California Student Gets 8 Years for SUV Vandalism (Reuters)

[Up2Late]

(IMHO, this just proves, their is no Justice anymore)

California Student Gets 8 Years for SUV Vandalism

Mon Apr 18, 2005 09:25 PM ET

LOS ANGELES, Calif. (Reuters) - An aspiring physicist was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on Monday and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles. Rejecting pleas for clemency from William Cottrell, a 24-year-old doctoral candidate in physics at the California Institute of Technology, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner added more time to the sentence after finding that Cottrell was trying to sway consumers with his anti-SUV message.

The slogans Cottrell spray-painted onto vehicles included "Fat Lazy Americans," "No Respect for Earth" and "SUV = Terrorism." Cottrell, who admitted only spray-painting and testified he did not know that two friends were bringing Molotov cocktails, promised he would never break the law again. The two friends have fled the country to avoid prosecution, authorities said. "I want nothing more than to be a physicist," Cottrell said. "I would do anything to earn any leniency the court could show in this matter."

Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one count of conspiracy related to a 2003 vandalism and firebombing spree that targeted about 125 large sports utility vehicles at four Southern California dealerships and a few homes.

Cottrell's attorneys asked for the five-year mandatory minimum sentence saying that their client has Asperger's syndrome -- a form of autism marked by impaired ability to understand social situations. They said it affected his judgment and kept him from backing out when his two friends started lighting Molotov cocktails. But Judge Klausner said high intelligence should work against a defendant, not in his favor.(What?)

(more at link above)

[w4rma]

1. The guy is like Rainman. He has autism. Smart in physics, not so smart

in situations like this. Stupid idiot judge.

[Up2Late]

3. I agree, but what do you make of that last statement by the Judge?

"...But Judge Klausner said high intelligence should work against a defendant, not in his favor..."

I don't get that.

[lenidog]

6. What the judge was saying is that if he was so intelligent

then he should have known better.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Asperger's (I understand they call themselves Aspies) usually

do have high intelligence. In D&D terms -- something many Aspies would relate to -- they'd have intelligence of 18 and a wisdom of 5. Just can't really function in society because they are incapable of recognizing the social cues that other people take for granted.

Obviously the judge has no knowledge or experience with Asperger's -- he hears 'autism' and thinks 'Rainman', but there's a world of difference.

I have a friend who I believe is undiagnosed Asperger's: he's 25, lives at home with his parents, works pizza delivery, and is obsessed with anime films. He doesn't drive, never had a girlfriend that I've heard about, is a fairly good writer - though all his stories are prose anime - and doesn't seem to know how dysfunctional he appears to everyone else. He's in his own little world.

I can easily see him getting caught up in something without recognizing the ramifications of it, simply because he does not wholly live in this world. In a different age, he might be a mystic or a monk. This world is not made for such as he.

[lenidog]

11. Sounds like a friend of mine though he is a bit more socialized than that

though not by much. Incredibly intelligent, was until a couple years ago living at home, could be anything he wanted to but wont finish college it would interfere I guess with his latest obsession. So he usually works far below his intelligence. Is actually married now but she shares his latest ongoing obsession which is a live action role playing game called NERO. (that is where they met) He is also totally socially inept because he lives in his own world.

[mark11727]

35. Knew a guy like that in college...

... he was brilliant in his major, but had the social skills and manners of a kindergartner.

Even in those moments when we suspected that something wasn't quite right about him, and felt sorry for him, he'd find a way to wreck it for himself.

Whenever we tried engaging him in an actual mature conversation, he'd invariably say something incredibly insensitive or stupid (it would just pop out for no reason), and then we'd get pissed off at him all over again.

[flvegan]

38. The judge never heard the Asperger's argument.

He disallowed the defense expert testimony on it. Nothing was stated beyond the defendant having it. It never figured into the case (from what I've read about the case).

[Walt Starr]

65. That gives an excellent avenue for appeal, though

He'll not do the eight years, although some time is probably appropriate.

[flvegan]

68. Agreed. Pretty stiff sentence, but he shouldn't walk.

The judge should have at least allowed his mental capacity to be introduced.

I'm an activist freak, but arson...never.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Can't function is society?

