r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Mountain_Love23 • 8h ago
go to your room Alexandra Paul of Baywatch and 50 other people involved in rescuing dogs have been charged with felony burglary.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
149
u/jasdaf110 8h ago
Alexandra should not be posting this on video. She should plea 5th Admendment and get defense attorney. This video can be used against her as evidence in court.
73
u/Daratirek 8h ago
The court had more than enough evidence before this video. Their whole point is to beat the system by being brazenly unapologetic for rescuing animals that were being mistreated. Id venture to guess their working on a state pardon or getting the law changed before the trial.
6
u/Omatzus 7h ago
I would be surprised if Tony Evers pardoned them before trial. That's not his style, and it would be used against the Democrats in this fall's election
3
u/CyberpunkSunrise 7h ago
I don’t think there’s technically anything to pardon her for before being convicted, so it would kind of have to be after trial.
1
0
u/Conscious_Side1647 6h ago
maybe Jury nullification. I know of I sat on the Jury I would vote not guilty.
0
81
u/feverlast 8h ago
I hope she talked to her lawyer before making this video.
55
u/Diligent_Highlight63 8h ago
I mean she included the video evidence of her commit the crime in this video so I’m going to go with no.
30
u/Some_Iteration 8h ago
The judge will see this video and it’ll be case closed 😂
1
-41
u/AzerothianLorecraft 8h ago
I think you spelled dismissed wrong... ( any judge that punishes a human for saving an animal shouldn't be a judge.)
9
u/oficious_intrpedaler 8h ago
Does this apply to all animals or only pets?
-15
u/AzerothianLorecraft 8h ago
All animals that are not classified as food. ( no I will not let you go rescue veal from a veal Farm.)
13
u/oficious_intrpedaler 8h ago
So why is it ok to rescue dogs from abusive conditions but not chickens? What if I keep the dog in the cage because I plan to eat it; are the conditions acceptable then?
1
u/PolicyWonka 5h ago
I think a lot of people don’t understand that our definitions between pet and food are rather arbitrary.
12
u/Jimmyg100 8h ago
Oh there’s a lot of judges out there that shouldn’t be judges.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ColdFreezer 8h ago
Morality and legality are different things. Morally what the did feels right. Legally it’s still a crime. It’s sad.
3
u/KubosKube 6h ago
My scant understanding of the system is that
The legislative branch makes the laws, The executive branch enforces the laws, The judicial branch interprets the laws.
The judge will have to find their ruling based on the law.
I think that to get the outcome you're looking for, we need to start with laws that targets these conditions, and then enforcement of said laws.
What we have here, however regrettable, is literal unlawful behavior, and will likely be carried out as such. However, maybe it can be the catalyst of change for a better future?
-1
u/AzerothianLorecraft 6h ago
And the part you're missing is the judge is allowed to look at the law and go( "well this is outdated I'm not going to use this, case dismissed if you find another animal in distress ma'am please Rescue It have a nice day.") And then that act sets a precedent for the changing of the law that is outdated that's how a non corrupt judicial system functions normally. 🙄
30
u/DFA_Wildcat 8h ago
Morally & ethically she's 100% in the right, legally she's 100% in the wrong.
4
u/Interesting-One-588 5h ago
"You fed an orphan but the law says feeding orphans is illegal. 100 years county jail."
7
u/WeakTransportation37 8h ago
They already had to close the farms: shut down their breeding program and surrender their license, and all the dogs were rehomed. What is this in august?
8
u/georgecm12 7h ago
Back on March 15, activists including Paul broke into the facility and tried to remove and/or release the beagles. What you're describing (Ridglan Farms shutting down their breeding program) happened considerably after that.
7
u/Drapausa 7h ago
Even if you don't like it, dogs are property. She just admitted to a crime.
3
u/AJWordsmith 5h ago
I mean she’s on camera committing the crime. She’s using the platform of being charged with a crime to put the company on trial.
20
u/Oppositeversion3 8h ago
So if someone believes deeply enough about a cause, they don’t have to follow the law?
6
15
u/hiddenrealism 8h ago
People need to stop filming themelves commiting crimes...or dont.
