If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Isthmus / The Daily Page)   Some words are so vile, so despicable, that they cannot be uttered in a courtroom in Wisconsin   (isthmus.com) divider line 107
    More: Asinine, Vernon Hershberger, Wisconsin, Life of Brian, stoned to death  
•       •       •

11832 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2013 at 8:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-23 12:59:03 AM
Brats suck?

/serious, bockwurst is far superior.
 
2013-05-23 08:54:36 AM
NI!
 
2013-05-23 08:56:02 AM
The Bears?
 
2013-05-23 08:57:17 AM
Diet?
Kawasaki?
/dnrtfa
 
2013-05-23 08:57:42 AM
"Light beer"?
 
2013-05-23 08:58:11 AM
static.squarespace.com

use raw milk in the batter when frying halibut... it will be good enough for Jehovah.
 
2013-05-23 08:58:32 AM
I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.
 
2013-05-23 08:58:33 AM
Let freedom ring!
 
2013-05-23 08:58:43 AM
imitation cheese
 
2013-05-23 08:59:14 AM
 Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?
 
2013-05-23 08:59:59 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.
 
2013-05-23 09:00:12 AM
At least no one boiled a goat in its mother's raw milk.
 
2013-05-23 09:01:04 AM
Fat free?
 
2013-05-23 09:03:06 AM

sxacho: At least no one boiled a goat in its mother's raw milk.


Why do you hate God?

You better get right with Him before it's too late.
 
2013-05-23 09:03:13 AM
 
2013-05-23 09:03:20 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.
 
2013-05-23 09:04:51 AM
should've
 
2013-05-23 09:04:54 AM

ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.


It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.
 
2013-05-23 09:05:05 AM
It's gotta be "colored oleo"....

/Lawn, off, get.

//For a short time after the colored (oleo)margarine ban was lifted, margarine served in restaurants had to be in a triangular pat instead of the square pat like butter.

//I think the current PC term is "margarine of color".
 
2013-05-23 09:05:10 AM
I'm gonna go with "Alcoholic beverages should be banned."

bikerbob59: The Bears?


No, they use that phrase a lot, but they are required to spit after they say it.
 
2013-05-23 09:06:41 AM
How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?
 
2013-05-23 09:06:57 AM

The Muthaship:  Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?


That would be like a library investigator being named Bookman.
 
2013-05-23 09:07:23 AM

ReverendJasen: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

Obviously, the only "right" conclusion they want is "guilty."  Do not question authority citizens.


It seems like people in the field of law sometimes forget that juries were implemented to ensure that laws were being applied in a way that was acceptable to the citizens. The whole point of a jury being involved was to try to make sure the spirit of law was followed rather than letter. Yet, prosecutors and judges seem to be under the impression that it is just supposed to be 12 random people who decide if the actions strictly disagreed with a particular paragraph in a book. If that was the case, then surely the lawyers and judges would be far more qualified for it and have no need of juries.
 
2013-05-23 09:07:31 AM
Hah hah, raw milk thread.
 
2013-05-23 09:07:49 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.


However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......
 
2013-05-23 09:07:55 AM
Barbra Streisand?
 
2013-05-23 09:08:05 AM

JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue


And jury nullification is a valuable element of our justice system.
 
2013-05-23 09:08:48 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

That's why

/*most states have similar analogues
 
2013-05-23 09:08:56 AM
Belgium.
 
2013-05-23 09:10:14 AM
I drank raw milk, and I liked it.
 
2013-05-23 09:11:11 AM

farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......


But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

What you are raising is a matter for a legislature, not a court, unless you can determine some legal reason why the law itself is invalid.  The Article I branch of government barely does their job as it is, let's not shove the work onto Art. III.
 
2013-05-23 09:13:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0

Yes I'm lame, but this is what came to mind upon reading this article!
 
2013-05-23 09:14:15 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-23 09:15:28 AM

Teiritzamna: Rule 403 of the Federal* Rules of Evidence:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

That's why



Mhmm. I realize that they are trying to avoid a big debate on how dangerous raw milk is and such, but surely they could put a stop to that on an individual basis during the trial, rather than by issuing a blanket ban that also blocks the introduction of details that could be important.

Maybe I'm naive, but I tend to think it is much harder to confuse or mislead the average person than most people think.
 