It would appear that he functioned well enough to get a college degree and get into graduate school. This isn't some 'Rain Man' type who lives in an institution or a group home.

[LeftyMom]

103. That doesn't mean a great deal

A neighbor of mine is an aspie with a degree. He shows bad judgement when it comes to social situations ( henever knows when to shut up beucause he doesn't recognize sny cue less subtle than "I have to go to the store now, I'll see you later") and can't eally tell who is and isn't trustworthy. He's got a degree, but he doesn't have the social skills to get and keep a job.

Just because he has the intellect to get a degree, that doesn't imply that he has judgement or social skills. That high intellect/ low social skills combo is typical for people with Aspergers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

147. There is a big difference between being socially inept and not knowing

the difference between right and wrong.

[MN ChimpH8R]

175. Aspergers

Woo, first post at DU :beer:

I was recently diagnosed with Aspergers well into my 40s. I was a summa cum laude college grad and top 40% at an Ivy League law school. I've never been able to hold a professional position for more than a couple of years and never knew why until I was diagnosed. I knew I didn't have much in the way of social skills, and that I could never read people or follow the unwritten rules and never picked up on body language, subtle expressions or eye contact.

Asperger's is neurological, not psychological. Our brains are hardwired differently and there's nothing that can be done about it. At least when one is diagnosed, you can acknowledge it, and try to work around it. But it never goes away. Social naivete is very much a feature of Aspies.

That doesn't excuse arson, but too stiff a punishment, IMHO.

[pelagius]

72. Nerds and Asperger's

According to the provocative piece in _Wired_, Asperger's is quite prevelant among high tech professionals and may even be a cause of a higher-than-normal rate of autism in the SF Bay Area ("Silicon Valley"):

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

Speaking as someone who has worked daily with very technical software people for the last 15 years, I definitely see the symptoms -- especially the social tone deafness -- around me all the time.

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. Yeah stupid judge....

I hate it when they lock up violent criminals who like to burn down people's homes. :eyes:

[w4rma]

40. According to the court, he never set these fires. 2 other folks, who fled

the country, set the fires. He was there to spray paint various messages.

Folks who steal millions (and therefore ruin the lives of many many people) get MUCH less prision time than this potentially brilliant scientist is getting for spray paining those cars while his "friends" set fire to them and flee the country.

[Chrisishere]

83. Perhaps not so stupid

I am a prosecutor and often believe that those who have more (more intelligence, more money, more advantages) should be held to a higher standard than those who do not. I guess it's like telling the older brother, "I expected more from YOU!" Perhaps the judge expects people with a greater level of intelligence to use better judgement. I don't think it's an unreasonable philosophy.

[bluestateguy]

2. I don't condone what the guy did

and I believe some punishment was warranted for this guy, but we also need to recognize that the people driving these gas guzzlers are contributing to pollution and unsafe road conditions for everybody else. Perhaps they will think about that when looking for new cars.

[Mountainman]

4. Everyone who drives contributes to pollution

It is not what you drive so much as how much fuel you burn.

To single out SUV owners is very narrow minded I think. It is an elitist, holier than thou attitude that is very unbecoming of a thinking mind in my opinion.

It reminds me of the xions who hate gays, a very similar mind set.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. "It is not what you drive so much as how much fuel you burn."

And your typical SUV will burn half-again as much gas in ten miles as my Nissan Sentra does. And you typical Hummer will burn twice as much.

There is no comparison. Somebody flaunts their $100,000 Hummer at me, and I'm elitist because I see that he is conspicuously wasting resources and money to make up for his small penis?

Even disregarding the fact of peak oil, these monsters make the roads more dangerous. Why do you think they are running those ads on TV about 'how to handle your Essuvee'? They know they are dangerous to their own drivers and to everyone else on the road with them.

It is very much what you drive.

[MnFats]

15. amen. these fuggin' hummers, when pimped out, get about 8mpg

if not less. they are obscene. I hate them.
i drive a prizm, in the interest of full disclosure. it gets around 32 freeway. burns some oil with 144,000 miles on it.

[omega minimo]

17. A woman was sentenced to lifelong disability by an SUV driver

"They know they are dangerous to their own drivers and to everyone else on the road with them."

