Oh please.
Yes you shouldn’t feed beer to animals.
Yes this tourist should be charged with interfering with wildlife or whatever relevant local law exists.
Yes changes should be made to avoid this type of interaction in future.
However, “forced” is clearly the wrong verb here, and I don’t think a few hundred ml is going to harm a several thousand kilo animal.
the structural design assumes everyone is a welfare cheat until proven otherwise
I disagree. I work in a related industry and sadly see a lot of people trying to interact with centrelink.
Over the years I’ve developed a strongly held belief that their processes are designed to be invasive and difficult to follow in order to discourage claimants. Dealing with centrelink is your last, worst option, and that is by design.
I don’t think it’s necessarily so pointless.
I do agree that it’s ethically dubious and in a perfect world you’d have enough police to monitor areas where this is likely to happen, but that’s not really the reality.
I don’t really agree that no crime would’ve been committed if the police hadn’t left a scooter there. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s more likely to me that delinquents are looking for opportunities all day.
I also don’t agree that we should avoid charging kids with this type of crime. If the court is producing bad outcomes then that is what should be addressed.
On balance, I think it’s the last, worst option. However, if police don’t have the resources to manage this problem then it would allow you to grab a few kids who are hanging out at the same shop every day stealing everyone’s stuff.
No I’m pretty sure we agree that it’s a bad thing.
I’m pointing out the intention of those involved. The intention is not to assume everyone is a cheat, rather the intention is to make it difficult to make a claim.