Hacker News Reader

I think, in life, sometimes we just don't quite think things through. You're busy, preoccupied, whatever. You don't get all the facts and just assume the best. You get to the auction and realize your daughter loves the goat a lot. You don't spend all day in an analytical mode, anticipating the worst cases, and then things happen and it's then too late to act. It's like being careless where you park your nice car and having it get keyed.

We can hunch over a little more, strive to blend in, build taller fences, be more cynical, make a million plans and expect the worst, or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter.

> or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter

4-H auctions finance the programme. If the auctions become unreliable because parents couldn’t bother to identify an attachment early and message their intent to renegotiate a contract until right before the auction, the programme is threatened. It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser, its lawful owner, instead of asking the venue to void a contract. (EDIT: It appears they did and the buyer said they were fine reversing the contract. Nobody did anything to document this, however, and the family taking the goat home after the auction prejudiced them.)

It’s also against the pathos of the programme? Knowing you’re raising livestock is the point.

> It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser

I think they did? That's how I read "Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income" anyway.

> Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income

It wasn’t the Fair’s property. It was the purchaser’s. The loss of income wasn’t the point. The property interest was.

Oh okay, I think I don't fully understand how all of this works.

Either way, regardless of the legality of the matter, I don't think you should confuse "the legal thing to do" with "the moral thing to do". They are not always identical.

I don’t mean to attack you here, but I feel like it isn’t fair to paint my side of the argument as one of non empathy. I wish that the Shasta Farm Association and the dickhead that made the purchase would have said “let’s let it go”. But they didn’t, and I don’t agree that some egregious civil rights violation happened as a result. That is simply my opinion.

No, not an egregious civil rights violation, but an everyday, mundane brand of evil. Rules, contracts and law were duly followed, and empathy didn't come into the picture. Someone with power could have paused and tried to find an alternative path, but they didn't.

This reality exists in stark contrast to the one depicted in Hallmark and Disney films, but the sad part is how little effort separated this situation from an alternative outcome.

Fair enough. I agree.

> If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show.

What are you talking about? They kept it on property and law enforcement agents turned up (without a warant, inserting themselves into a civil dispute) and stole their goat.

This is the contentious point. What business did those law enforcement agents had to enter their private property and steal a goat from them?

> What business did those law enforcement agents had to enter their private property and steal a goat from them?

You can’t use property rights to defend the parents.

The goat had been auctioned. Arguing for the family is arguing for a compassionate carve-out from regular property rights.

> The goat had been auctioned.

And the family argued that they have backed out of the auction before it started. Thus they haven't sold the goat. Thus they own the goat.

Are they right? I don't know. But it is far from as straight forward as you depict it to be.

There may be a claim against the Fair, though that depends on the auction rules. (I’d be stunned if they permit day-of withdrawal.)

As for the cops, they got a warrant [1]. (It’s unclear if they had the right to return the property to the presumptive legal owner.)

[1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf page 9

> Arguing for the family is arguing for a compassionate carve-out from regular property rights.

Not really, the sheriffs traveled outside their county and seized the goat without a warrant.

Where I come from this is called “cattle rustling” and is a hanging offense. Well, not really since I’m originally from California but it is definitely an illegal search and seizure.

Pretty sure they could’ve just told the sheriffs to fuck off and called the local law enforcement to straighten out that mess but most people won’t do that because they show up with tactical body armor and assault rifles.

—edit—

Contrary to TFA they did indeed have a warrant to seize Cedar…a dubious warrant maybe but a warrant they did have.

The law enforcer cannot trespass the land especially if he is not from their state. Some states also allow these out of state law enforcer to be exterminated on probable cause as well. Dox these law enforcers names and also the fair's committee. Election is coming. Everything is legal during election time including doxing.

What are you talking about? Is everyone who responded completely unfamiliar with agriculture and 4H programs? The animal was bought to be auctioned, and WAS auctioned at the 4H fair. The article literally says the girl had a breakdown _at_ the auction.

> Is everyone who responded completely unfamiliar with agriculture and 4H programs?

I don't know about other people, but I'm happy to admit that I'm unfamiliar with agriculture and 4H programs.

> The article literally says the girl had a breakdown _at_ the auction.

The Sacramento Bee article linked by the Guardian article says that they expressed their wish to not sell the goat before the auction.

"Before the auction began, the family asked to back out but fair officials refused, saying fair rules prohibited that and put the goat up for auction,..."

