Slashdot Mirror


Drone Photos Lead to Indictment For Texas Polluters

In January of this year, we posted news of a major pollution site in Texas that was the subject of some anonymous amateur sleuths with drones, who used their UAVs to document the release of a "river of blood" (pig blood, that is) into the Trinity River as it flows through Dallas. Now, garymortimer writes, that documentation has resulted in legal action in the form of an indictment from a Dallas grand jury. "The story went viral and continues to receive hits nearly a year later. I believe this is the first environmental crime to be prosecuted on the basis of UA evidence. Authorities had to act because of the attention the story was receiving."

45 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Would have preferred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would have preferred to see: "Authorities had to act because it was the right thing to do". Not because it has become a public spectacle.

    1. Re:Would have preferred by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seriously.

      Folks lambaste the "Court of Public Opinion" for subverting the justice system, but that seems to be the only one that works sometimes.

  2. Pig blood, that is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Red gold. Texas tea.

  3. I believe this is the first by koan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And most likely one of the last as new regulations pushed forth by corporate lobbies will restrict drone use or create "air space" restrictions over corporate land.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re: I believe this is the first by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, but what little good drones over corporate lands would do would likely be far outweighed by the good a law that prevents the pervert down the street from doing the same to you. I welcome any law that stops this nonsense before it gets out of hand. One good deed does not make drones a good thing.

    2. Re: I believe this is the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it's way to time consuming (ie: expensive) to find the right shots, so it will just be a bunch of porn actresses pretending they had no idea they left their curtains open for the hovering drone. You know, just like all the movies where that chick has never really thought about kissing a girl before, but... what they heck....oh, hey, turns out that first-timer eats pussy like a pro.

    3. Re: I believe this is the first by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So... you're afraid of technology? Got it. Please turn over your geek card on the way out.
      Geeks love and fear technology. Gotta get me a GPS, gotta get me an iphone, gotta get me an internet enabled car, gotta put my data in the cloud. Oh noes! The GPS knows where I am! My Iphone is collecting my data! My car is broadcasting my bad driving habits to my insurance company! The cloud is selling off my private data!

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re: I believe this is the first by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It is already illegal to take pictures that one would have to take extraordinary means to take. Taking a photo from the street is fine. Getting up on a ladder and taking a photo would be illegal.

      Getting on a ladder is "extraordinary means"?

      Taking a photo from a drone would be similarly illegal.

      Aircraft were arguably invented for scouting, photos have been taken from them for as long as photos have existed. Taking a photo from an aircraft is not illegal, what do you think "satellite" view in Google Earth is?

  4. legal stuff by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence but guess what, past a thousand feet above your property or whatever the hell it is, you don't own a damn thing so say cheese and see you in court.

    1. Re:legal stuff by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      The rules were written for audio. Not inexpensive consumer grade video taken from your personal helicopter.

    2. Re:legal stuff by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "That depends there is a consenting party to that conversation:"

      It also depends on what state you are in. Only twelve states (according to that Wikipedia article) have all-party consent laws. A sad minority, if you ask me. I think "one-party consent" is a completely ridiculous standard.

    3. Re:legal stuff by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Why is it ridiculous to make it legal to record what people say to me? If you don't want it on record, don't say it.

    4. Re:legal stuff by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In this case, let's look at the one party consent with a different viewpoint:

      You really DO pay all your bills, and make use of automatic bill payments via your banking institution.

      One day, you get a call from a collections agency. They inform you that they are calling on behalf of some organization that you have never heard of before, and that they are authorized to collect an obscenely large debt. (The exact mechanism of how this has come about is insubstantial. Could have been identity theft. Could have been straight up wire fraud. Does not matter. A debt was created, it wasn't created by you, it has gone to collections, and the collections people have your number.)

      You politely inform them that they must be mistaken, that you did not create said debt, and further do not have ay relationship whatsoever with their client.

      They become beligerent, and make demands. Start telephone harrassment.

