Police boasted yesterday (Saturday) that they arrested a football fan of the Bnei Yehuda team on suspicion of violating the "Animal Cruelty Law" after arriving at Bloomfield Stadium with a chicken bound in his personal tie.
Police asked the court to remove him and another person who held the case for three years from the football pitches but the court rejected the request and noted that the police were unable to refute the claim that it was a tradition of years.
Yesterday, the two were brought to court where the police asked to be removed from the football fields for three years.
The two fans who wanted to represent themselves said: "We in the Bnei Yehuda team have a rooster rooster that is the mascot, it is customary for us to bring the rooster for years, and it usually works in coordination with Bnei Yehuda and the management. It is something that is part of us. We also brought the rooster. "Here we will see how he is treated. There is nothing to do with animal cruelty. We have no one to talk to, it is our belief, the rooster comes in a box with air and everything, even when he entered the bag the bag was open and not closed."
The two further claimed: "We did not object even when a policeman came to us. The other suspect is not related to the story. We will ask them to let us in. During the game we hold him, do not abuse her. There are videos from the 90s and TV shows that show it. Court is right "By not putting the rooster in the bag. As for the expulsion, we do not agree we have teenagers who are like their father and mother."
The court accepted the fan's claim and accepted that it was a tradition of years and the judge noted that she found no justification for the acts attributed to the suspects which also involved an attempt to circumvent obtaining appropriate permits and making the necessary adjustments.
"The investigating unit did not contradict the suspects' remarks because it is a tradition to bring a rooster to the field.
It is not a matter of judicial knowledge, "the judge's decision stated," without taking lightly the actions attributed to the suspects, and while the court clarifies to them that the next step is not to act in a way that circumvents guidelines and procedures.
"Since in practice the file was already at the entrance to the field and the suspect took responsibility for things, I did not find it appropriate to order his removal from the fields."
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us