She was walking in a parking lot. SUV girl was on the phone and gunning back out of a parking spot. Knocked the woman down. Hopped out of the SUV, left it running and still in gear. The driverless vehicle backed up over the woman. Crushed her legs. Severed a foot.

The driver is confined to house arrest at Starbuck's. No phone privileges or extra shots.





Martha went to prison. Where's Ken Lay?

[Voltaire99]

27. "It reminds me of the xions who hate gays, a very similar mind set."

Yes, they hate gays, who harm no one.

And that's irrational, at best.

But SUVs harm everyone in three important ways: they consume fuel extravagantly thereby increasing US dependence on foreign oil; their higher emissions pollute our air leading to respiratory illnesses and hastening greenhouse effects; and they are demonstrably more dangerous both for their drivers because of roll over and for victims in smaller cars hit by them.

Now, sure, some hold elitist attitudes. Hell, I've been known to do that, too. But opposing SUVs is akin to holy rollers opposing homosexuality?

Better try throwing that lasso around another analogy, pardner. ;-)

[readmoreoften]

140. it is a very different mindset than those who hate gays

burning property at a car dealership is a political act against capitalism, not a threat of rape and/or sexualized murder to a disempowered minority that you irrationally hate and want to obliterate off the planet.

the only parallel is the spraypaint.

[countmyvote4real]

5. And they can fall back on the twinkie defence.

The SUV made me buy it.

So where is the intelligence in that? But I guess that only applies to the sentence.

[dragon695]

160. But I do

I couldn't care less about some "poor" GM dealership loosing their "precious" SUV's. I say the more destruction, the merrier. Do not forget the Boston Tea Party, which was destruction of goods in order to protest policies of the oligarchs and to promote a political end.

Look, the global warming crisis is reaching the point of no return. Since the Bu$h administration isn't going to do anything about it, it is high time we did. If it is OK for a bunch of rednecks to go down and form their own "militia" to patrol the boarders and combat illegal immigration, then it is ok for us to start taking matters regarding these horrible vehicles into our own hands. These monstrous trucks aren't easy to make, so the more that are destroyed, the less supply there will be. The miricle of supply and demand will send the prices of these vehicles so high that it will be out of the range of the "upper-middle" class yuppies, who GM is primarily trying to target.

Not only should they not be punished, they should be actively helped by obstructing any sort of "justice" against them.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

7. Wait... He is going to jail for trying to influence

consumners?

What about Ad execs? They should be executed then.

[d_b]

28. Amen to that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. I think that arson may have something to do with it

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

104. So what to make of this quote then?

"U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner added more time to the sentence after finding that Cottrell was trying to sway consumers with his anti-SUV message."

Huh?

[petronius]

111. It sounds like either bad judicial logic or bad reporting

On the other hand, it could be the new anti-terrorism: if your criminal act is intended to influence opinions, then you are automatically a 'terrorist' and entitled to an extra long sentence...

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

132. Yes, that was my point. I have seen other such proclimations from

a variety of benches at all levels recently. I assume it is some kind of guideline or talking point from DOJ or a think tank, and yes, I think that is the point, to equate everything with terror.

[Freddie Stubbs]

146. So motive should have place in the sentencing process

If you assault someone you can go to jail. If you assault someone because they are a minority, they can go to jail for even longer.

[slackmaster]

59. No, he's going to prison for arson and vandalism

Next time he should take out ads in newspapers, or make rousing speeches, or write a good book.

[Swamp Rat]

10. evil judge

very evil

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. So would you let someone...

who lights you car on fire get a free pass?

Fuck that shit.

He could have burned down someone's home, people could have died.

This asshole is a violent criminal and deserves to be in prison.

[Swamp Rat]

29. .

[The Stranger]

52. What thread are you reading?

No one fucking set anyone on fire. No one burned down anyone's home. Apparently, the person sentenced didn't light a fucking thing on fire.

This asshole is a violent criminal and deserves to be in prison.

Did you forget the sarcasm indicators?

[Swamp Rat]

69. Exactly

The guy is innocent of the crimes with which he is charged, but that doesn't matter to all the Nancy Grace wannabes - they want blood. They want 'justice'... in the form of torture and humiliation. As you can see, it doesn't really matter if someone is guilty or innocent.

