Where is the proof that the buyer agreed to reverse the transaction? If it were true, there was no reason to commit theft, as the buyer chooses what happens to the goat (not the middleman).
And of course, if they were to just shut up, that would encourage other goat thieves.
Let's acknowledge the technical theft. Because of that, the fair gets to ignore the warrant itself and slaughter the goat even when the warrant specifically called for an arbitration?
And of course, if they were to just shut up, that would encourage other goat thieves.