That sounds like a civilian dispute. Did the owner/family had the right to back out of the auction at that point or did they not? How can a law enforcement agent become a judge to decide on this?

> they expressed their wish to not sell the goat before the auction

On the day of. Most auctions don’t permit this. (Again, livestock auctions have a lot of law around them. Their orderly functioning underlies several states’ economies. Teaching this is sort of 4-H’a point.)

> can a law enforcement agent become a judge to decide on this?

They got a warrant [1]

[1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf page 9

> Teaching this is sort of 4-H’a

Well this person certainly learned an important lesson about where meat comes from.

> They got a warrant.

By misrepresenting facts. And then the warrant didn't authorise them to hand the goat over to some other third party.

> misrepresenting facts

This is alleged. Broadly speaking, a complaint alleging a “sham warrant” admits it’s on thin ice.

> the warrant didn't authorise them to hand the goat over to some other third party

The complaint alleges this. It’s a question of civil procedure.

> If she bonded that closely to the animal they should have kept it on the property and not brought it to the 4H show

By my reading, the family did not bring the goat to the 4H auction. Rather it seems 4H loaned them the goat to raise, with the intent that 4H would sell it at auction later.

Viewing this through the simplistic lens of property can only lead to a single conclusion. The real question is about the failings of the property model when it comes to pets. Most people consider it abhorrent that the compensation for a pet dog being murdered is anchored around the economic value of "one dog", rather than the dog's life itself plus the pain and suffering of losing a family member. And of course, our society categorically rejects the administration of human relationships in terms of property interests.

It's not a stretch to say that by raising the goat, the girl developed a type of interest in it. And to point out there was a straightforward way to respect the girl's interest while also respecting the economic interest - give the family the right of first refusal at the auction, or other appropriate compensation as the family had seemingly offered.

Dogs that go to a no kill shelter get transferred to the kill shelter if they aren’t adopted

Yeah there’s not a magical supply of no-kills, and even if they are they fill up darn fast.

> It sounds like they brought this goat to auction where it was sold and then tried to re-neg on the sale.

Wrong.

You did not read the article closely, or you would not have made that assumption. Frankly you had no reason to make such an assumption even without reading it.

Complaint: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf

Except I’m not wrong:

“On June 24, 2022, accompanied by Plaintiff Jessica, Plaintiff E.L. exhibited Cedar at Shasta District Fair in the junior livestock auction.”

Since we’re making assumptions about each other apparently, I’ll assume you’re from San Fransisco or Toronto or some other urban center where livestock auctions aren’t common. So allow me to inform you that the purpose of a livestock auction is to bid on livestock which most of the time will end up being bred or slaughtered.

I would be surprised if anyone was under the impression that the purpose of a livestock auction was … to raise pets?

Me too, which is why this whole incident and some of the posters here reaction to it is so strange. They never should have entered the goat into the 4H show.

Yeah, it's kind of weird. Apparently they went through with the auction all the way past bidding, and then decided they didn't want to sell. The auction had no legally binding agreement that could prevent this, but they seemed to believe that they did. Fair enough, I certainly would think backing out of an auction after selling wouldn't be possible.

You clearly didn't read the complaint. It states that they tried to back out at the auction, both before and after bidding had concluded, and then taking the goat and sending it to a friends farm hundreds of miles away while continuing to try to negotiate.

That's correct. And at the time they first "tried" to back out, the goat had not been sold. At that point, everybody was on notice that the goat was not for sale. No valid sale could have occurred after that first attempt. It's not that they "tried" to back out. They did back out. And the only available remedy for that was money damages, not random extraducial confiscation of property.

By the way, on top of that, California law explicitly gives minors the right to back out of major sales even after they are concluded. So in fact they couldn't even have gotten money damages.

> No valid sale could have occurred after that first attempt

Auctions have rules. I don’t know this one’s, the complaint [1] omits much of them, but every one I’ve participated in bars backing out on the day of the auction. If you change your mind, you bid for your item.

[1] https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/2022-08-31-Complaint.pdf

Irrelevant. She is a minor.

> Irrelevant. She is a minor.

The relevant California code (§ 6710) is superseded by federal livestock auction law [1]. Also, most contracts require the minor and a parent or guardian sign specifically to avoid this.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packers_and_Stockyards_Act

It’s a goat. It’s a young child.

Surely the world won’t stop because a minor doesn’t understand the full ramifications of a contract.

Get off your high horse.