      You live in a 1 party consent state, so you elect to capture their abusive telephone practices as evidence.

      They call, you press record.

      They continue their beligerence, insisting upon your culpability for the debt. You inform them that you are going to seek the services of an attourney, if they continue to harrass you. They rudely assert that their telephone activities are not harrassment, and persist on the hardliner of your owing a debt, and demand to know when you will be making payment. You tell them to stop calling you, and to please send all correspondence by mail, say goodbye, and hang up.

      They call back immediately. You press record.

      For the next few days, as they continue their nonstop harrassment, you repeatedly tell them to cease telephone communications, and to correspond by mail, until they tell you that they don't have to comply with that request, until they have received a letter from you making that request in writing. Thank them for the information, and ask why they didn't reveal it sooner. They get beligerent again, and hang up rudely.

      You will have by this time contacted an attourney, and established a legal relationship. You also mail them the written letter stating that they are to preform all contact via writing with your attourney, the address of his office, and the case number, with postal service reciept confirmation.

      They call you. You press record.

      You inform them that the letter to cease telphone collections has been mailed, and inform them about the attourney. They become beligerent, and essentially call you a deadbeat debt holding liar.

      Harrassing telephone calls continue. You record them.

      The postal service mails you deliery confirmation on your written letter.

      The call you. You press record.

      They demand to know when you will pay, and state that they are considering legal action. You inform them that they are in violation of consumer protection laws by contacting you directly, after having received written instructions to preform all collections by mail via your attourney. They assert no such letter has arrived. You inform them that you have delivery confirmation from the postal service asserting that it most certainly did, along with the tracking number, then demand the contact information for their attourney and the case number, concerning their threatened legal action. They become beligerent, call you a liar again, and hang up.

      Harrassing telephone calls continue.

      You present your collected telephone conversations to your attourney.

      He sues the living fuck out of the collections agency on your behalf.

      Without the one party consent recordings, you would have no documentation or evidence of the abusive practices of the collections agency, and would not have a case.

      With them, you nail their testicles to the wall as a monument against abusive practices.

      Naturally, a debt collector would *NEVER* consent to being so recorded, EXACTLY because of this potential liability. This is why 2 party consent for telephone recordings is very bad for average citizens, seeking legal remedies, and very good for abusive institutions. One party consent allows either end to record telephone calls for illegal and abusive behaviors, and to seek legal remedies as appropriate.

      One party consent makes a shitton of sense.

  5. You are so naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Morality only applies to commoners. The first casualty of wealth is the soul.

    Authorities largely exist to protect the wealth of the rich. Ostensibly they also protect the safety of the poor, but orders of magnitude more law-enforcement money is spent on protecting the rich from threats to their wealth.

    I agree that this is not how the world should be. But this state of things is a natural consequence of human behavior. Our only defense against it is eternal vigilance (and that means you).

    1. Re:You are so naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Morality only applies to commoners. The first casualty of wealth is the soul.

      Authorities largely exist to protect the wealth of the rich. Ostensibly they also protect the safety of the poor, but orders of magnitude more law-enforcement money is spent on protecting the rich from threats to their wealth.

      I agree that this is not how the world should be. But this state of things is a natural consequence of human behavior. Our only defense against it is eternal vigilance (and that means you).

      A rather naive statement aswell. A product of the times I suppose, and appropriate for this time.

      The Authority exists to protect the powerful. It could be some madman bent on burinig money and living on bread and water.

      It's rather daft when people proclaim that money is power, because it's the opposite that's really true. Money is only power if the people in power allow it to be.

      Morality applies to all men, the problem is context. As an extreme example: Your mother's death will save millions of lives, which do you choose? This can be extended into to political choices, simply because a single decisions aren't about black and white. The problem really is the political system we use.

      A world that should be would be a Direct Democracy that would give more voting power to people who vote on decisions that improve the society, and penalize the wrong vote (to a degree). This however has so many technical and political problems it's thousands of years off.

