Utah animal rights activist admits to arson charges

[Isolder74]

Link

Walter E. Bond Courtesy Davis County Jail
Utah animal rights activist admits to arson charges in federal court

By Melinda Rogers

The Salt Lake Tribune
First published 1 hour ago
Updated 4 minutes ago Updated Jul 6, 2011 11:26AM

A Salt Lake City animal rights activist known as “Lone Wolf” pleaded guilty to arson charges in federal court on Wednesday, admitting that he set fire to a leather factory and restaurant in Salt Lake County last summer.

A federal grand jury indicted Walter Bond, 35, in September with two counts of felony arson and two counts of force, violence and threats involving animal enterprises.

Bond pleaded guilty to the arson charges as part of a plea agreement reached with prosecutors. The other charges were dismissed in exchange for his plea.

U.S. Magistrate David Nuffer set Bond’s sentencing for Sept. 19, where he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Bond’s case in Salt Lake City’s federal court follows a similar case in Colorado, where he pleaded guilty to burning down a Sheepskin Factory near Denver. He is serving five years in prison for that crime.

In the Colorado case, Bond admitted to burning down the factory, which specializes in sheepskin products, such as shoes, rugs and seat covers. He caused about $500,000 to the business when he set it ablaze on April 30.

Bond later returned to Utah, where he allegedly set a fire at the Tandy Leather Factory in Salt Lake City on June 5, 2010, and Tiburon Fine Dining in Sandy on July 2, 2010, according to the indictment.

Bond’s arson in Denver led investigators to his actions in Salt Lake City.
Story continues below

According to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, someone using the nickname “ALF Lone Wolf” in an Internet posting suggested the fires in Colorado and Utah had been set in retaliation for animal cruelty.

“Be warned that making a living from the use and abuse of animals will not be tolerated,” ALF Lone Wolf wrote in the aftermath of the Sheepskin Factory fire. “Also be warned that leather is every bit as evil as fur, as demonstrated in my recent arson against the Leather Factory in Salt Lake City. Go vegan!”

Tiburon owner Ken Rose has said he hopes authorities “throw the proverbial book” at Bond. His restaurant sustained about $10,000 in damage from the fire, while the blaze at the Tandy Leather Factory resulted in less than $20,000 in damage, according to court documents.

Sherry Ramirez, a store manager at the Tandy Leather Factory, said she doesn’t believe Bond is remorseful for his actions. She noted at his sentencing in Colorado he used the court as a chance to deliver a political message about saving animals.

“He thinks he’s a hero,” she said Wednesday. “He’s got an agenda.”

She said she’s worried that when he’s released from prison that he will destroy more businesses to promote his cause. She recalled working at the torched factory last summer and said conditions were miserable as the facility underwent renovations. Ramirez said damage estimates to the Tandy Leather Factory presented in court were underestimated. She said the business lost $80,000 in leather plus thousands more in lost technology and building damages.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Huber said following Wednesday’s hearing that prosecutors will argue for as harsh as sentence as possible for Bond. Huber described Bond as “dangerous” and said the man needs to be behind bars. Bond has agreed to pay restitution to the businesses he destroyed.

Bond’s defense attorney, Nathan Crane, acknowledged that his client is not repentant for the crimes, but said Bond does take responsibility for his actions. Bond wants people to see the harm that is caused to animals and “wants to spread that message,” Crane said.

Justice is served. However you can bet that PETA and his ALF buddies will tout him as a hero/martyr. I guess sometime you just can't win.

[Darth Fanboy]

What is really sad is that all the time and effort he spent he could have been *actually* been helping animals in some shape or form and would have been far more productive. PETA promotes the idea that headline grabbing is more important than direct animal assistance and morons like these take that idea too far and make absolutely no progress.

[Isolder74]

Indeed for the money PETA wastes on hiring porn stars to pose naked for them they could just buy a bunch of animals and the land for a PETA animal sanctuary.