2013-05-23 09:15:52 AM

danielscissorhands: should've


could've
 
2013-05-23 09:16:21 AM

vwarb: It seems like people in the field of law sometimes forget that juries were implemented to ensure that laws were being applied in a way that was acceptable to the citizens. The whole point of a jury being involved was to try to make sure the spirit of law was followed rather than letter. Yet, prosecutors and judges seem to be under the impression that it is just supposed to be 12 random people who decide if the actions strictly disagreed with a particular paragraph in a book. If that was the case, then surely the lawyers and judges would be far more qualified for it and have no need of juries.


This is how you got witch hunts and lynchings. "Well, the letter of the law says that the person who killed her is the murderer, but there was a darky walking down the street at the same time, so let's string HIM up instead!"

Everybody forgets that "jury nullification" can go both ways - what if they simply don't like the guy who's accused, and decide to punish him for being black/gay/muslim/irish? That's why they have restrictions like this - to make sure the right question is being answered by the jury. Facts are for the jury, law is for the judge.
 
2013-05-23 09:16:51 AM

darth_badger: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 225x225]


....that's not milk...
 
2013-05-23 09:17:40 AM

JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.


Yes, and that's exactly the point.  This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience.  What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"
This is not justice.  The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.  And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable.  Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.
 
2013-05-23 09:18:11 AM

Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?


I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.
 
2013-05-23 09:19:29 AM

phyrkrakr: Everybody forgets that "jury nullification" can go both ways - what if they simply don't like the guy who's accused, and decide to punish him for being black/gay/muslim/irish? That's why they have restrictions like this - to make sure the right question is being answered by the jury. Facts are for the jury, law is for the judge.


If I'm not mistaken, this problem was why we stopped allowing the suggestion of nullification in trials. It's true that they have their issues. I just wish there was a way for us to have our cake and eat it too. Obviously I don't have the answer, but I wish people would spend more time looking for one, rather than just being okay with a system that's flawed in one direction or another.
 
2013-05-23 09:19:57 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


The goal is for an 'impartial' decision, not a 'right' decision.
 
2013-05-23 09:20:12 AM

farkingfun: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.

However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......


Well, raw milk needs to be processed before it's sold.
 
2013-05-23 09:22:44 AM

Vodka Zombie: danielscissorhands: should've

could've


Would've
 
2013-05-23 09:23:46 AM
I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.

On the other hand, I find an issue that the court is deliberately avoiding may be a mere evidence issue. For example, I juried in a trial where a father was accused of sneaking into his 17 year old daughter's room and forcing her to fellate him. This was a case of testimony alone. Some jurists found that it was odd that he would do this only 3 or 4 times in her life and not regularly. I pointed out that nobody, NOBODY had said that he never did that before, and nobody ever asked her about any experience prior to that first time.  It's probable that he HAD done it before and if he had, if the date and time could not be established with specificity, they would be prohibited from mentioning it.  That guy got off because the jury argued back and forth about how a heavy person could restrain someone in such a position- totally misunderstanding the nature of sexual abuse because they believed it to be physically forceful rape.  So that was a situation where the prosecution could not mention things and the defense didn't want to open the door to it.

I think every American, and every citizen of a country with a double jeopardy law should be aware of the de facto principle of jury nullification- that you can find someone not guilty just because you don't believe that it's appropriate that they be punished or prosecuted, due to the circumstances under which the law was broken, the propriety of the law being enforced, or the method by which is is being enforced, including the potential sentence that could be imposed.
 
2013-05-23 09:24:26 AM

Vodka Zombie: danielscissorhands: should've

could've


would've
 
2013-05-23 09:24:47 AM
Seems that he has his own website to tell his side.  Worth a look
 
2013-05-23 09:26:28 AM

Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.


Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.
 
2013-05-23 09:27:16 AM

mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.


This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation
//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong
 
2013-05-23 09:29:05 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.

I think they're trying to avoid a pointless tangent that will turn the case from focusing on whether or not this guy filled out his forms correctly into a debate on the merits of whether or not he should be able to sell raw mil-bong in the first place.


See, it's people like you what cause unrest.
 
2013-05-23 09:29:44 AM

vwarb: I've never understood how the decision to keep facts from a jury can possibly be considered in the interest of justice. They have been entrusted with deciding the person's guilt. Surely they can also be entrusted to come to the "right" conclusion when they have all the facts.


ChaoticLimbs: I've done jury duty twice, and when it's clear that there's an elephant in the room that the jury is not permitted to look at, I feel that my only option is to choose not guilty. The presence of such a thing is enough to provide reasonable doubt in my mind. Especially if the defense is the one prohibited from mentioning things. That's a red flag.