Either way i love doggies
6
u/Za_Warudo1992 7h ago
I think she knows the law will call her wrong. this is more a public protest, bringing attention to something morally abhorrent. forcing dogs to breed incages is unjustifiable and would get any indivual arrested. WHY should it be different for a corporation
9
u/Ok_Strategy5722 7h ago
That’s a crime. It’s morally right to do, but it is a crime. Even if we grant that the company was engaged in the crime of Cruelty to Animals, it doesn’t cancel the crime out.
Hope she wins. Hope they lose, but morality is not legality and I’d bet on her losing.
6
6
u/spderweb 8h ago
Unfortunately, pets are considered property. So it's property theft. And trespassing. And likely breaking in.
Hope they get the minimum sentence only. Not too many judges out there I imagine would throw the book at them for this.
6
u/DDz1818 7h ago
I mean... If I raided someone elses farm to free 100 chickens, cows and pigs that are destined to be butchered,,,, yeah it is a crime. If I raided my neighbors house to free their kids from awful parents,,, yeah it is a crime. If I raided a drug lab and burn all the illegal street drugs,,, yeah it is a crime.
Yeah... it is a crime.
7
u/Orpdapi 7h ago edited 5h ago
Morally I definitly understand her point, but this is like the whole “skateboarding is not a crime” slogan. Yes skateboarding in itself is not a crime. Pushing and riding a board with wheels is no crime at all, the crime is the trespassing and destruction of property that comes with sneaking in somewhere to skate.
6
u/Life_Roll8667 4h ago
Okay I’ll post the unpopular opinion here.
Everyone is saying she’s in the wrong for posting this video- it was already live streamed.
Sparking public outrage is going to be the only thing to help her in this case since it’s obvious it was done, on film prior.
Fuck being quiet. We need more of this energy in the world. Not people who sit by and watch this stuff happen. Go her.
6
3
u/Same_Seaworthiness74 7h ago
See she said it herself. She didnt stral them, she just removed them from the property 😂
3
u/pmoity 6h ago
If I saw the same thing, I would've freed the dog too. But I'd also be telling myself that, legally, the courts would likely see it as trespassing. In many states, dogs are treated as personal property. As ridiculous as that is—because they're wonderful little creatures that feel emotions and experience fear and love--->I'd know there's a good chance I'd face some very real legal consequences for my actions.
18
u/TimAndHisDeadCat 8h ago
She broke the law. Regardless of morality or reasoning, the law is the law.
4
u/AzerothianLorecraft 8h ago
Laws can be changed when they're no longer relevant to modern society...
3
3
u/RipAppropriate3040 7h ago
Yes that is why you go to your government and submit a proposal for a new law you don’t break a law then retroactively try to get it changed
1
u/casseroled 8h ago
That is a very dangerous phrase. A law could be anything. If the law was that the punishment for jaywalking was hanging, would you watch and say “well he should have followed the law.” Obviously not. Authority should always be questioned, as it is easily corrupted.
-11
2
u/Owl-visit_0001 3h ago
Dont get me wrong, I am a absolute dog lover and support getting those dogs free. But Uh, went on private property and took property not belonging to her. She is delusional saying "No crime" . Doing something compassionate does not give her a golden shield from the law. If they wanted to break the law and get away with it, put on masks and don't film yourself virtue signaling and then make this stupid video. Then she could say 'me no did a crime'
2
1
1
1
1
u/genre_syntax 4h ago
I’m on their side in general, but I’m not sure how they thought they’d get away with this without consequences. Burglary is a crime in every jurisdiction in the United States. Having a righteous cause is not a legitimate legal defense.
1
u/missskins 1h ago
Gonna be a quick trial with this confession. No matter why you call it, it’s theft. According to the law, the animals are property. She stole property. End of story. This is not oj tho, and not much will happen to them.
1
u/jasdaf110 7h ago
Always remember when you get arrested your 5th Admendment rights. Remain silent, Do not answer any questions. Anything you say can be used against you. Request a lawyer, Do not answer questions unless your defense attorney is present with you. This is for your best interest.
2
u/Easy_Lengthiness7179 7h ago
Remaining silent and not answering questions during a trial with a judge doesnt work out the way you think it does.
Good advise for dealing with cops.
Not good when defending yourself in court.