90% of what PETA does makes little if no sense to their supposed goal. If you are someone who wants stop animal cruelty, you are better off using your money as kindling for a fire then giving it to PETA. The sad thing is PETA convinces thousands to send them money annually which then ends up getting spend with a net benefit of doing more or less nothing for the cause. The sad thing is places like the ASPCA and the Human Society are often scrimping just to make ends meet but at the same time do so much good with what they have at the same time. Then you will end up seeing PETA nutjobs outside their places protesting when they are forced to euthanize a few animals.

[Zixinus]

A question: where did the sheep come from? Were they bred and cruelly raised just for the sake of leather or were they taken off animals that were to be butchered?

Because if it's the latter, than punishing something that aims to maximize utility out of killing an animal seems somewhat counter-productive. After all, the sheep were raised and bred by humans for this purpose.

To me, it would be more productive to destroy factories or shops that use endangered animals in their products.

Then again, this guy sounds the type that any animal slaughtering, no matter how humane or properly done, is holocaust II so I'm musing for nothing.

[Straha]

Because if it's the latter, than punishing something that aims to maximize utility out of killing an animal seems somewhat counter-productive. After all, the sheep were raised and bred by humans for this purpose.

Yes, and that's the fucking problem. It's immoral, absurd, and a fucking disgusting practice in every way. The defense you're offering is the same that people offered in defense of slavery. "They were born and raised for this. So it's fine for me to use them in this way, and it renders the greatest utility from them, so it's better for us all." And I dare you to raise a defense of the use of animals in this way that isn't logically consistent with defending the use of slaves in a similar way.


Good on Bond for doing what he did.

[Thanas]

What? Are you serious?

[Straha]

Yes, actually. Very. (I'd even take it to ye ole Coliseum. )

[Thanas]

Not interested in another match as my current one is not finished. But feel free to show how animals have the same capabilities and philosophical concepts and inherent rights as humans do. Because that is the only way your analogy will hold water.

[Straha]

Not interested in another match as my current one is not finished. But feel free to show how animals have the same capabilities and philosophical concepts and inherent rights as humans do. Because that is the only way your analogy will hold water.

Except we don't hold those "capabilities and philosophical concepts" to be the prerequisite of having "human rights". It's wrong to kill an infant, no matter what their skills or conceptions. It's wrong to kill someone who is mentally retarded, no matter how limited their capabilities are. It is wrong to kill a person who has been completely cut off from other human contact, and denied access to 'philosophical concepts' and the very idea of rights.

If we have rights, they exist regardless of our capabilities, and there's no logically consistent way we can assert they exist for humans, and humans alone, without preventing us from condemning genocide, eugenics, and racism.

(P.S. My current one isn't finished either. I'm still waiting for Rogue to pick it back up. The offer is open to any takers.)

[Mr. Coffee]

We do it because animals are made of meat and meat is delicious.

[Thanas]

Not interested in another match as my current one is not finished. But feel free to show how animals have the same capabilities and philosophical concepts and inherent rights as humans do. Because that is the only way your analogy will hold water.

Except we don't hold those "capabilities and philosophical concepts" to be the prerequisite of having "human rights". It's wrong to kill an infant, no matter what their skills or conceptions. It's wrong to kill someone who is mentally retarded, no matter how limited their capabilities are. It is wrong to kill a person who has been completely cut off from other human contact, and denied access to 'philosophical concepts' and the very idea of rights.

Completely false analogy because you are arguing an extreme outlier (disabled and infants) while I am arguing baselines.

[Straha]

Not interested in another match as my current one is not finished. But feel free to show how animals have the same capabilities and philosophical concepts and inherent rights as humans do. Because that is the only way your analogy will hold water.

Except we don't hold those "capabilities and philosophical concepts" to be the prerequisite of having "human rights". It's wrong to kill an infant, no matter what their skills or conceptions. It's wrong to kill someone who is mentally retarded, no matter how limited their capabilities are. It is wrong to kill a person who has been completely cut off from other human contact, and denied access to 'philosophical concepts' and the very idea of rights.