It's a Cardassian trial.  The verdict and the sentence have already been determined; the trial is just to show the people that the accused is guilty and understands what he did wrong.
 
2013-05-23 09:30:16 AM
"Fat free."
 
2013-05-23 09:31:19 AM

ReverendJasen: This is not justice. The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.


To be honest, courts tend to avoid trying to do "justice" as that is a pretty subjective and sticky question, and its pretty rare to get two people to agree when it has been done.  Doing law is hard enough.
 
2013-05-23 09:31:23 AM
What's the point in a jury trial if the outcome is all but predetermined? Judges should not be able to craft a case for the prosecution (or defense, or anybody...).
 
2013-05-23 09:32:19 AM

thurstonxhowell: Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.


exactly
 
2013-05-23 09:33:05 AM

Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?


So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state.  "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you".  If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid.  And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people.  No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny.  You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7
 
2013-05-23 09:33:41 AM

Siberian Khatru: Vodka Zombie: danielscissorhands: should've

could've

Would've


Didn't
 
2013-05-23 09:33:54 AM

ReverendJasen: JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Yes, and that's exactly the point.  This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience.  What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"
This is not justice.  The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.  And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable.  Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.


Funny thing, in the teen lesbian thread, there's sure a bunch of FARKers who went with "Did she break the law? Yes? Then move on".
 
2013-05-23 09:34:12 AM
Does anyone know if the pasteurization laws were put into place before refrigeration became common in households?
 
2013-05-23 09:34:15 AM

Tatterdemalian: mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation
//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong


Oh, Nanny State! Please don't treat me like an adult and let me make a choice in this matter! Protect me from nature, and make sure you regulate exactly what I may eat, as I am a frightened individual who needs to be protected from myself.

This is why I love Fark. Drugs? Legalize everything. Booze? Drink early, drink often. Milk? REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE.
 
2013-05-23 09:35:48 AM
Semprini
 
2013-05-23 09:42:03 AM

bluefoxicy: It's a Cardassian trial. The verdict and the sentence have already been determined; the trial is just to show the people that the accused is guilty and understands what he did wrong.


or - perhaps the charge has actual elements and it is the job of the jury, as the finder of fact, to decide only those facts that are in dispute.  There would be no need to introduce facts that are irrelevant to the dispute.  As an example.  Alice is accused of murdering Bob.  Let us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of:
Unlawfulkillingof a humanby another humanwith intent to do soThe only fact in dispute is whether Alice intended to kill Bob, or only wound him.  The jury is there to weigh the actual relevant evidence and decide what it thinks is true.

Now let us assume that the defense wants to introduce the "fact" that Bob was a pedophile.  There is evidence that Alice had no idea Bob liked little kids, but the defense knows that people hate pedophiles and that it may change how the jury considers Bob's murder.  This fact is utterly irrelevant to the question before the jury: did Alice intend to kill, or only wound him.

The reason they constrain the facts here is to avoid the jury making a pronouncement on raw milk regulations rather than on the actual charges.  Of course, what the jury actually does in chambers of course, is up to them.
 
2013-05-23 09:43:16 AM

Teiritzamna: et us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of:
Unlawfulkillingof a humanby another humanwith intent to do so


Sigh - stupid failure to preview.

Let us assume the statute for murder requires a showing of

1. Unlawful
2. killing
3. of a human
4. by another human
5. with intent to do so

FTFM
 
2013-05-23 09:44:19 AM
"Rubber stamp"
 
2013-05-23 09:44:30 AM

Gonz: Tatterdemalian: mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation
//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong

Oh, Nanny State! Please don't treat me like an adult and let me make a choice in this matter! Protect me from nature, and make sure you regulate exactly what I may eat, as I am a frightened individual who needs to be protected from myself.

This is why I love Fark. Drugs? Legalize everything. Booze? Drink early, drink often. Milk? REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE.


Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.
 
2013-05-23 09:44:42 AM

Kirkenhegelstein: Siberian Khatru: Vodka Zombie: danielscissorhands: should've

could've

Would've

Didn't


Can't
 
2013-05-23 09:45:06 AM

phalamir: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state.  "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you".  If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid.  And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people.  No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny.  You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7


So how do you explain the government merely taxing known poisons such as alcohol and tobacco? Why doesnt it protect us then?
 
2013-05-23 09:45:59 AM

anotar: Does anyone know if the pasteurization laws were put into place before refrigeration became common in households?


