Amateur UAV Pilot Exposes Texas River of Blood 388
Presto Vivace writes "Carlton Purvis of Security Management News reports that a tip from an amateur UAV enthusiast 'is what led Texas authorities to open a major criminal investigation into the waste practices of a Dallas meat packing plant.' The photo shows a river of blood."
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading that article I get the feeling there will be a law passed about "model aircraft" using cameras soon.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! Kids!
Bring a straw!
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
They'll turn all sparkly and you'll have to shoot them for the good of humanity and quality television programming.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh man. And here I am, the D&D geek, who always thought a Black Pudding was a horrific, semi-sentient puddle of highly acidic ooze.
Turns out the reality is much worse.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Restricted airspace above meatpacking plants and CAFOs?
I could see that coming.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Bet you a nickel the police would need a warrant before such surveillance.
In fact, I kind of hope they do, public benefit notwithstanding.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
The general rule is if it can be observed from off your property it's fair game. No warrant needed.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't live in the west, do you?
You might want to look up water rights. They're often worth more than land.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Texas, all rivers and streams fed from rivers, are publical property. Some land owners don't like that, but as long as you are on the river or within a couple feet (don't remember exact distinace any more) or the river's shore line, you are perfectly within the rights granted by the state. Many hunters use this access to do just that - hunt.
Water laws are extremely complex. (Score:3)
Most Eastern US states use some form of riparian law, which is what you are referring to. Groundwater is public property and may not be owned by individuals, although ownership and regulatory powers are split by the high and low water marks (local cops have police rights between those two points in some cases, go figure). In my state I personally can own the land under my creek because it's not a navigable watercourse, my property line extends completely past it, and I'm living in one of the original 13 c
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Thermal imaging has attracted a number of court cases: cops in vehicles or aircraft go hunting for anomalously high longwave IR emissions that suggest a building may be being used as a grow-op. It can certainly be argued that IR radiates away from your house just the same that visible light does; but it doesn't do so well under the 'what a member of the public might observe from the street' test.
I'm assuming that cheaper drones, fancy terahertz imaging technology, laser mics, and other sci-fi stuff will continue to nibble at the question of what standard, exactly, 'observation' constitutes... Is it "absolutely anything I infer without physical trespass" or does it have some relation to what the 'ordinary man' could be expected to notice?
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
At the time, the dissent was based on "through the wall" versus "off the wall". Heat (it was argued in the dissent) was "off the wall" insofar as it was passively emitted. Use of technologies that go "through the wall" (your aforementioned terahertz imaging, et.al.) would seem to run afoul even of the dissenting justices in the above case.
Plain view doctrine (Score:5, Informative)
1. they would be lawfully present (it's a public waterway).
2. they lawfully accessed the evidence (saw it in plain view with the unaided eye**).
3. the incriminating nature was immediately apparent (river of blood).
** When it comes to fancy technology, the current precedent is Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) although it was a close (5-4) decision, the premise being the police used "technology not generally available to the public".
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Bet you a nickel the police would need a warrant before such surveillance.
Yes, that's how police helicopter pilots fly in general, they take off in their helicopter and they shut their eyes for fear of seeing anything without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope.
The police do this all the time, with real aircraft.
They'll frequently use helicopters with FLIR, to identify marajuana grow houses. They use hot lights, which require extra cooling. Some vent to the outside, which leaves an obvious odor. Others use additional air conditioning. In either case, the room is warmer than other rooms, or surrounding houses. They usually find target homes by checking for homes that use more power. That information is appare
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Extra power consumption, with a hot room or plume of heat from an extra air conditioner, is enough probable cause for a warrant.
Now this has me legitimately concerned. I have a home networking lab that I use to validate various network configs for training, and for customers. A rack of routers, switches, and servers pulls quite the electrical draw, and generates quite a bit of heat. Not as much as grow lights, I'd imagine, but still...
Re: (Score:3)
I learned a good bit of that from a local detective. We'd shoot the shit sometimes, and he told me a lot about work. Nothing specific to active cases, but a lot of methodology, inter-agency politics, etc. All in all, if more people had nice casual conversations with the police like we used to have, people would have more respect for the police. At least for the good ones.
I guess the question would be, do you run 24/7, and do you have so much equipment that you require supp
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
I guess the question would be, do you run 24/7, and do you have so much equipment that you require supplemental air conditioning running all the time? Is your power bill at least a couple hundred dollars higher than would be typical for a house in your area with similar square footage?
