I don't know if I agree with you, Gonz.
First, let's assume for the sake of argument that PETA's undercover worker didn't actually participate in these activities, but merely observed them ("allowed them to go on"). If I understand your positon--and please correct me if I'm wrong--you feel the PETA rep should have blown the whistle on the first act of abuse he/she observed, rather than to let additional acts continue to occur. To my knowledge, undercover investigators--even official police--routinely allow criminal and indecent behavior to occur. I believe that this is to collect a sufficient amount of evidence with which to prove that the wrongdoings are not merely one-time isolated incidents, but are regular, on-going occurances. Now, you and I, if we heard that on one occasion one employee squeezed one live chicken to death, and that one instance was all we heard about and all there was proof of, well you and I might conclude that that one occurance surely isn't the only occurance and that that type of thing probably happens a lot more often than just the once. However, that isn't good enough in a court of law to show that this kind of thing happens regularly. To prove that something happens regularly, you need to have evidence of it happening regularly over a sufficiently long enough period of time. Obviously, an undercover agent could not collect this type of evidence if he/she blew the whistle on the first occurance.