Refrigeration didn't kill the bacteria present in the tainted milk back in the day, only pasteurization did.
 
2013-05-23 09:47:14 AM

thurstonxhowell: Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.


From the Article:
The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed.

If he were selling milk to a processing plant (for which licences can be obtained) without a license the charge would be appropriate.  It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.
 
2013-05-23 09:57:50 AM

Russ1642: Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.


I have a better idea: instead of misrepresenting my position on the manner, let's go with what I actually think. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and allow the sale of both pasteurized and raw milk, and let the public make its own decisions about nutrition.

Obviously, until there's enough data on the subject, you're going to want to err on the side of caution in re: schools and hospitals and such. But this isn't 1918, we're not bringing milk to town in a Model T anymore. Let's let people have a choice in the manner.

And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.
 
2013-05-23 10:01:18 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Hah hah, raw milk thread.


That's it! Everybody out of this thread!
 
2013-05-23 10:04:29 AM

The Muthaship: Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?


YOU CANNOT SAY HER NAME OUT LOUD IN COURT!

Bailiff, take Muthaship away.
 
2013-05-23 10:05:09 AM

farkingfun: thurstonxhowell: Teiritzamna: farkingfun: However I think It would be in the interest of justice for the jury to hear about the fact that there are no licensing options for delivery of r@w m1lk to destinations that are not milk processing plants......

But that would be irrelevant to the actual charge.

Which is why it's being excluded from the trial.

From the Article:
The state is arguing that Hershberger violated the law by selling milk (raw) while he was not licensed.

If he were selling milk to a processing plant (for which licences can be obtained) without a license the charge would be appropriate.  It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.


It's almost like they were deliberately and intentionally making it illegal to sell raw milk to consumers, unless those consumers are processing plants.  It almost seems like the whole point of the requiring licensing and then not providing an option to provide your potential death milk to consumers was to prevent you from getting your bacteria laden milk into stores and markets.

We COULD just nuke everything, and not deal with pasteurizing OR raw milk, but people got brain washed with movies about giant ants in the 50s, and we care more about our hysteria than people dying from untreated food.
 
2013-05-23 10:06:03 AM

bopis: So how do you explain the government merely taxing known poisons such as alcohol and tobacco? Why doesnt it protect us then?


Yeah, there certainly aren't any farking laws against moonshine operations, that's for sure.
 
2013-05-23 10:06:03 AM

Gonz: Russ1642: Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

I have a better idea: instead of misrepresenting my position on the manner, let's go with what I actually think. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and allow the sale of both pasteurized and raw milk, and let the public make its own decisions about nutrition.

Obviously, until there's enough data on the subject, you're going to want to err on the side of caution in re: schools and hospitals and such. But this isn't 1918, we're not bringing milk to town in a Model T anymore. Let's let people have a choice in the manner.

And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.


The public made this decision. Ages ago. And we still agree with it.
 
2013-05-23 10:11:46 AM

bopis: phalamir: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

So someone selling live, rabid, feral hogs should skate? Cause that it a natural product in a natural state.  "Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you".  If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid.  And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people.  No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

/Kinda want the government to establish a preserve of a 1340s Cumbrian village for those who consider public health and safety regs some form of abject tyranny.  You hate pasteurization? Then go live without it - and every other totalitarian indignity, like medicine based on science, and not living in filth 24/7

So how do you explain the government merely taxing known poisons such as alcohol and tobacco? Why doesnt it protect us then?


I have no problem with outlawing either.  But I'm not sure Drew's liver could handle being out of work after being on overtime for so long
 
2013-05-23 10:12:45 AM

Gonz: And I love that I'm being called a hippie for saying "these nanny state rules suck. We don't need to be protected from ourselves." I'm advocating a small-l libertarian, market-based position.


At BEST you're going to get the FDA to back off to allowing labeled Raw milk with skulls and huge Surgeon General warnings on them about disease risks.  You're not going to be any happier if we treat raw milk like we treat any other potentially harmful substance.  Raw milk WILL eventually make someone sick.  Maybe not every single batch, but you can't keep milk clean.  If you consume raw milk regularly, you're going to be fighting off infections regularly.  At some point, statistically, it's likely that you will consume something that you can't fight off, due to a period of weakened immunity, and you'll get sick, and are likely to end up hospitalized.

You can't even say the same for beer, or alcohol.
 