That probably describes the computer situation of 90% of the self respecting geeks here, myself included :)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
And depending on where you are, you do own the sky above your land. The land and the projection of that to the core of the earth and up to the edge of the atmosphere you own though the government gets a right of way above for planes and such, obviously.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowadays is it reasonable to expect viewing from Google Maps (and streetview etc)? :).
http://g.co/maps/zqf5u [g.co]
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Holy shit. As soon as you look, it's immediately apparent. The creek above the plant is white where there's turbulence, and green where there isn't. At the plant, it becomes maroon. Down where that creek flows into a larger one, you can see a clear tail of the maroon water flowing into the larger green creek.
So even if they had to slap the "UAV" guy on the wrist and throw out the info, anyone looking at Google could have made an 'anonymous' complaint afterwards.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
But you are right, even google earth clearly shows pollution changing the colour of the water and the point where it flows into a larger river and mixes in.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't take the sky from me.
Re: (Score:3)
The Fly? (Score:5, Funny)
Did you not see the Movie? Teleportation and Flies Never ends well!
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
General Trend (mod parent up, Informative) (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for that link. I'm not a "PETA-freak", by any stretch of the imagination, but as a photographer, and just as a citizen who believes in the 1st Amendment, those are some of the scariest links I've read since NDAA. I'm glad I don't live in any of the mentioned states, but I have certainly photographed farms without written permission (I have a fondness for pastoral scenes with hay bales). I'd gladly contribute to any effort to get these ridiculous laws thrown out as unconstitutional.
Re:General Trend (mod parent up, Informative) (Score:5, Insightful)
If the chaps who handle the most-likely-to-carry-cool-zoonotic-diseases part of your food supply are so proud of their processes that they want independently documenting them to be a felony, how good can you reasonably trust them to be?
Re: (Score:3)
All they need to do is classify any drone as "munition", then BATFA can have some fun.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing to "like" about any of this. I'm not going to "defend" the meat packers. But, one thing I noted while watching the video, is that it is a 99 year old plant.
I'll give them just one small benefit of the doubt. It's POSSIBLE that they didn't know they were discharging blood into the creek. Old plant, old plumbing systems, plus the fact that regulations a hundred years ago were pretty lax, makes it possible that a crappy old pipe was just never dug up or disconnected.
But, the fact that the
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
I'll give them just one small benefit of the doubt. It's POSSIBLE that they didn't know they were discharging blood into the creek. Old plant, old plumbing systems, plus the fact that regulations a hundred years ago were pretty lax, makes it possible that a crappy old pipe was just never dug up or disconnected.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
I agree it's possible, and it's also possible that even if they did know they still wouldn't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
The other provision is, you must maintain line of sight with the aircraft. It's the same restrictions as put on remote control aircraft.
I do recall something about needing to have manual control override. I.e., a remote control. I'm not sure if that is a FAA rule, or just a guideline for responsible behavior.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Drone implies an autopilot or some autonomous system. Its an R/C plane with one of these, for example.
http://diydrones.com
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
AC got it right.
A UAV/drone is generally something that can fly without the assistance of a pilot.
A R/C aircraft is controlled by a pilot on the ground.
The UAV/drone in the sense of a self-controlled R/C aircraft, would be say a helicopter that will hover by itself, or an aircraft that will fly to provided waypoints, or fly home (back to you) if the R/C control is lost.
They may simply fly with a bit of computer assist, so they are easier to operate than a regular R/C aircraft, such as automatically going to straight & level flight, because the operator may simply need eyes above. It's silly for law enforcement to get 100+ hours practicing (and crashing) R/C airplanes, when they can get R/C's (drones, if you will), that will go straight up with a camera, and turn in the direction requested, to get a better view.
Some news outlets are mixing the terms, where their "drone" is simply an R/C aircraft, frequently with a camera. It's the same ugly trend, where anything related to any sort of computer technology suddenly had "cyber" and "e-" prepended to it. Expect it to be used by the media any time a R/C aircraft is used for anything but flying around in a circle above a father/son pair on a weekend.
The media works on a 5th grade reading level, and I'm fairly sure some "journalists" have the mental function of a 10 year old.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Or in actual terms by the FAA, that "the civilian user" shall follow guidelines set by a specificed industry authority, aka the AMA, which sets AGL to 400 feet.
Putting real laws in place has been in discussion with Congress for the last year (main decisions where in June of '11), but has been put off 2 times already. It keeps getting delayed.
What I see is likely restriction of autonomous flight (with the right to shoot down), and the status quo for controlled flight. Not much will change aside from full autonomous modes.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
On what planet is pig blood harmful to a river?