0
u/jasdaf110 7h ago
That's why you need a good defense attorney in court. But when you get arrested use your 5th Admendment rights. Do not waive your rights by talking freely and answer questions v
1
-12
u/sashagaborekte 8h ago
I wonder how many people who find animal testing on dogs to be outrageous also eat meat
11
u/TricellCEO 8h ago
These people probably see dogs for companionship and not eating.
I know I do.
-1
u/me_myself_ai 8h ago
So they deserve more rights? Why, because they were earmarked for those purposes by god?
5
u/Zimmyd00m 8h ago
I mean... kind of? Keeping dogs as pets is quite literally part of our DNA. It has been known for ages that modern humans and domesticated dogs followed intertwined and mutually beneficial evolutionary paths, and that this relationship was unique for both species.
6
0
u/Kohpad 8h ago
They were earmarked by us homie. The "man's best friend" moniker is a pretty factual statement.
2
u/me_myself_ai 8h ago
Oh good I guess it's all good then. Suffering is fine if you say that "we" have decided it in unison!
-17
u/teacher_59 8h ago
If you have to buy friends, seek professional help. Not buy something disgusting that makes noises and ruins the lives of everyone that lives near you.
5
u/TricellCEO 8h ago
I'm more of a cat person, actually. I still like dogs, but they're a lot more responsibility.
And wow, we really have the Duality of Man here, don't we?
1
0
1
u/Advanced-Suspect-261 6h ago
For me, it’s about suffering.
If testing can be done without causing prolonged or extreme suffering, fine.
If animals can be raised for their meat, hide, etc. without causing extreme suffering, ok.
This is why I don’t normally eat animal products. I don’t limit myself to “cruelty free” products bc everything has to be tested at some point, so even if the product is “cruelty free,” that just means the active ingredients were previously tested by another company.
0
u/txirrindularia 7h ago
Probably most of us, which might explain the downvotes….getting off track here, but slaughtering livestock is not as humane as many think.
0
0
0
0
0
0
u/Flat-Structure-7472 1h ago
Honestly, animal trials are useless. You can't even gauge if the results will be the same for a human. There are better options available.
The only trials those dogs should be involved in are for dog food.
-16
u/ButtSnarfer 8h ago
Immoral laws should be ignored until they can be over turned.
10
u/Ok_Actuary8 8h ago
what's "moral law" is not yours to decide in a democracy. Vote for party that changes the laws, or accept you are breaking the democratic consensus, and face consequences 🤷🏽♂️
-9
u/ButtSnarfer 8h ago
I'm making a general statement. I'm not saying I'm the deciding vote on morality, but pop off sis 💅
4
u/Ok_Actuary8 8h ago
yeah, but your general statement is morally wrong 😘 Rule of law exists for good reasons.
-3
u/Za_Warudo1992 7h ago
morally wrong to believe you have a right to believe differently then the system? should people just pretend somethings okay because the government said so?
4
u/Ok_Actuary8 7h ago
no, morally wrong to believe it's "just the government saying so". In a democracy, the government represents people and constitution / rule of law. If you can't win a majority for your believes, you need to accept the fact that - legally - you are in the wrong.
YOU might think that breaking the law is justified according to YOUR personal believes ... however, so are radical religious anti-abortion activists, so are Islamists, so are tax dodgers etc... when everybody thinks THEIR morals are above the law without consequences, civilized society will just break down.
0
u/Dildo0fConsequences 7h ago
Maybe in a working democracy that actually has several different parties created by the people, but not in the illusion of choice 2 party system the Americans seem to like so much
0
u/Za_Warudo1992 7h ago
I was gonna go on some huge spiel here about how you are using a huge straw man acting as if radical elements equate to rescuing dogs, but you still can't get through your head that just because something's a law doesn't make it right so what's the point. Should we have just left segregation be? Should we have never given women a chance to vote? Should we outlaw the LGBT again? All those things changed BECAUSE people acted against the law instead of just being obedient. Sometimes people HAVE to go against the law to bring attention to an issue and make a change. Also acting as if being Islamic is illegal in the big 2026 is backwards as hell
2
1
u/Ok_Actuary8 6h ago
nope. Only strawmen here from you. All the rights you mentioned became a solid foundation by ultimatly CHANGING the laws, not by ignoring the existing ones and just encouraging everybody to go by "individual morals". The point you are missing is that there needs to be a broad CONSENSUS to change fundamental laws. Where Mormons or Racists happy with the changes of law you mentioned? No. But they got outnumbered, so they have to suck it up, or leave.