2013-05-23 10:22:04 AM
www.janpieter.com
 
2013-05-23 10:32:50 AM
He should just slap a label on it that says "Our gluten-free milk comes from vegan cows. Contains no trans fats or high fructose corn syrup!"
 
2013-05-23 10:38:42 AM

The Muthaship: Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?


You owe her an apology.
www.mrsbutterworths.com
/Better not get her Aunt Jemima mad, either, or you'll have the entire Maple Syrup Gang after you.
 
2013-05-23 10:40:44 AM
I made it to the point where it revealed it was just another case of some entitled jag off who figured "why the hell should I have to obey the law that everyone else everywhere in this country that produces milk has to follow." It always amazes me how many people on this site just rush to defend the "little guy" against the mean 'ole gubmint sorry douchebags but first of all selective enforcement of the law is in fact a crime. Second, I don't care if you're selling one bottle or a million there are some very good reasons people aren't allowed sell raw milk.
 
2013-05-23 10:42:15 AM

Russ1642: Gonz: Tatterdemalian: mbillips: Gonz: How dare this dangerous criminal sell a natural product in its natural state? Doesn't he know that milk must be heavily processed before it's fit for human consumption?

I grew up drinking nothing but raw milk, because we had a Jersey cow. Sold it to friends, too. BUT, laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

This. Might as well eliminate the FDA while you're at it.

/yes, the economy is hobbled by overregulation
//removing regulations on food standards while keeping the ones that force farmers to spend at least 15 minutes each day "emotionally bonding and mentally stimulating" each individual head of livestock is the definition of doing it wrong

Oh, Nanny State! Please don't treat me like an adult and let me make a choice in this matter! Protect me from nature, and make sure you regulate exactly what I may eat, as I am a frightened individual who needs to be protected from myself.

This is why I love Fark. Drugs? Legalize everything. Booze? Drink early, drink often. Milk? REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE.

Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.


Ok, this is just hilarious.  Both sides of this argument are basically calling the other side liberal hippies.

We are a seriously confused nation.
 
2013-05-23 10:42:55 AM
Seems pretty simple to me. The defense was planning to turn this into a civil rights issue by making the whole trial about whether or not selling raw milk should be illegal  instead of whether or not Hershberger sold raw milk without a license (which is illegal). They intended to argue irrelevant things like the safety of drinking raw milk, whether or not it's possible to obtain a license when you're selling raw milk directly to customers (it's not, and that's very intentional), and whether or not the warrant for the 2010 raid on his farm was valid (Hershberger believed he'd found a loophole- he hadn't applied for a license to sell raw milk, and wasn't "selling" the milk, simply giving it to people in exchange for money, which means the FDA had no jurisdiction to inspect him for evidence he was selling raw milk).

The judge rightly saw these as prejudicial and without any value, and banned them. It was a good call.
 
2013-05-23 10:48:34 AM

ReverendJasen: JasonOfOrillia: It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Yes, and that's exactly the point.  This is another case where the prosecutor has reason to believe that if the jury know the reasons or circumstances that lead to the breaking of the law in question, they might not be able to convict with good conscience.  What they want is to simply say "was the law brooken, yes or no?"
This is not justice.  The reasons and circumstances that leads to an infraction of law are important and need to be known to truly apply justice.  And if a jury hears all the facts, and then says "well, he broke the letter of the law, but we don't agree he should be punished for it (or had little other choice, etc)" then the law is wrong, too vague, stupid, or unconscionable.  Jury nullifcation is a good thing--it's one of the only ways we as a people have to protect each other from bad laws and bad lawmakers.


That's fine for some laws, but a lot of environmental and safety laws sound stupid and pointless unless you've got at least a college education in biology or chemistry. Raw milk is dangerous. That's a proven fact. But the right lawyer, with enough charisma, could convince at least 1 juror that it's not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (it has, but he only needs 1 out of 12 to be stupid enough to think it hasn't). He'd force the prosecution to waste time and money (your money) bringing in expert witnesses to defend the law, and at the end of the day, the jurors would acquit  not because the law's bad, but because both sides brought in experts to say exactly opposite things, and that's reasonable doubt that those things are correct.
 
2013-05-23 11:01:06 AM

Gough: It's gotta be "colored oleo"....

/Lawn, off, get.

//For a short time after the colored (oleo)margarine ban was lifted, margarine served in restaurants had to be in a triangular pat instead of the square pat like butter.

//I think the current PC term is "margarine of color".


No, no, no the words are "oleo run"
 
2013-05-23 11:23:26 AM
Lawyers making a mockery of justice?