    2. Re:You are so naive by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm getting really sick of this tiresome rant popping up on every single Slashdot story. Government is corrupt. Corporations rule the world. We are all slaves. blah blah blah!

      Can't you guys give it a rest?

      Why do you always post your rants as AC anyway?

      And why twist any poorly phrased summary into a soap box?

      There is only this one guy, Gary Mortimer, stating that "public pressure forced the government to act". More likely it was the first time someone brought them proof sufficient to obtain a warrant to search over private lands. You clowns would be the first to complain if the government started flying their own drones, or trespassing across private lands to sample the creek.

      Take you tinfoil hat off for just a few minutes each day.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:You are so naive by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I'm getting really sick of this tiresome rant popping up on every single Slashdot story. Government is corrupt. Corporations rule the world. We are all slaves. blah blah blah!

      Can't you guys give it a rest?

      Why do you always post your rants as AC anyway?"

      Sadly, while I might once have agreed with everything you said, I fear that times have changed -- or perhaps it's just that the Net has allowed the truth to be revealed in a way that governments can no longer control.

      Everywhere you look these days, there are many and varied examples of government being driven, directed and controlled by industries and those with lots (of money) at stake.

      Look at Kim Dotcom for instance -- the MPAA/RIAA may have had plenty of legal justification for some of what they did -- but certainly not all of it and not the way it was done. Hell, the FBI/MPAA/RIAA triad even bullied the New Zealand government in engaging in "unlawful acts" to carry out their dirty deeds.

      We've seen the problem of politicians protecting the rich at the cost of the poor grow to become a major problem down in this part of the world (NZL) and it's plainly obvious that the situation is far worse elsewhere.

      Bureaucrats (ie: central and local government) spend most of their time simply working to cover it's own ass -- in case things go wrong.

      Just look at most of the laws and regulations out there. They're not to improve the safety or to benefit the public nearly so much as they are to ensure that when something goes wrong, some bureaucrat somewhere can say "not my fault, we passed a law/regulation against that and the offender(s) broke those laws/regulations".

      Look at gun control for instance...

      It's illegal to murder someone with a firearm (or anything else for that matter) -- so the problem of firearms is solved! If someone goes postal or kills innocent pupils/teachers in a rampage -- it's not the fault of any bureaucrat - after all, they've made killing illegal so it's not *their* fault that kids can get their hands on assault rifles so easily.

      And they're doing it again with terrorism... they're making just about *everything* illegal -- so when a terrorist does attack and innocent folk are killed, they can turn around and say "not our fault, we made everything illegal -- what more could we do?"

      As for drones -- well yes, they're almost certainly going to make them illegal (in the hands of private individuals) too. After all, if there's one thing that bureaucrats *don't* like, it's having their actions spied on by those they're allegedly employed to protect.

      Sorry but the "perfect" world never existed and never will.

      And look... not posting as an AC! :-o

    4. Re:You are so naive by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Way to Cherry Pick.

      Meanwhile:
      Madoff is in Jail for life
      2 Generals and two different cabinet officials have been forced to resign
      Seattle PD is under Justice Department microscope
      Book publishers forced to repay customers for price fixing
      BP pays huge fine and has Executives indicted
      Entire trading firms under indictment

      Its a mixed bag. It always is.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:You are so naive by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Realize that most of them were born in the 80' and 90's, the civil right movement is history to them in the same way WW1 was history to "boomers" like me who grew up in the sixties. However that doesn't mean there aren't any problems today, the political paralysis in the US over climate change is one such example. It's a constant struggle, someone points out something "inconvenient", (wish Al Gore hadn't stolen that word), and those who are inconvenienced start pumping out the most outrageous (and surprisingly effective) propaganda. Actually they hire others to do it, who have no qualms about assassinating the charter of the genuine "Galileo's" for a meager $100k/yr. A sound and broad scientific education seems to be the best defense for the average punter and the only way to obtain that is through humility and self skepticism.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:You are so naive by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, but saying that the world isn't perfect is not a justification for not trying to make it better. It's also in human nature to try to improve things.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:You are so naive by sjames · · Score: 2

      There had been complaints for years. Are you saying that the government couldn't possibly have investigated in any way at all including use of a helicopter like the one the cops around here use routinely to look for pot growers or an airplane like they use in Florida to catch speeders?