Fertilizer runoff [scientificamerican.com] is a major problem in rivers.
Pig blood is essentially fertilizer [the-organic-gardener.com].
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Informative)
Two word: Bubbly Creek [wikipedia.org]
Is a UAV necessary? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Columbia+Meat&hl=en&ll=32.751275,-96.787695&spn=0.001405,0.002068&sll=32.802955,-96.769923&sspn=0.47903,0.576782&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=19
Take a close look at the Google images... (Score:5, Interesting)
In the GOOGLE MAP [google.com] where the creek joins the river, it's pretty obvious.
I'm wondering how this could have been going on for so long, long enough for Google to have images (so obviously it's not a one time or sporadic event) event, without anyone noticing, does no one boat up that river? Fish on it? No nearby land owners?
Odd...
Re:Is a UAV necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
A better link: http://g.co/maps/8vdr9 [g.co]
No, you can't tell its blood, but you can see a color difference upstream vs downstream even in Google Maps.
The creek is generally green upstream, and dark ruddy brown below the plant.
If you zoom in closer on Google Earth you can see this color shift very well.: 32.749052 -96.789131
Also the historical imagery on Google Earth does not show this if you step back to 2009, when water levels were much higher
or 2008 when they were similarly low.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, gotta call BS on that one. It's not the same color as the "red silt" that predominates in the area. I'm a local resident and I know that there's nothing that color in the soil or water normally to make it- that's friggin' blood or a chemical contaminant emanating from the packing plant.
Re:Is a UAV necessary? (Score:5, Funny)
Shit is brown, your post is shit and I can see it.
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point... The color, even with your argument, isn't possible for the area like people keep trying to dismiss. I live in the DFW area (Tagline...) and that color isn't IN the soil or typically in the streams around the Trinity. It's a chemical contaminant or blood like I said originally. Trying to paint it any other way is to be promulgating a lie for the sake of playing "devils advocate"...
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, I can see this from my apartment on the opposite side of the planet. No warrant needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, how about any of these reasons:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, looking at the sat imagery...there's little doubt about it. What's more of an epic fail is that a State Rep's office is right across the street. Special.
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Most slaughterhouses in the US pay no attention to federal humane slaughtering & biohazard laws,
Citation needed.
A significant overreaction (Score:3)
That creek is just flowing with the blood of their enemies.
It's really potent stuff. (Score:5, Funny)
Not surprising (Score:4, Funny)
What a waste. (Score:3)
It all depends on who you are. (Score:4, Funny)
3rd world nation (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Another issue is that of culture. How many parents are involved in their child's life today compared to a post WW2 family? I content that family values have dropped which is at the root of our youth crime rate. It basically has led us into a destructive positive feed-back cycle from a cultural standpoint.
If the loss of family values are responsible for the youth crime rate [virginia.edu], we need to divest ourselves of family values as quickly as possible. The trend in youth crime has been decreasing since the mid 90s.
Th
Re: (Score:3)
So, what part of my comment was wrong? America is increasingly becoming like a 3rd world nation. We HAD th
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:4, Informative)
*their
Pollution is destruction of property, destruction of property is a civil or possibly criminal crime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So if everybody owns the land, we are enslaved, but if individuals own all the land we are not... right. Freedom is slavery, up is down, libertarianism isn't batshit insane stupidity. I'm not sure how I really feel about this little game.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:4, Insightful)
Also the air.
Libertarian naivete would be cute if it weren't dangerous.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Insightful)
We're already seeing where things are heading this way just with water. People are pumping antifreeze up from their water wells, and the oil/gas companies pumping god knows what down there insist it isn't their fault. How do you figure out who to sue? When you can't even force the companies to tell you what they're pumping down, how can you prove that what you're pumping up came from them and not some long closed auto shop that for all anyone knows dumped barrels of whatever in the yard decades ago and it just now got down to the water table?
Why does the government have to provide water to the people of Dimock, PA [businessweek.com]? Oh wait, that's right, the government said that Cabot didn't have to fix the problem, they just had to give them some water for a few years. Imagine, if only the government hadn't been there to make Cabot do anything at all!
The air? How would you even begin to figure out who caused the pollution that gave you lung cancer? It's bad enough WITH government "regulation" where companies have to "self-report" [hbs.edu] their "accidental" benzene releases.
Re: (Score:3)
I did a little looking around and can't find any instance of anyone pumping antifreeze up from their well.
Try harder:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/dimock-pennsylvania-epa-_n_1217422.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Their have been instances of faulty drilling techniques being employed (bad casing cement seals) that have allowed drilling fluids to leak up the well bore and into surface waters.