/of course they are -- they're lawyers
 
2013-05-23 12:16:37 PM

ScaryBottles: I made it to the point where it revealed it was just another case of some entitled jag off who figured "why the hell should I have to obey the law that everyone else everywhere in this country that produces milk has to follow." It always amazes me how many people on this site just rush to defend the "little guy" against the mean 'ole gubmint sorry douchebags but first of all selective enforcement of the law is in fact a crime. Second, I don't care if you're selling one bottle or a million there are some very good reasons people aren't allowed sell raw milk.


Your Fark handle is funny, considering the topic at hand.

I think they should be allowed to sell raw milk as long as the source is obvious. Get a bad batch? Sue the shiat out of the producer. That threat should be enough for the producer to be extra careful about sterilization procedures. Free market at work.
 
2013-05-23 12:35:37 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: [static.squarespace.com image 780x439]

use raw milk in the batter when frying halibut... it will be good enough for Jehovah.


You're only making it worse for yourself!
 
2013-05-23 12:50:25 PM

airsupport: The Muthaship: Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?

YOU CANNOT SAY HER NAME OUT LOUD IN COURT!

Bailiff, take Muthaship away.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-23 01:14:01 PM
The article states he was selling to "buyer club members who had purchased shares in the cows".  The arguments for requiring milk pasteurization are 100% correct. It seems to me though he wasn't selling milk so much as charging for the work, time and materials involved in raising and milking cows.  The buyers are part owners of these cows.  Whats next, hanging out in milking barns and and fining the farmer every time he snags some milk out of the tank?  I've known farmers who never touched "city milk" a day in their lives.  They haven't died yet.  The way I see it when these people became Buyers Club Memebers, they took all risks on themselves.
 
2013-05-23 01:49:44 PM
 And Wiconsin's most frequently-uttered word, the word which, if uttered, will blow up this entire planet:


/is it antiquing?
 
2013-05-23 01:54:17 PM
Look, it's pretty simple.  Raw milk is not a hazardous product.  It's not flammable, it's not explosive, it's not going to contribute to air pollution, it's not going to contribute to water pollution, it's not toxic, it has absolutely no potential to hurt anyone who is a non-user.  It doesn't even smell bad.  It's illegal to sell.

And we allow hazardous products to be sold every day, in every state.  Gasoline is an extremely hazardous product, it's flammable, it's potentially explosive, it's toxic, it can contribute to water pollution, it does contribute to air pollution, and it can hurt people who don't directly use it.  It's got warning labels on it.

This is stupid.

Raw milk has the potential to be a vector for disease - but only diseases which will affect the actual user of the product. It's not going to cause an epidemic.  It has absolutely zero potential to harm someone who doesn't actually consume it.

Legalize it, slap a warning label on it, and call it a day.
 
2013-05-23 02:02:32 PM

null: Belgium.


Please save that sort of filth for serious screenplays.
 
2013-05-23 02:06:31 PM
Doug Neidermeyer: And most recently of all, a "Roman Toga Party" was held from which we have received more than two dozen reports of individual acts of perversion SO profound and disgusting that decorum prohibits listing them here.
 
2013-05-23 03:32:49 PM
JasonOfOrillia
It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Whether or not the risks are "misrepresented" is immaterial, because there is no level of risk that would justify banning an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant. The mortality rate for using raw milk could be 100% and that still would not justify banning it 'for your protection'.


mbillips
laws require pasteurization were put in place for very good reasons having nothing to do with corporate profits.

Raw milk has a shelf life too short for sale in groceries in urban centers far from the originating farm. True. And irrelevant to whether it's safe for consumption within a short time directly from the source, and the bigger issue of whether people have the right to make their own decisions about what they consume.

Not Legal: Milk straight from a cow's udder
Legal: Sodium Benzoate, HFCS, GMOs

The only consistent principle in the government's treatment of food is that if you are a huge corporation you can get away with anything, but if you are small and weak then you're fair game.


phalamir
"Natural" does not automatically mean "good for you". If you doubt this, go gargle with sulfuric acid.

If you think we're smart enough to not drink sulfuric acid, why do you think we're not smart enough to do our own farking research on anything else?

And milk did used to sicken and/or kill people. No one just up and said "Let's heat the fark out of this milk for shiats and giggles" one day; they did it because the government decided that Death By Moo-Juice was stupid and easily preventable.

See above. It only became a problem with the rise of the mass industrial-grocery system.