      Given the time laps between the citizen gathered evidence going viral and actual action being taken, it does indeed look like the government was perfectly content to ignore it until they were shamed into action.

    8. Re:You are so naive by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Madoff is in jail for stealing from other very rich people and corporations.

      If he had come up with a ponsi-scheme that only defrauded 'the little people', it would either have not been detected, or he might have had to pay a fine.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:You are so naive by sjames · · Score: 2

      Madoff ripped off people who were wealthier than he was. That was a major mistake.

      BP made such a thorough mess of things nobody could possibly ignore it.

      The trading firms made an even bigger mess. If nothing happened to them, there was a real chance that citizens might have taken their own actions. Meanwhile, the biggest and most powerful financial institutions are still getting off scot-free. They had to come up with a scapegoat.

      Like most things in the world, it's not a black and white corrupt/not corrupt dichotomy, just a continuum. Many people would like to move closer to the not-corrupt pole.

    10. Re:You are so naive by sjames · · Score: 2

      It's not as deserted as you might think from the photo. Look at the Google map.

      According to TFA:

      Neighbors near the plant on 11th Street had long complained about noxious fumes and other problems from the meat packers. But investigators didn’t get involved until a remote-controlled toy enthusiast happened to affix a video camera to an RC aircraft and videotape gallons of what appeared to be blood gushing down the river.

      So there are neighbors, and they did want something done.

    11. Re:You are so naive by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      See also this. It has a better description of how much blood and where it ran.

      And yes, that much blood IS toxic to the environment and can lead to fish die-offs in the same way that fertilizer runoff can. It can also create an awful stench as it decays on the banks.

      And it's 12 months after a citizen presented rock solid evidence of wrongdoing. It was years since the complaints started.

    12. Re:You are so naive by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a far cry from "what neighbors". And evidently, this wasn't the first time there were problems since the packing plant went so far as to bypass another pipe that was monitored by the county in order to keep dumping. Meanwhile, they are supposed to be regularly inspected anyway, so there was no need for probable cause to inspect the operation carefully.

    13. Re:You are so naive by trevelyon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would agree those were cherry picked so how about we look at a few of the major trends:

      Trust of politicians and government in general: http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/18/public-trust-in-government-1958-2010/

      Income disparity (who is getting all the new wealth): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

      I don't have a particular link to environmtal damage but if you can't see that in just about every news source (even the terrible US ones) then you are working hard not to see it.

      I will say that not everything is gloom and doom butpeople commenting on corruption, corporate greed and increase in power seems to me just being perceptive not overly negative. Most statistics I've seen and real world experience for the average person seem to support this. I would also point out there is strong evidence that government control is increasing and "rule of law" is decreasing. Again I don't have specific metrics for these but I certainly can point to several pieces of legislation as well as personal experience dealing with governmental institutions (border crossings, airports, traffic stops, tax assessment, building departments). Apparently you do not see this trend but the large number of comments about this just might be from people who see these trends or have experienced them first hand.