Some folks put a higher premium on material possessions than human life, lusting for the chance to watch others suffer while sitting in their McMansions drooling over their precious possessions. There's no arguing with materialistic people as they are never wrong.

Ownership trumps humanity. Entertainment trumps justice.

[slackmaster]

78. On what do you base your claim that he is innocent?

He ADMITTED to seven counts of setting fires in order to destroy property, which is arson in California.

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

86. Thanks for proving my point to the other poster.

Have a nice day. :)

[slackmaster]

90. What "other poster"

What is your problem?

[TX-RAT]

100. You've proved nothing.

[Swamp Rat]

130. Not to you.

After reading your posts, I don't expect you to understand anyway. Good luck! :)

[TX-RAT]

142. Well thank you

You've proved one thing.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then just make and insulting post and walk away. Is this your usual tactics?

[Swamp Rat]

154. HA! Like you did?

I'm certainly not impressed. x(

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance" - You are right. I am brilliant. Unfortunately, there are many who aren't, and therefore do not understand. :)

"then just make and insulting post and walk away." - That's what you did. You are projecting.

"Is this your usual tactics?" - You drew "first blood" Rambo. :D

[TX-RAT]

99. And you were juror number what?

He plead guilty.

[slackmaster]

58. Put yourself in the judge's place and tell us what you would have done

What sentence would you have imposed, and why?

Your answer must be within the constraints of California law to be taken seriously.

Here's the Penal Code for your reference:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20

[Swamp Rat]

70. I'm glad you are not a judge.

Don't you have some guns to clean or something?

[slackmaster]

76. Argumentum ad hominem doesn't address the question

Try again.

[Swamp Rat]

84. Jawol herr Bundesrichter!

Não preciso que contestar nenhuma coisa que disse você. Acho que você é DOIDO!

Buona fortuna!

[slackmaster]

85. ROTFLMAO!

Get a grip on reality, Swamp Rat.

:D

[Swamp Rat]

88. What was that about ad hominem?

:D Oh, well. :shrug:

As for reality, if you ever discover how to get a grip on it, please let me know. :D

[slackmaster]

89. Sticks and stones

:D

[BadNews]

157. For those of you who didn't get that,

Swamprat is probably Brazilian.

[slackmaster]

173. Yes, he can make an ass of himself in Portuguese and German

Great accomplishments!

:toast:

[dragon695]

161. well given the recent supreme court decision

I certainly should not be allowed to tack on extra time for "extra" circumstances.

[conflictgirl]

12. To me the problem here is the hugely disproportionate sentence

Even though I agree with his message and having roots in the punk scene I understand the intent of actions such as his, I don't think he should go unpunished. However, as the federal prosecutor said in that article, the judge in this case chose to send a political message. Even IF the student here really was involved with the Molotov cocktails and it wasn't merely his friends, the sentence seems pretty disproportionate to the crime. $3.5 million dollars plus 8 years' jail time is a hell of a lot for someone who committed property crimes that (as far as we know) didn't result in anyone's death or injury.

[Jack_DeLeon]

24. IMO Arson is a violent crime...

I dont know about you but I park my car in my driveway near my house.

If someone set that on fire that could very well be my house.

I dont give a fuck what people say but if you burn down someone's property it is a violent crime.

[The Stranger]

97. The reason for classifying crimes as violent has to do with people,

not property. I'm sure your house would be very upset about being set on fire, whether violently or nonviolently. But, unfortunately, the law is not intended to protect houses or property from violence, merely from damage.

Maybe people don't give a fuck what you say.

[Jack_DeLeon]

139. If I use a gun....

and hold some people up at a convenience store that is a violent crime regardless if I didnt actually hurt anyone.

By lighting these fires this guy threatened people's lives, that makes it a violent crime.

[The Stranger]

143. No, it really doesn't.

Lighting a fire, in itself, is not a crime. Setting fire to someone else's property (key word here) is a crime.

If lighting the fire threatens people's lives -- follow me here -- that becomes a different crime, one involving people.