This was apparently found to be the case for Cabot's wells in Dimock: http://www.lhup.edu/rmyers3/ma [lhup.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
It won't help, browsers are so smart they conform to your search habits so this twit will only see the kind of mind-numbing tripe that has already stunted his perception of reality. Have him go to the LIBRARY, and use an unpolluted search environment. Then look up the purely insane laws that Dick Chaney got shoved through for his fracking buddies at Halliburton. Better yet, go get the HBO emmy award winning documentary on fracking "Gasland". There are people out there who have no problem crashing your econo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:4, Interesting)
Oceans are pretty big, and an ocean wouldn't be owned by a single entity, any more than a whole continent is (I'm not counting governments, I mean property owners). Furthermore, certain aspects of areas might be owned: shipping rights, fishing rights, mining rights. If an adjoiner's polluted water is killing fish in the area where I have fishing rights, I sue him.
Food is valuable, and fish is high quality food. The economic power of a large, well-organized fishing company should be enough to force a polluter to behave better.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Informative)
Not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights [wikipedia.org]
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Insightful)
To the extent that dumping blood into a river is harmful to others they are entitled to compensation. If you think libertarians are in favor of "liberty" to harm others, then your understanding of libertarianism is as bad as your spelling.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Insightful)
Since each typical polluter only causes a tiny amount of damage to the environment, and therefore only a small amount of damage to each individual, the recourse of individual against the collective effect of all polluters (which is non-trivial, by the way) is massively limited. Unless of course the public were to organize to protect their rights. Maybe the organization could even hold elections for leaders that would (ostensibly) represent the interests of the constituents. What do libertarians have to say about such a collective organization of individuals?
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Funny)
The organization would have to collect taxes! Theft! Socialism! Slavery!
Re: (Score:3)
Parent mocks, but Libertarians would be perfectly fine with such an organization...as long as it was supported by voluntary contributions, by selling a product, or some other means besides taking money from people by force.
Re: (Score:3)
Or by charging for a service such as contract enforcement through courts. Given that every transaction involves a contract that could be a fair amount of money, enough to finance a government as our constitution envisioned it, and it would not involve force - you would be free not to pay it, but your contract would not be enforceable in court. There are many other ways too.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Insightful)
My question concerning these types of situations and the whole libertarian "pollution is a civil matter and the polluter is liable for damages" method of dealing with pollution is; What if the polluter does not have the money or assets to clean up the mess they made?
Say I buy a corporation with a plant that handles toxic chemicals. It turns out these chemicals have been leaching into the groundwater for decades. I get sued by the property owners all around me and all the people that draw off that groundwater. I go to court and fight it out. I lose the case, and now owe $5 billion dollars in damages. The corporation files bankruptcy, but that's fine with me, because I walk away scot-free.
So, who ends up on the hook cleaning up the contamination? My corporation went the way of Enron, so it's not me or my corporation. Wouldn't the public then be on the hook for cleaning up the mess? What measures would the public be able to take in order to prevent a similar situation from happening again? Libertarians generally don't want regulations that would prevent this type of behavior before it occurs, so how do we actually prevent something like this from happening? Once it's happened, it's too late. We've all been drinking the poison, bathing in it, washing our clothes in it...
I've been reading about different environmental disasters here in the United States lately, things like Love Canal [wikipedia.org], Times Beach, Missouri [wikipedia.org], and the Valley of the Drums [wikipedia.org], and I wonder how the libertarian principles would have corrected those situations. The Superfund [wikipedia.org] law gives the EPA the power to identify and work towards cleaning these sites up, but most libertarians I talk to think the EPA should be abolished due to the whole "regulations" thing. That being said, if we get rid of the EPA, how would sites like this be handled, and who would pay for it?
I'm not trying to be facetious; this is an honest question, because, while I totally agree with some tenets of libertarianism, such as legalization of drugs and ending the nation-building all over the world bullshit, I don't see how the free market alone could deal with situations like these. These problems, due to their severity, seem to extend beyond the ability of any one private entity to deal with. The people living around these areas certainly couldn't have done anything about it, these sites cost billions to clean up, and there's over a thousand Superfund sites in the U.S. [wikipedia.org], as of November, 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, two of those disasters I mentioned, Love Canal and Valley of the Drums, were what led to the Superfund bill that gave the EPA the authority to deal with those issues. Prior to that it was pretty much up in the air, and the severity of those disasters and the problems in dealing with those issues were the driving motivations for that bill. The third, Times Beach, was an ongoing case that occurred before the Superfund bill but was not dealt with until after.