      Finally, the impetus behind pointing this out just might be a desire to fix some of these issues. The first step in fixing a problem is to identify the problem. Refusing to acknowledge real problems does no service to people facing them or to resolving the problem itself. Just a few things you might want to consider. Hope this helps,

    14. Re:You are so naive by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

      *Anecdote Warning*
      The Farmer John plant in Los Angeles does not appear to share any noxious smells with their neighbors. I've only been walking around there a few dozen times and lived several miles away so I might have just missed out on Toxic Discharge Tuesday. I've been in butcher shops where I could smell blood, and don't buy meat from them. I used to deliver parts to a place in San Leandro called Weber Quality Meats, and the place was distinctly clean with no blood odor.
      I attributed it to the boss's attitude, a sweet old German Guy, who I suspected had an iron fist holding onto quality. All it takes is a little self-respect and pride in one's work. Their product is universally lauded by customers, too.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    15. Re:You are so naive by sjames · · Score: 2

      Are we REALLY going to have to keep this up until you say "yeah, but there were ABSOLUTELY NO hermaphroditic cab drivers wearing pink and purple checkered pants with a pet monkey named bobo within a 15.2 km radius of the teakettle in the 2nd breakroom"?

      You don't imagine all that blood drying and decaylin on the banks might possibly have raised the stench a notch or two?

  6. I know I shouldn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But I did, and then browsed around and ran across this totally offtopic but rather cool project. A range finding radar project using tin cans, candar?

    http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20299/build-a-small-radar-system-capable-of-sensing-range-doppler-and-synthetic-aperture-radar-imaging/

  7. Small steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Authorities need probable cause and a warrant to search your home. But, neither is required to recruit your neighbor to tell them what they see in your home.

    See something, say something is just another small step toward tyranny, and we will all be the culprits.

  8. Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers by theodp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers : Thanks to a five million dollar grant awarded by Google on Tuesday, the organization is expanding its use of unmanned aerial vehicles to track and deter criminals who illegally hunt endangered animal species around the world. WWF spokesman Lee Poston is not calling these vehicles drones, because he doesn't want people to confuse them with the military kind. According to Poston, they are "sophisticated radio-controlled devices like hobbyists use" that can be "controlled from your iPad or other device." But the WWF website does call them "conservation drones."

    1. Re:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers by hoboroadie · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yay google! Way to fight those criminals by becoming criminals yourself. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, I guess.

      Are rhino poachers constitutionally protected in Africa? Slashdot is so informative.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  9. Scandal that isn't by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The story is self-congratulatory and implies that the authorities only did their job because of the publicity on the issue. While it is true that the authorities only acted because of the original story, there is no evidence that once they were made aware of the story that they did not move at a deliberate pace in order to determine how widespread the infraction was and to prosecute it. The fact of the matter is that depending on how the plant was set up, there would have been no reason for a government official to observe the pollution. That is the only reason that they needed the original story in order to act. They had to know there was something to act on.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Scandal that isn't by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly.

      Had the authorities demanded to search the plant for no reason, the same conspiratorial whack jobs posting as AC here would have condemned them for that. Had they flown their own drone it would have been government invasion of privacy. Had government posted stream guards at every stream and river it would be a run away gestapo police state.

      When made aware of a crime with clear evidence they took action. Yet virtually every AC posting here twists it into some shallow victory of a hundred citizens standing up to city hall.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Scandal that isn't by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >The story is self-congratulatory and implies that the authorities only did their job because of the publicity on the issue

      The court of public opinion is an amazing thing, and it definitely affects who our elected officials choose to investigate and prosecute. With 'scandals' like the warrantless wiretaps and retroactive forgiveness for large corporations it's not surprising that some people would automatically assume the worst in a situation. Given the lax prosecution on past environmental disasters and deaths that have resulted, some people expect it.

    3. Re:Scandal that isn't by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The fact of the matter is that depending on how the plant was set up, there would have been no reason for a government official to observe the pollution

      The fact of the matter is that there is every reason for a government official to observe the pollution, and you are prevaricating for no apparent reason. Do you have an interest in keeping the entrenched media elite in their position of power over The People? The cops do us for speeding because they derive revenue from it. Sometimes you can bribe your way out of it because they personally derive more revenue from a bribe than from writing one more ticket. They should be doing the corporations for polluting because they derive revenue from it in the form of fines, it's not like they typically use the money to clean up the problem. But they don't. Could it be because someone somewhere is deriving more revenue from it on a personal level? And under a system of capitalism, is there indeed any other good explanation?