Completely false analogy because you are arguing an extreme outlier (disabled and infants) while I am arguing baselines.

Not in the least. If I ask you "Is infanticide permissible?" the answer would be a blanket no. If I ask if the killing of a mentally disabled person is acceptable, the answer would again be a blanket no (no matter how tasty their flesh). This is an intrinsic part of human rights and ethics today, and any hesitation would be regarded as almost monstrous. In other words the 'baseline' of human rights is that they are 'universal', all I'm doing is pointing out that this universality, in order to be logically consistent, HAS to apply to animals as well. Otherwise we lose the ability to condemn the simplest crimes.

Let me ask you this: What do you consider the basis of 'human rights'? How does the baseline claim membership in the moral community in your worldview?

[Alyeska]

If we have rights, they exist regardless of our capabilities, and there's no logically consistent way we can assert they exist for humans, and humans alone, without preventing us from condemning genocide, eugenics, and racism.

We have the rights we are able to defend or that others are willing to afford. Thats it. Animals have no rights other then immediate self defense, which doesn't work so well against humans, and their afforded rights are limited by our desire to eat them.

You are making a philosophical argument that does not hold water. The universe doesn't care about whats right. Ask the deer getting eaten alive by a wolf what it wants to do.

[Thanas]

Completely false analogy because you are arguing an extreme outlier (disabled and infants) while I am arguing baselines.

Not in the least. If I ask you "Is infanticide permissible?" the answer would be a blanket no. If I ask if the killing of a mentally disabled person is acceptable, the answer would again be a blanket no (no matter how tasty their flesh). This is an intrinsic part of human rights and ethics today, and any hesitation would be regarded as almost monstrous. In other words the 'baseline' of human rights is that they are 'universal', all I'm doing is pointing out that this universality, in order to be logically consistent, HAS to apply to animals as well.

It does not. After all, there is the possibility of a cure for mentally disabled persons. On the other hand, there is no possibility of a cow reading Plato and arguing its worth. This is what I meant with baselines and outliers. There may be below average humans who, due to a disability, are not that smart. On the other hand, there is no extremely smart cow that can argue philosophy with you and me. That is why Humans and animals are different.

Let me ask you this: What do you consider the basis of 'human rights'? How does the baseline claim membership in the moral community in your worldview?

I consider the universal acceptance by humans of the legal texts to be the basis of human rights. Legal texts, which by the way, no animal has ever made. Or do you argue we should also intercede when a wolf kills its prey? if not, then what makes the situation different from this one?



EDIT: I see Alyeska has already raised the last point.

[Korto]

We do it because animals are made of meat and meat is delicious.

If I interpret him correctly, I agree with Coffee. The consumption of other animals is not indefensible, it needs no defense. We eat sheep, because we can. A lion eats a wilderbeast, because it can. Disease ravages a child's body, because it can. A strangler fig takes support from and then chokes the life from a tree, because it can.
Species only have such rights as they are able to defend, or other species are willing to extend them. Humans are possibly unique in this world in as much as we have been willing to extend some rights to other species (the right to die as quickly and painlessly as practical is the main one).

[Alyeska]

We do it because animals are made of meat and meat is delicious.

If I interpret him correctly, I agree with Coffee. The consumption of other animals is not indefensible, it needs no defense. We eat sheep, because we can. A lion eats a wilderbeast, because it can. Disease ravages a child's body, because it can. A strangler fig takes support from and then chokes the life from a tree, because it can.
Species only have such rights as they are able to defend, or other species are willing to extend them. Humans are possibly unique in this world in as much as we have been willing to extend some rights to other species (the right to die as quickly and painlessly as practical is the main one).

The fundamental right of existence. A species going extinct is considered a crime, it is fundamentally wrong in almost every culture. Needless agony and harm. Torture is wrong, period. We are an empathetic species. We tend to identify with others. Needless suffering and pain should be done away with.