Russ1642
Milk is a staple. I think they should pick a state, say Wisconsin, and shut down all milk pasteurization for two years. Everyone gets raw milk. Give it a week or two and you hippies will remember why the regulations are there.

This is stupid. Is this actually what people think?


farkingfun
It sounds like the judge is allowing an end-run because the laws don't currently exist to prosecute.

Sounds like justice to me!


Russ1642
The public made this decision. Ages ago. And we still agree with it.

Thank you for making this decision for me because I'm clearly too stupid to have a valid opinion about what I can put in my own farking body.


ignacio
That's fine for some laws, but a lot of environmental and safety laws sound stupid and pointless unless you've got at least a college education in biology or chemistry. Raw milk is dangerous after sitting in a grocery store for a week. That's a proven fact.

FTFY
 
2013-05-23 03:35:21 PM

Snarfangel: The Muthaship: Teresa Butterworth, witness for the prosecution

No way,

This whole thing is made up, right?

You owe her an apology.
[www.mrsbutterworths.com image 237x484]
/Better not get her Aunt Jemima mad, either, or you'll have the entire Maple Syrup Gang after you.


Talk about a sticky situation.
 
2013-05-23 03:56:23 PM

ScaryBottles: I made it to the point where it revealed it was just another case of some entitled jag off who figured "why the hell should I have to obey the law that everyone else everywhere in this country that produces milk has to follow." It always amazes me how many people on this site just rush to defend the "little guy" against the mean 'ole gubmint sorry douchebags but first of all selective enforcement of the law is in fact a crime. Second, I don't care if you're selling one bottle or a million there are some very good reasons people aren't allowed sell raw milk.


This was a case where consumers bought shares of cows and then wanted the dairy farmer to sell them the raw milk that came from the cows that they bought shares in. It's not like the farmer was trying to get away with selling consumers sub-par milk - he was trying to give consumers exactly what they wanted.

I think it should be like when you go to a restaurant and you order your pork chops a little pink - the chef comes out, verifies that you know how stupid you are being by asking for this service, and then proceeds to give you the food that may give you parasites.
 
2013-05-23 04:43:31 PM

Lando Lincoln: I think it should be like when you go to a restaurant and you order your pork chops a little pink - the chef comes out, verifies that you know how stupid you are being by asking for this service, and then proceeds to give you the food that may give you parasites.


If your chef's doing that, unless you're at a restaurant that serves very, very free-range pork, then your chef isn't up on his industry information.

Trichnosis is a thing of the past in modern American commercial pork. Get 'em to 145 to kill off any potential e. coli, and you're good. Feral hog is a different story, but I don't know of many places where that's on the menu.
 
2013-05-23 06:01:38 PM

RanDomino: JasonOfOrillia
It is a jury nullification issue - the law is intended to prevent people from doing stupid things and a jury could be swayed to think that the restrictions are unnecessary by a clever lawyer who misrepresents the risks.

Whether or not the risks are "misrepresented" is immaterial, because there is no level of risk that would justify banning an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant. The mortality rate for using raw milk could be 100% and that still would not justify banning it 'for your protection'.


Perhaps you missed this Fark thread on a Campylobacter outbreak spread through unpasteurized milk.  It is, as I found out in that thread, communicable from human to human.  This action can harm people other than the willing participant and there is, as a result, a public health interest.
 
2013-05-23 06:07:59 PM

ChaoticLimbs: That guy got off


I'd say
 
2013-05-23 09:20:34 PM
I would not drink raw milk, just like I would not drink ground water. I do not like getting sick from contaminated products when there is a simple way to prevent it. All it takes is one episode of diarrhea that takes months to go away to make you realize the danger, and why there are regulations about the proper handling of foodstuffs...
 
2013-05-24 12:01:32 AM
JasonOfOrillia
Campylobacter

From your link:

The organism is not usually spread from one person to another, but this can happen if the infected person is producing a large volume of diarrhea.


bullsballs
I would not drink raw milk, just like I would not drink ground water. I do not like getting sick from contaminated products when there is a simple way to prevent it. All it takes is one episode of diarrhea that takes months to go away to make you realize the danger, and why there are regulations about the proper handling of foodstuffs...

So don't!
 
2013-05-24 12:40:28 AM

RanDomino: JasonOfOrillia
Campylobacter

From your link:

The organism is not usually spread from one person to another, but this can happen if the infected person is producing a large volume of diarrhea.