      They had to know there was something to act on.

      If you serve people food and have a license for serving food you may receive a surprise inspection to determine whether you are in compliance, because you may cause people harm. The same thing is true of all food processors of any kind. The government reserves the right to run up in your business and find out if you're doing anything they don't like. They do this to small food processors all day every day, shutting them down on specious evidence of contamination like evidence of rodents outside the facility and the like, so there is more than a little evidence that they are willing to do this when the money is right — and lobbyists are a dime a dozen. And since Monsanto is now literally in charge of what food you are now permitted to eat, it's trivial to see not just who's applying the dimes, but where.

      They had to know there was something to act on.

      Yes, and they could have found that out by performing a random inspection like they allegedly are doing with the producers of raw milk cheeses and so on, and discovered the abuses that way, but they didn't. And meanwhile, they continue to discover dramatically less obvious faults in smaller facilities on a weekly if not daily basis, which should be harder and not easier, which implies to me that they're not actually that interested in doing their actual job unless forced to. Which is what happened here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. A positive use for drones by MrKaos · · Score: 3

    This will soon come to the attention of legislators through corporate lobby groups who seek to undermine the power of people to be able to conduct affairs that protect the public good and limit profit.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  11. Propaganda by the Meat Packers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's not forget they posted this cynical video on YouTube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-SGE5AHlns

    Then instructed all their employees to like and put positive comments.

    1. Re:Propaganda by the Meat Packers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2012/03/in-letter-and-video-joe-ondrus.html/

      "The City will use all legal means possible to ensure that Columbia Packing, or any company in the City, is not allowed to continue to discharge illicit waste and potentially harm the public and the environment.
      Columbia Packing officials, on video, focus on a hidden pipe on their property that they claim was clogged with brick and other material. What company officials do not address is another hidden pipe discovered that was installed to bypass the City’s monitoring device in the sanitary sewer line. The installation of that bypass allowed the discharge of pig blood and other unsanitary waste materials without City oversight. Columbia Packing has failed to document when and how this bypass was installed. The bypass pipe appeared to be of recent vintage.

      The search warrant and associated affidavit speak for themselves and clearly outline daily investigatory activities on the part of the City and other investigators from the day the situation was brought to the City’s attention."

    2. Re:Propaganda by the Meat Packers by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should just get shut down. If a business is blatantly ignoring and bypassing a law, why should it be allowed to continue doing business? Shut it down and throw the owners/board into prison.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  12. Re:blood is a pollutant? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    What next? They'll be claiming the breath you exhale is pollution too!
    Any naturally occurring substance, if present due to the action or lack of action of a human being, is apparently a pollutant.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  13. Sorry, this guy should be in prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    He purposely flew high enough to see on private property and is now giving the business a bad name, endangering countless jobs. This should not be celebrated, he should be condemned to prison for a lengthy term for interrupting domestic commerce in a time of war. Life in prison would be a gift, given the circumstances.

    Besides that, I doubt there was ever a regulation about dumping that specific substance into that specific river. Who are we, communists?

  14. Re:Your List by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    Way to Cherry Pick.

    Reports on Madoff were disregarded by the SEC for nearly a decade, similar to this story.
    Do your other examples illustrate my point as well? I frankly don't have time to do the research.
    Good Night.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  15. Re:They already had plenty of evidence by icebike · · Score: 2

    Get your facts right. They weren't an activist group. They were drone enthusiasts.
    Activists would have just walked across the field, or paddled a canoe across the river into the stream mouth.

    Neighbors were complaining about the smell. Any time you bring in live animals for slaughter it stinks. There were zero complaints about blood in the creek.
    USDA inspectors were visiting that plant regularly, as were Texas Meat Safety Assurance Unit inspectors.
    There were no activists. Stop making things up.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.