while hiding abusers behind another
Imagine for a moment that someone hired to work on a home AC system sees a child being abused inside the home and takes a photo of the crime with his phone, to back up his 911 call to law enforcement. Those who support Ag Gag Laws would support charging the service person with a crime.
Suppose you are walking your dog and from your position on the sidewalk you see man inside his home punching his wife, near the front window. You pull out your smart phone and record the act, so that the video can be used to support the court case against the abuser. Those who support Ag Gag Laws suggest your actions should be a crime.
Suppose from one backyard, someone spots what he or she thinks is dog-fighting equipment in a nearby backyard and then a dog with severe facial injuries walks up to the fence. They take pictures of the equipment and the dog.
But when the police arrive later, the evidence is gone. When the compassionate person shows the photos they took earlier, Ag Gag supporters want that individual arrested, while the dog fighters walk free.
Those who support Ag Gag laws would suggest the crimes being committed are a matter of privacy for the criminals engaging in the abuse. Translated: ‘How dare anyone be bold enough to document the severe abuse of an innocent animal.‘
The primary goal of our criminal justice system should be to protect the innocent. The system should not work to protect abusers, while making criminals out of those who report the abuse.
PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic