Discussion | 2 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

• Rich GiddensDecember 08, 2012 - 12:41 pm

  The DA's credibility is on the line with this rooster case. Others like me have in the past complained about neighborhood nuisances like party houses and auto repair / auto spray paint businesses being operated out of rental homes. In those cases, nothing was done except blame the complainers! This is different--affluent residents complaining about adjacent poultry production. Its no wonder that there is a dissenter on that jury who wisely saw that the DA is engaged in a crime himself--a malicious prosecution because his cop pals with all the money in the world cant seemingly resolve minor problems.

  Reply | Report abusive comment

• Jim DemoruelleDecember 09, 2012 - 10:00 am

  rancher Jess as a Chief Petty Officer Retired I thank you for your service to the military and our country. On your coverage about the rooster trial being suffered upon the Riveras I would pray that you would look at the violation by the county of the constitutional rights of the rancher. Roosters are livestock and property, as such the rancher has the protection of our Republic. The Constitution states that we have the right to use our property and further that, life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also property rights, Cayuga Falls v. New York. Roosters do not crow loud enough to reach anywhere near the decibel level to be considered noise pollution, therefore I think the rancher is being violated and has right to protection. Do you understand what happens when police invade a property to uphold court orders? Armed men who could kill a person enter with some trepidation and an elevated cense of self-protection. This is a recipe for failure. You must understand that our government has NO constitutional authority to send government agents to endanger the lives of Americans under the concept that the government’s duty is to defend the opinion of a neighbor. In fact our government has the duty to defend human lives and that includes our God given rights, constitutionally protected right to privacy, and that includes our right to own, possess and harvest our livestock against the sentimental or aggravated whims of a misguided majority. The Constitution protects individual rights and not group rights unless the individual violates the group rights, ie, drunk driving, gun use in a crowed area, etc. It sounds to me like the rancher is suffering a judicially imposed constitutional attack. If anyone has seen the result of a country being run by tyrants and violated rights Jess you have and it is not pretty. This case is not what the founders of our republic-wanted especially when you consider that they all were involved in either raising or participating in the use of gamecocks. I would like to hear from the Rivera family. Jim Demoruelle HMC/USN/Ret. 337-363-7597

  Reply | Report abusive comment