But these are not intrinsic universal truths. They are things we choose to do because we consider it the moral thing. But a majority of humans do not agree with Straha.

Humans are not a herbivore species. We are intended to eat meat in addition to plants. Meat tastes good to us. Often it is crucial to survival. The western world has benefited from technology that makes the vegetarian life possible. But we still eat meat. And if we are to continue to do this, we should be efficient about it. Pain and suffering is bad, so is a needless waste of resources. So its a balance between compassion and efficiency.

[Straha]

It does not. After all, there is the possibility of a cure for mentally disabled persons. On the other hand, there is no possibility of a cow reading Plato and arguing its worth. This is what I meant with baselines and outliers. There may be below average humans who, due to a disability, are not that smart. On the other hand, there is no extremely smart cow that can argue philosophy with you and me. That is why Humans and animals are different.

Now who's using outliers? A person with Downs syndrome has no chance of a "cure". A man who suffers brain damage as a child that renders them blind, deaf, and dumb has so little chance of a cure as for it to be "none". Someone who suffered from a severe car crash and brain trauma has about as much chance of reading Plato and arguing its worth as the cow. Nor does someone who has been isolated from human contact for the majority of their life. If this is your basis for how people claim protection from the moral community, then you're leaving not an insignificant number of people outside their protection and at the whim and mercy of others.

Let me ask you this: What do you consider the basis of 'human rights'? How does the baseline claim membership in the moral community in your worldview?

I consider the universal acceptance by humans of the legal texts to be the basis of human rights.

So what of the Sentinelese? They do not accept these legal texts, they cannot as they are ignorant of their existence. Is it therefore permissible for me to slaughter them? How about fundamentalist Christians and Jews who reject any non-biblical law as inherently false and suspect? What about philosophers who reject the idea of "universal" legal texts for a variety of reasons (Judith Butler, Ranciere, Badiou, etc.)? What about me?

Or are you saying that these legal texts apply to YOU because you hold them to be true? In which case we're back to square one almost tautologically. What you are saying is that these laws exist codifying human rights. That doesn't answer why we have these human rights, what their basis is. All you are saying, in essence, is that we have the idea of human rights, therefore we have human rights. So, again, what is the basis of human rights? What is the basis of my claim to be protected from murder? Why is it wrong to harm another person?

Or do you argue we should also intercede when a wolf kills its prey? if not, then what makes the situation different from this one?

Simple: The wolf needs to kill in order to survive. The act of killing is bad, but excusable. We (at least we in the First World) have no such excuse, and if anything we only make the world around us worse by almost every measurable standard by engaging in the consumption of animal products.

We do it because animals are made of meat and meat is delicious.

If I interpret him correctly, I agree with Coffee. The consumption of other animals is not indefensible, it needs no defense. We eat sheep, because we can. A lion eats a wilderbeast, because it can. Disease ravages a child's body, because it can. A strangler fig takes support from and then chokes the life from a tree, because it can.

A murderer knows he can break into a house, kill an infant, and escape without leaving a trace of evidence. They can do it. So they do. A man breaks into your house wearing a mask, ties you down, and brutally rapes your children in front of you. Because they can. In your moral system you have no way of condemning them as committing an evil act, a reprehensible act, what they've done is not wrong. If that's the world you want to live in, fine, but understand that from here out you have no way of condemning racism, genocide, or any other act of evil as 'wrong' because, simply put, it isn't. It can't be.

Is that really what you're defending?

[Straha]

Humans are not a herbivore species. We are intended to eat meat in addition to plants. Meat tastes good to us.

Historically rape has been, by modern terms at least, almost universal. I remember reading in some obscure book that at points in our history up to 30% of the population were the children of direct, violent, rape. Moreover human males are 'designed' for rape. The penis is designed for easy forced entry into the vulva, and is also designed to force the removal of competitors' semen, and (by all accounts) rape feels very good for the rapist. Really damn good.

