Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Fair Officials Send Cops to Seize Child's Pet Goat" video.

That’s not accurate. The fair executive was offered just compensation: the original commission amount + whatever additional money would be needed to compensate for costs and inconvenience. That was made clear in the video. The executive’s real motivations were something different than greed.
18
Interesting story. Like the goat case, I feel somewhat puzzled in addition to being horrified. I mean, what a weird flex, right? Do you need someone to feel your muscles and tell you how powerful you are? I believe in following the rules, but I also believe there are times when judgement and discretion can outweigh the rules. There’s a weird sort of pride going on in the people you’re talking about.
14
@NightStalkers-hx3dq They acted on information without checking it, and then they acted unlawfully. Was the animal stolen or wasn’t it? If it was, it’s evidence in a criminal case. You do not return it to the owner until the case is resolved. If the answer is, “we’re not sure because there is a dispute over ownership”, you do not merely return it to the person claiming it was stolen. You hand the animal to the court, as Steve outlined. The Sheriff’s office did not act according to law in this case, and they own a share of the blame. Law enforcement does not judge matters of ownership. They do not judge enforceability of contracts. They do not get to award pet custody. Judges have the authority to do that an not the police. You get the point? Even if the assumption had proven to be correct, the Sheriff’s department acted contrary to law.
7
@katehobbs2008 Yes, but it would have taken the cops 5-10 minutes on the phone to discover that this was a civil dispute, not a criminal case. So 50% a malicious person making a false report of stolen property and 50% lazy or incompetent policing.
2
@tcolondovich2996 It might or might not have been upheld, but the point is that the decision would be made in court by a person appointed to make that decision, not by the police acting on a potentially false criminal report. The legitimacy of contracts is NOT within the purview of the police. They do not have the power to render judgement over contractual disputes. The Shasta County Sheriff’s Department really screwed up on this case.
2
@tcolondovich2996 you’re arguing facts not in evidence. You’ve exceeding the known facts of the case, trying to stretch it to fit your point of view. Here’s the main fact that you have not been able to overcome: the goat in question was NEVER deemed to be the property of those that reported the theft. Furthermore, the sheriff’s department could have determined that there was a controversy over ownership by ASKING QUESTIONS. The department assigned a detective to the job. Isn’t that part of a detective’s job description, to ask questions. I would be shocked if the Shasta Sheriff’s Department has never encountered a false stolen property report. Do they not have a procedure for determining if a case is legitimate before they start seizing property? I’ll let your other factual errors slide. The main one is egregious enough: you seem to think police have the competence or have the authority to judge ownership issues.
2
I don’t want to imply that Shasta County is full of Nazis, but it is full of Ku Klux Klan.
1
I think the 4F Fair executive should be learning a lesson. I’d like to see her original report of stolen property.
1
@Lessenjr It doesn’t mean “at random”, it means according 1) choice or decision based on whim or desire rather than on system or reason.
1
@rustyshackelford3371 get back to your pocket sand
1
Don’t believe everything you hear about California. It could be you’re listening to political nutcases with an agenda.
1
@TheNicii Whether the contract was voidable is something that should be resolved in civil court. In the meantime, the cops can take the goat to the court and say, “here, you hold on to it until the matter is resolved”. (Or they could have said, “we located the goat at the Napa Goat Center and they’ve agreed to take custody of the goat until the matter is resolved”. The police do NOT decide whether or not a contract is voidable or legitimate. That’s not within their authority. So those were at least two of the mistakes the Shasta County Sheriffs made. The course of events suggest that the county fair official made a false report. I would say that the sheriff’s detective that took the call made a mistake by not questioning the official about her report of a crime. That’s the third mistake, and I hope they prosecutor is looking into the false report (if one was made). This isn’t a case where the sheriff’s hands were tied, and the deputies had to follow the law. This is a case where, among other things, the sheriff’s department made very bad decisions and didn’t follow the law. They used “self-help”. The problem is compounded by the department not checking the report and not questioning the person making the report. Isn’t that what a detective is supposed to do? “What were the circumstances of the theft? Where was the goat stolen from and who stole it?” Are these not questions that normally get asked when there is a report of stolen property? I’m not going to give the sheriff’s department a pass here because “they were just doing their jobs”. They did their jobs poorly and not according to the law. I don’t think they’re the main culprit, but they are not far behind.
1
@TheNicii I’ll agree to your stipulation while maintaining that the cops could have done a much better job.☝️ 😸
1
@madmaximilian5783 or in this case, they could have kept the goat under civil asset forfeiture. At least then the goat might still be alive.
1
@brt5273 If the pet goat was stolen property, wouldn’t the goat be held as evidence while the case was being investigated? Or why would it be returned to the people reporting it stolen if it was decided by the sheriff’s criminal investigators that no crime was committed?
1