Parrot Detained for Yelling 'Police' to Warn Its Owners About a Drug Raid(vice.com)
vice.com
Parrot Detained for Yelling 'Police' to Warn Its Owners About a Drug Raid
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8ewy/a-parrot-got-detained-for-yelling-police-to-warn-its-owners-about-a-drug-raid-vgtrn
27 comments
> so they turned him over to a nearby zoo
The bird remained silent, but was still jailed. Where's Glenn Greenwald on this?
The bird remained silent, but was still jailed. Where's Glenn Greenwald on this?
[deleted]
"Mama, advogado!"
> Apparently, the cops got tired of trying to wring some salient information from the uncooperative bird, so they turned him over to a nearby zoo, where he'll presumably get to do normal bird shit and not have to spend his days cawing about drug busts anymore. We respect your loyalty, though, buddy. Enjoy your new and better life away from the drug trade.
I don't know why, but I like it when lighter news articles use a tongue in cheek writing style where you know the author is amused about what they are writing.
I don't know why, but I like it when lighter news articles use a tongue in cheek writing style where you know the author is amused about what they are writing.
That's also a great line for pointing out how funny the bird's future might be. Maybe it won't be cawing about drug busts, but I imagine some police officer down the line might be in for a shock when they walk into the zoo and a parrot starts yelling warnings.
Acting as 'lookout' is only quasi-illigal, but it raises an interesting question: if a human trains an animal to do something illegal, does blame fall on the animal or the human?
For example, many pit bulls who attack or maim people these days get put down by animal control. If a court could prove that an animal had been trained/conditioned (by a proven guilty defendant) to commit the offending act, would said animal still be facing death?
For example, many pit bulls who attack or maim people these days get put down by animal control. If a court could prove that an animal had been trained/conditioned (by a proven guilty defendant) to commit the offending act, would said animal still be facing death?
the pit bull is put down because it is dangerous to humans, not because it violates a human law. Relatedly, literal mules that carry drugs surely wouldn't be punished
Animals are more or less “things” as far as the law is concerned. A dangerous dog will be put down irregardless of intent, just like a dangerous boulder above a house will be removed or secured. Blame, guilt, or morality don’t come into play. Conversely, training an animal brings with itself the same culpability as using any other tool, say building a trap.
In civil law, you are responsible for any damage your animal causes, training or not.
There’s an interesting dissonance here with children: at least in my jurisdiction, Hilden categorically can not commit crimes before age 14, and (contrary to popular belief) their parents are not responsible, either. I’m unsure how this extends to the case where the parents actively encourage the behavior, though.
There are some advocates for some sort of legal personhood for, say, elephants or apes. But this is more in the context of environmental law, not life-or-death.
See also that gorilla that was killed when someone climbed into their enclosure, and the entirely uninformed internet brouhaha that ensued.
In civil law, you are responsible for any damage your animal causes, training or not.
There’s an interesting dissonance here with children: at least in my jurisdiction, Hilden categorically can not commit crimes before age 14, and (contrary to popular belief) their parents are not responsible, either. I’m unsure how this extends to the case where the parents actively encourage the behavior, though.
There are some advocates for some sort of legal personhood for, say, elephants or apes. But this is more in the context of environmental law, not life-or-death.
See also that gorilla that was killed when someone climbed into their enclosure, and the entirely uninformed internet brouhaha that ensued.
> For example, many pit bulls who attack or maim people these days get put down by animal control. If a court could prove that an animal had been trained/conditioned (by a proven guilty defendant) to commit the offending act, would said animal still be facing death?
Yes, putting down a dangerous animal isn't a criminal punishment premised on the animal's culpability (as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability), but a protective measure equivalent to condemning and demolishing a dangerous building.
Yes, putting down a dangerous animal isn't a criminal punishment premised on the animal's culpability (as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability), but a protective measure equivalent to condemning and demolishing a dangerous building.
"as a matter of law, animals lack the capacity for culpability" Apparently it was not always thus in European jurisprudence. This podcast episode tells more:
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/10/27/podcast-episode-31...
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2014/10/27/podcast-episode-31...
If it is a properly trained attack dog (command words) and not just trained to attack everything, they may take on the task of retraining it. To do this they have to have a high confidence they know the commands to give the dogs to make them attack. This is something frequently not divulged by the owner who is probably claiming the dog "just went off".
Seperating birds bonded to people is very cruel. This creature was socialized in a very strange fashion and can not bond to other birds even of the same kind.
I agree with you, but what’s the real alternative? The zoo seems like the best thing, given that putting it in jail with its owner is probably unworkable.
Rebond it to a similar behaved person?
So the bird should be incarcerated with its owner?
Ideally yes. Jailbird for association. Sorry
What is the parrot being charged with, exactly? It is not illegal to warn someone that police are nearby, much as I'm sure they would like it to be.
1- They're not charging the bird with anything.
2- They were trying to see if the bird would randomly spit out more clues on the owner (imagine the bird repeating "Call sally, call sally").
3- I'm sure the bird has Charlie Kelly on retainer, and personally respect him for not being a stool pigeon.
While you are technically correct, in this particular case, the warning was to aid someone in committing a crime. And aiding someone in committing a crime is illegal in itself.
Indeed. Driving a getaway car is a crime, even if arguably, you claimed you just picked up your friend outside a bank to drive him home. And perhaps he paid you for your trouble.
Though arguably, it's the intent there that matters, not the act. (If your friend called you for a ride home from a bank and you didn't know he robbed it, it wouldn't be a crime to do so.) Was the parrot aware it was aiding a criminal act?
Though arguably, it's the intent there that matters, not the act. (If your friend called you for a ride home from a bank and you didn't know he robbed it, it wouldn't be a crime to do so.) Was the parrot aware it was aiding a criminal act?
I'm sure the police will get that bird to sing what it knows.
Reminds me of the bit in Twin Peaks when the cops take in a Parrot that witnessed a crime. Someone murders the Parrot to stop it from talking.
There’s a much worse version of this in an episode of Black Mirror.
Sounds like the bird is flexing its rights. (I assume Brazil, like America, respects the right to remain silent)