Using the moral framework you just used to excuse eating meat, how can you condemn rape?

[Korto]

You missed a bit.

Species only have such rights as they are able to defend, or other species are willing to extend them. Humans are possibly unique in this world in as much as we have been willing to extend some rights to other species (the right to die as quickly and painlessly as practical is the main one).

Don't cherry-pick. Humans have extended to themselves the right to not be killed by each other, their children raped, etc. A right not all other species have. Dolphins, for one, will rape and commit infanticide. In dolphin society, it's not wrong.

[Alyeska]

Humans are not a herbivore species. We are intended to eat meat in addition to plants. Meat tastes good to us.

Historically rape has been, by modern terms at least, almost universal. I remember reading in some obscure book that at points in our history up to 30% of the population were the children of direct, violent, rape. Moreover human males are 'designed' for rape. The penis is designed for easy forced entry into the vulva, and is also designed to force the removal of competitors' semen, and (by all accounts) rape feels very good for the rapist. Really damn good.

Using the moral framework you just used to excuse eating meat, how can you condemn rape?

Rape is wrong because we define it as such. We defend the rights of those who are attacked. We choose to value personal freedom, liberty, and personal integrity.

Would you like to try another strawman argument?

[Thanas]

Now who's using outliers? A person with Downs syndrome has no chance of a "cure". A man who suffers brain damage as a child that renders them blind, deaf, and dumb has so little chance of a cure as for it to be "none". Someone who suffered from a severe car crash and brain trauma has about as much chance of reading Plato and arguing its worth as the cow. Nor does someone who has been isolated from human contact for the majority of their life. If this is your basis for how people claim protection from the moral community, then you're leaving not an insignificant number of people outside their protection and at the whim and mercy of others.

No, you are the ones who is still using outliers. You tried to redefine this argument into one, when I have always argued baselines. The baseline human is still superior in intellect to the cow, therefore he receives protection. The cow does not have any such right except the right to a quick and painless death, or as close as it can be.

So what of the Sentinelese? They do not accept these legal texts, they cannot as they are ignorant of their existence. Is it therefore permissible for me to slaughter them? How about fundamentalist Christians and Jews who reject any non-biblical law as inherently false and suspect? What about philosophers who reject the idea of "universal" legal texts for a variety of reasons (Judith Butler, Ranciere, Badiou, etc.)? What about me?

Who cares? Universal Acceptance does not have to be 100% for the law to still apply. Only the pedant would argue otherwise.

So, again, what is the basis of human rights?

Universal acceptance of those rights, based upon natural philosophy.

What is the basis of my claim to be protected from murder?

Laws, based upon your natural right to exist, based upon your identitiy as a human being.

Why is it wrong to harm another person?

It is not universally wrong to harm another person.

Simple: The wolf needs to kill in order to survive. The act of killing is bad, but excusable. We (at least we in the First World) have no such excuse, and if anything we only make the world around us worse by almost every measurable standard by engaging in the consumption of animal products.

Really now. So you are arguing that anything which we can theoretically do without is inexcusable and we should go without it. In that case, what are you doing on the internet, why are you living in a building, why do you use transports that use fossil fuels, why are you a citizen of the USA and why do you use condoms?

[Alyeska]

FYI Straha. You went on the tangent proclaiming there are natural rights that we must apply and are universal. I explained that this belief is not true. You confused this as my personal moral beliefs. I do not believe there are natural rights or morals. That doesn't mean I have no morals or believe there are no rights.

Convincing people to not eat meat doesn't work so well when your argument belittles people for eating meat and compares their food preference to rape and infanticide. Either you are preaching to the choir and that makes your argument pointless, or you are clueless that your arguments and tactics are going to do very little to garner you support on something you clearly have a vested interest in.

[Straha]

FYI Straha. You went on the tangent proclaiming there are natural rights that we must apply and are universal. I explained that this belief is not true. You confused this as my personal moral beliefs. I do not believe there are natural rights or morals. That doesn't mean I have no morals or believe there are no rights.