At any rate, it seems to me that there have
Re: (Score:3)
So the libertarians would entitle the victim to "compensation?" What about regulation to prevent the crap in the first place?
I want a government that will protect me from noxious substances.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a great essay called, "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" by Murray Rothbard.
http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf [mises.org]
In the libertarian theory unused property comes into ownership through homesteading which basically mean you have to start using unused land. The same theory exists with air/water pollution, noise, and radio waves.
So if an airport is build far away from people it homesteads the right to make the noise associated with running an airport. Anyone that decided to move nearby has to accept that level of noise. If people still move in then the level of noise the airport makes cannot be increased say by landing a new jet that is louder than previous aircraft. This is because it is a nuisance to the other property owners. This is the same reason an airport couldn't be built in a populated area without violating peoples property rights.
If a coal plant is built in a remote area where it's exhaust cannot be detected by surrounding property owners they have gained a right to pollute that air. If someone moves into that area they do so with the knowledge that the coal plant pollutes there. But if people move in anyway they can't sue to stop the pollution. But they can sue if the plant increases the pollution.
The same with a river. If before anyone owned property downstream on the river a meat packing plant moved there and polluted the river they would have homesteaded the right to pollute that river. That isn't very likely. There were most likely owners of property on the river before any industry. Therefore anyone that polluted the river would be violating everyone downstream property rights and they could sue for damages.You can have a class action lawsuit by all plaintiffs against a single polluter.
In reality a libertarian system would have a much cleaner environment because anyone could sue for damages. The EPA exists to protect businesses from lawsuits. It sets a legal limit where companies can pollute to where they face no threat of lawsuit. Also they don't get sued for damages but are fined by the government which leaves the property owners that had their property damaged with no recourse.
Re:If libertarians had there way (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality a libertarian system would have a much cleaner environment because anyone could sue for damages. The EPA exists to protect businesses from lawsuits. It sets a legal limit where companies can pollute to where they face no threat of lawsuit. Also they don't get sued for damages but are fined by the government which leaves the property owners that had their property damaged with no recourse.
Right. Because I want to spend the rest of my life (and income) suing various and sundry large corporations or interests that want to pollute or otherwise disturb the environment surrounding my own property.
I like arguing with people, but not that much.
Re: (Score:3)
What a brilliant idea! We could all get together and pay a small fee for a group of people to go after those polluters. It needs a good name though... How about the Environmental Protection Agency? That sounds like a good name. And we could pay for it out of our tax dollars so there are no free riders! Perfect!
Re: (Score:3)
In the libertarian theory unused property comes into ownership through homesteading which basically mean you have to start using unused land. The same theory exists with air/water pollution, noise, and radio waves.
So let me get this straight, if I use ALL of the available radio spectrum before anyone else has a chance, by default I will have the right to use it as I see fit and no one can do anything about it?
And you don't see any problems with this "first come, first serve, fuck everyone else" philosophy?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you may be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarian philosophy recognizes the need for a government to provide courts and police. The main purpose of these is to protect you liberty and property rights.
You could sue for anything but you have to prove damages. I may not be a handsome man but if you sue me in court you would have to prove damages to a jury.
Re: (Score:3)
We see in practice that this sort of damage is extremely difficult to prove, takes years to resolve in court, and is too easily written off as part of the 'cost of doing business' in most cases. In the meantime the damage is still being done to the environment and to the health of the people living in it. In West Virginia, many people affected by the coal industry are dying before they see any resolution in court. If you have acid rain falling on your head, how do you know which of the thousands of factorie
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure there are regulations against polluting a stream. 1580 feet downstream of this is a navigable river.
So your huge philosophical troll-bait is moot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't hurt yourself too much. Pure libertarianism is about as viable as pure communism. Both have the laudable goal of freeing the common man from oppression.
I wonder if it isn't the common man's lot to always be oppressed to some extent; and money and power will always be worth, well, money and power.
Re:What would be the libertarian solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the Libertarian model, the harm done to others by this slaughterhouse will be instantly and automatically undone the moment it is recognized, mediated by completely impartial and omniscient courts and lawyers who cost nothing to hire. The slaughterhouse always has sufficient cash reserve (or at least dissolution value and insurance coverage) to compensate for all the damage it has ever caused, and the damage is always completely reversible, in direct defiance of various laws of physics and biology. Human nature is modified so that everyone recognizes their own responsibility instantly and does not try to evade it. Life is good.
Then you wake up and realize that Libertarianism is great in theory, but completely untenable in the real world.