ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
Hello everyone. I did a quick search to see if there were any threads here on what had recently happened with the prosecution of Wayne Hsiung. I was surprised to find that there were none - so, I'll write here what recently happened, as I believe it is of interest to people here if you have not already heard (even though all of the action is already over).
Wayne Hsiung is an animal welfare advocate, who in 2017 entered Ridgland farms, a facility which mass-breeds and performs tests upon dogs. He was there performing an investigation of inhumane conditions with two others, and while there they rescued a beagle which was in very poor health in order to bring them to the veterinarian for treatment.
Because of this, Ridgland farms brought a case against Wayne and his partners in 2021 to charge them with burglary and felony theft. The trial was intended to take place from March 18 to 22, but Ridgland farms dropped all charges just before the trial on March 8 of this month.
For those three years prior to when the trial would have occurred, Wayne had been preparing his defense. Specifically, he was going to argue that the statutes allowing someone to trespass in order to rescue someone in emergency circumstances should apply in his case. The prosecution was going to argue that the term 'person' in that statute excludes animals.
You can see why this could have potentially been a landmark case. If Wayne's defense had held up in the trial, it may have set the precedent that animals are entitled to certain rights, and could have even led to them being granted a form of legal 'personhood', just as humans and some other entities are treated.
One prosecutor stated that removing the beagle from the facility with the excuse that they were in serious medical danger was equivalent to stealing a dented can from the grocery store with the excuse that it is in danger of going bad. It is obvious how there was a clear disjunct between either sides' view of animals; the prosecutors seem to think of them as no more than objects or one's property, which is pretty much how the law generally handles them.
Wayne hypothesizes that fear of some potentially revolutionary court decision may have been the reason behind the sudden dropping of the charges after three years, only two weeks before the trial. Either that, or the very bad publicity that would ensue for Ridgland farms when their poor treatment of animals was exposed.
Wayne is a lawyer and a former professor of law, who has his own legal team; they could have handled themselves well. He is disappointed that now he won't get his chance to advocate for animals in court. This was also not his first time rescuing animals; he is the co-founder and former co-owner of DxE, an animal welfare group.
If you had not known about this, I hope you find the situation interesting, if not a little disappointing that the trial, which certainly would have been stimulating, was never held.
Thoughts?
Wayne Hsiung is an animal welfare advocate, who in 2017 entered Ridgland farms, a facility which mass-breeds and performs tests upon dogs. He was there performing an investigation of inhumane conditions with two others, and while there they rescued a beagle which was in very poor health in order to bring them to the veterinarian for treatment.
Because of this, Ridgland farms brought a case against Wayne and his partners in 2021 to charge them with burglary and felony theft. The trial was intended to take place from March 18 to 22, but Ridgland farms dropped all charges just before the trial on March 8 of this month.
For those three years prior to when the trial would have occurred, Wayne had been preparing his defense. Specifically, he was going to argue that the statutes allowing someone to trespass in order to rescue someone in emergency circumstances should apply in his case. The prosecution was going to argue that the term 'person' in that statute excludes animals.
You can see why this could have potentially been a landmark case. If Wayne's defense had held up in the trial, it may have set the precedent that animals are entitled to certain rights, and could have even led to them being granted a form of legal 'personhood', just as humans and some other entities are treated.
One prosecutor stated that removing the beagle from the facility with the excuse that they were in serious medical danger was equivalent to stealing a dented can from the grocery store with the excuse that it is in danger of going bad. It is obvious how there was a clear disjunct between either sides' view of animals; the prosecutors seem to think of them as no more than objects or one's property, which is pretty much how the law generally handles them.
Wayne hypothesizes that fear of some potentially revolutionary court decision may have been the reason behind the sudden dropping of the charges after three years, only two weeks before the trial. Either that, or the very bad publicity that would ensue for Ridgland farms when their poor treatment of animals was exposed.
Wayne is a lawyer and a former professor of law, who has his own legal team; they could have handled themselves well. He is disappointed that now he won't get his chance to advocate for animals in court. This was also not his first time rescuing animals; he is the co-founder and former co-owner of DxE, an animal welfare group.
If you had not known about this, I hope you find the situation interesting, if not a little disappointing that the trial, which certainly would have been stimulating, was never held.
Thoughts?