Convincing people to not eat meat doesn't work so well when your argument belittles people for eating meat and compares their food preference to rape and infanticide. Either you are preaching to the choir and that makes your argument pointless, or you are clueless that your arguments and tactics are going to do very little to garner you support on something you clearly have a vested interest in.

Don't patronize me on this. Look at where we are. This is fucking SD.net. I can count the number of genuine concessions/changes of heart that have taken place here on non-academic issues on one hand. We dont come here to sit around in a circle and gently persuade each other on points of concern, we come here to don our flame armour and bludgeon the other fucker into bloody submission. Nicety has no, and has never had a, place here. We belittle, impugn, curse, swear, and condemn not just our erstwhile adversary, but their entire family, lineage, and even the acquantaince they met on the street. Should they complain we roar with laughter and say "This isn't a miss manners board here!" and turn it up even higher. This is this place's greatest weakness, it makes us cold, unforgiving, unwelcoming, and cliquish. It's also our greatest strength, it draws us back here endlessly simply to engage in the festivities. I've gotten people to switch, three at last count and a fourth on the way, it's not really that hard, but it's also never going to happen here, especially not in N&P. So I'm not even going to bother trying. Besides, I like the melee. It's fun and there's nothing I like more than a vigorous mental debate.

[Thanas]

Don't patronize me on this. Look at where we are. This is fucking SD.net. I can count the number of genuine concessions/changes of heart that have taken place here on non-academic issues on one hand. We dont come here to sit around in a circle and gently persuade each other on points of concern, we come here to don our flame armour and bludgeon the other fucker into bloody submission. Nicety has no, and has never had a, place here. We belittle, impugn, curse, swear, and condemn not just our erstwhile adversary, but their entire family, lineage, and even the acquantaince they met on the street. Should they complain we roar with laughter and say "This isn't a miss manners board here!" and turn it up even higher. This is this place's greatest weakness, it makes us cold, unforgiving, unwelcoming, and cliquish. It's also our greatest strength, it draws us back here endlessly simply to engage in the festivities. I've gotten people to switch, three at last count and a fourth on the way, it's not really that hard, but it's also never going to happen here, especially not in N&P. So I'm not even going to bother trying. Besides, I like the melee. It's fun and there's nothing I like more than a vigorous mental debate.

Ladies and Gentleman, I present you Sir Dick of Dickington. His family Motto: Why? Because I can be a dick, that's why. I'd mistaken you to actually care about convincing people rather than just deciding to alienate people because you can.

In which case I have no interest in debating you. Have fun being a dick, but do it without my participation.

[Straha]

l
Don't cherry-pick. Humans have extended to themselves the right to not be killed by each other, their children raped, etc.

A. We are not the Borg. We do not all get together, merge our minds into one, and declare that X is right and Y is wrong. We are individuals. We hold views individually, and we express them, individually. When you stand up and say "if you can do it it's fine" then that is what you, Korto the metalsmith are saying, and you will be held to account. Further, if you hold that all that matters is a group extending to itself these rights then what prevents a group of humans from extending further rights to themselves and themselves alone? If it's within their power how is it wrong? In such a world how can you decry the actions of the Saudis when they clamp down on protest/free speech/womens rights? Or the Chinese secret police? Or any other group that says that they are separate and can extend to themselves their own code of ethics?

B. Whether or not humanity is extending these rights to themselves, I am questioning why these rights are extended. There is a reason, surely? There is a logic? This is not an act done in and of itself. If it is, fine, but again you leave no ground for condemning the actions of a 'lone wolf' or of an angry self-righteous mob. If there's a greater reasoning then what is it?

A right not all other species have. Dolphins, for one, will rape and commit infanticide. In dolphin society, it's not wrong.

A point that means all of jack and diddly squat. Whether or not dolphins rape doesn't change the morality of our own actions.