From my second, CDC, link:
Campylobacter is one of the most common causes of diarrheal illness in the United States.

and

The organism is not usually spread from one person to another, but this can happen if the infected person is producing a large volume of diarrhea.

Your argument was this:
Whether or not the risks are "misrepresented" is immaterial, because there is no level of risk that would justify banning an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant

I don't think the word "never" means what you think it means.  If your dumbassery can cause other people to get sick through something that is easily preventable, in fact where it is harder to get unpasteurized milk, then you have a duty to not be that dumbass.
 
2013-05-24 01:26:40 AM

JasonOfOrillia: RanDomino: JasonOfOrillia
Campylobacter

From your link:

The organism is not usually spread from one person to another, but this can happen if the infected person is producing a large volume of diarrhea.


From my second, CDC, link:
Campylobacter is one of the most common causes of diarrheal illness in the United States.

and

The organism is not usually spread from one person to another, but this can happen if the infected person is producing a large volume of diarrhea.

Your argument was this:
Whether or not the risks are "misrepresented" is immaterial, because there is no level of risk that would justify banning an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant

I don't think the word "never" means what you think it means.  If your dumbassery can cause other people to get sick through something that is easily preventable, in fact where it is harder to get unpasteurized milk, then you have a duty to not be that dumbass.


Apparently, the jury is too stupid to decide whether the law is being applied fairly if they're actually told what happened.  And I'm sure you've never been sick in public, because that would get other people sick through an easily preventable cause, and you have a duty not to do that.
 
2013-05-24 02:07:38 AM
JasonOfOrillia
I don't think the word "never" means what you think it means. If your dumbassery can cause other people to get sick through something that is easily preventable, in fact where it is harder to get unpasteurized milk, then you have a duty to not be that dumbass.

The way Campylobacter spreads is if you touch the feces of something which has it (and then presumably touch a mucus membrane or cut or such). If you think that's only dangerous because of raw milk then you might want to be more careful about who you call a dumbass.
 
2013-05-24 06:35:51 AM

CourtroomWolf: Apparently, the jury is too stupid to decide whether the law is being applied fairly if they're actually told what happened. And I'm sure you've never been sick in public, because that would get other people sick through an easily preventable cause, and you have a duty not to do that.


Juries are normally triers of fact, not of law.  Judges restrict the information presented to juries all the time to prevent misdirections from entering trials.  If Vernon Hershberger wants to make it legal to sell raw milk the best place to lobby for that is at the ballot box or legislature.

RanDomino: JasonOfOrillia
I don't think the word "never" means what you think it means. If your dumbassery can cause other people to get sick through something that is easily preventable, in fact where it is harder to get unpasteurized milk, then you have a duty to not be that dumbass.

The way Campylobacter spreads is if you touch the feces of something which has it (and then presumably touch a mucus membrane or cut or such). If you think that's only dangerous because of raw milk then you might want to be more careful about who you call a dumbass.


I don't think Campylobacter is only dangerous because of raw milk.  There are plenty of other ways to get it.  Mis-handled raw chicken for example.  The only people I'm calling dumbasses are those who believe that raw milk is safe.  My Campylobactor example was only brought in to challenge your baseless assertion that "an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant."  You were wrong to say this.
 
2013-05-24 11:20:20 AM
JasonOfOrillia
My Campylobactor example was only brought in to challenge your baseless assertion that "an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant." You were wrong to say this.

It's the touching of feces that causes the problem, not the raw milk.
 
2013-05-24 07:30:56 PM

RanDomino: JasonOfOrillia
My Campylobactor example was only brought in to challenge your baseless assertion that "an activity which can never harm anyone but the willing participant." You were wrong to say this.

It's the touching of feces that causes the problem, not the raw milk.


If you read the first article that I posted you would realize that is the feces that get in the milk that can be the problem for this particular infection.  Do you understand that there are other infections that can be spread in milk?  Diseases that can be spread in raw milk include, but are not limited to Listeria, Salmonella, Norovirus, Mycobacterium Bovis, Brucella, and Giardia.  Some of these are not communicable but many are.

If you think that human-to-human fecal transmission is rare I suggest you lick your keyboard.

You original point was that if it only affects the primary raw-milk drinker then who cares.  All I did was point out one recent instance where a communicable disease was spread through raw milk to well over 100 people.  If, as you propose, an action which doesn't affect anyone else is acceptable then I would agree with you.  The fact is is that these actions can have effects on innocent bystanders and that is why regulation is needed.
 
Displayed 107 of 107 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report