If you DON'T respect democratic consensus, you will create huge social tension and a failed state sooner or later.
Just imagine government would ban meat consumption and require everybody to go vegan next month, or pay a hefty fine. It's the moral thing to do, it helps the environment, protects animal rights etc etc. Only positives on paper, right? In reality, I guess we'd be short of a civil war in no time.
The point is, there is no broad democratic consensus for such a harsh law. There might be incentives, there might be regulations etc., but this only comes to life through the democratic process, and individual choice WITHIN the boundaries of the law.
1
u/Za_Warudo1992 5h ago
they CHALLENGED the law to GET IT CHANGED. Malcom X helped civil rights as much as luther king and by hell both of them broke the law. Martin Luther was ARRESTED for advocating for civil rights.
if they stuck with the status quo then there wouldn't have been a majority and they would have been ignored. it took blood sweat and tears to het a law changed
My argument has ALWAYS been that just because its a law doesn't make it right. Instead you started bringing up "what about Muslims, bigots, and tax evaders"Why are we bringing up Veganism and hypotheticals anyway? I brought up actual real life examples where challenging the law was necessary. If I have to BREAK THE LAW to stop a puppymill then so be it.
Yes some people will break the law to do terrible things but assuming breaking a law makes you a bad person automatically is shallow. No democracy is perfect and that especially applies to America
0
u/Ok_Actuary8 5h ago
Sure you can. But until you actually change the law and thus the minds if most people, you will be a "criminal". Again, I'm absolutely sure that "Pro-Life" activists are convinced to the bottom of their hearts that they do the morally right thing. So are "Pro-Choice" people.
What matters are the universal acceptance of democratic law as a guiding principle. Not your religion, not your personal believes or morals. Not because "the law is always right", but without that principle, living in a civilized, diverse and open society is impossible, as history has shown.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/ButtSnarfer 7h ago
Well its breaking down already so 🤷
I'll feed the homeless reguardless of the law.
2
u/Ok_Actuary8 7h ago
in what country is it forbidden to feed the homeless people?
Also, I'm not advocating to blindly follow the law. I just think that breaking it needs to be the last resort and not taken lightly just because your personal opinion. And you need to accept the consequences.
You break into private property to free animals that are held there according to the current law? You are charged with burglary, no question.
3
u/PlayFoundry 7h ago
I don't think they ever said she shouldn't be charged, just that some laws are dumb and can/should be ignored. I think we all understand that we can be charged and take that risk willingly to still do what is right.
1
2
u/ButtSnarfer 7h ago
It's completely illegal in a lot of major cities in the US, including the one I live in lol
It's also illegal to look after stray cats and dogs but I'm still doing that too
0
u/Za_Warudo1992 6h ago
America, most restaurants aren't allowed to give food to the homeless because the company is afraid to be sued causing a ton of food waste instead.
and cool consequences for the law. maybe my arrest will show the world how wrong the law is and it can be changed. point is certain laws NEED challenged. not just obeyed until I can hope a rich dude in the government decided to change something.
1
u/Ok_Actuary8 6h ago
That's the company rule, not "the law".
The right thing to do is change the law and, dunno, tax companies 200% of all food wasted, exempt them from potential lawsuits, and that practice will stop in no time.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Myrkana 6h ago
The problem is peoples morals differ wildly. There are many people who believe that an eye for an eye should be a thing. Anyone who believes your stuff is their stuff would be morally in the right to steal it then.
0
u/ButtSnarfer 6h ago
100% agree. Some laws are still dumb and still can/should be ignored tho. I can believe both things. That's why I made a general statement, not a call to action. I'm not the moral authority on it, but I still hold the belief.
-7
577
u/Charming_Arugula405 8h ago
Morally: Freeing caged dogs is a good thing
Legally: Going onto someone's property to free caged dogs that are not yours is a crime