[conflictgirl]

145. That doesn't make sense

If someone is driving 20 miles over the speed limit and I'm another driver on the same road, they are threatening my life. Of course they should be arrested for how fast they're driving. But it would be more than a bit extreme to charge them with attempted murder just because their actions potentially could've killed me. I feel like your argument is saying that any actions a person takes that could potentially result in another person's death is a violent crime or even attempted murder, which is ridiculous.

[Caution]

91. 8 years for vandalising cars. It's obscene.

Our entire society has gone insane when it comes to the sentences handed out on a regular basis. People have no concept of what even a 2 year prison term does to a person or to the person's family. Some crimes deserve lengthy terms. But 8 years for vandalism?

[mccoyn]

93. 125 SUVs...

The article said they targeted 125 SUVs at dealerships. Thats not some vandalisism, thats a hell of a lot. If we take $30,000 each thats $3.75 Million worth of damages. It sounds like the punishment fits the crime to me.

[Caution]

94. the money value is high sure, but 8 years effectively destroys this

man's life. What is the value of a person? The only reason 8 years sounds remotely reasonable is because we have become accustomed to handing out these massive prison terms.

Where were you 8 years ago? How many friends and family members have died? How many jobs have you had? How many times have you moved? 8 years is a very very long time (1/9th of a person's entire lifespan, and generally these sentences occur in the most vibrant years of the offenders life time). When he gets out, literally nothing will be the same for him. He'll have to start all over. For what? vandalism of some cars? Insurance companies are in business for 2 reasons. 1.) to make money and 2.) to protect the insured from disaster. Unfortunately they have gotten so damned rich that they can afford to buy laws like this which puts this guy in jail for a very very long time because they had to sacrifice a miniscule portion of their profit. It's wrong.

[mccoyn]

95. Not just high, its huge.

"For what? vandalism of some cars? "

Everyone keeps saying "some cars". It was a big pile of cars. Not like some cars at the gas station, but the pile of cars at the mega mart on christmas eve. Yeah his life is ruined now. Guess what, $3 million in damages would ruin anyone who doesn't have insurance. Well, the law can't make decisions like that. $3 million in damages is $3 million whether its insured or not, whether its owned by a co-op of poverty stricken people or Bill Gates. Justice, is blind.

[Caution]

96. Sure it would ruin anyone without insurance

and yes it would certainly hurt individuals, but car dealerships (where the vast majority of this occurred) must be insured to even get the cars from the manufacturer.

Justice certainly should be blind (though it most certainly isn't color blind in this country), but judges have the ability to determine sentencing. The mandatory minimum (a perversion of justice if ever there was one) for this crime was 5 years. The judge in this case gave this guy 8 years because "he was smart and should have known better"

Yeh that's blind justice alright.

[slackmaster]

113. What of the harm done to everyone who pays insurance premiums?

The price of insurance will go up for everyone who has a policy. Most of them are innocent of the "crime" of offering big SUVs for sale.

This defendant got off easy. If he's really that bright he can work on his PhD while in prison, and have that $3.5 million worked off by the time he reaches retirement age.

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. 3.5 mil is peanuts to the insurance industry. This will have zero

impact on the insurance company. If this is used as an excuse to raise premiums, then next quarter you will see the company recording record profits and bigger bonuses granted to the company execs.

Which is why they will probably do just that.

[slackmaster]

153. So you personally don't mind paying for your share of this incident

I do. I refuse to subsidize the activities of criminals.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. then stop paying your taxes. nt

[slackmaster]

158. Witty yet predictable

:D

[Caution]

167. So instead you wish to throw away this young man's life?

Rather than pay a few extra pennies on your insurance premium? What difference does it make if you pay for the incarceration or your insurance premium? Either way you are paying.

I won't even get into the fact that insurance companies are nothing more than legalized protection rackets (instead of the mafia enforcer breaking this kids legs, the US government (the insurance company's enforcer) is sending him to prison for 8!!! years)).

A better discussion here is how about instead of the insurance industry lobbying for the US government to act as its enforcement arm to protect its profits that the US government actually protects its citizens from the predatory practices of the insurance industry which does everything it can not to pay off those it insures and which has barely any regulation left in the amount they are allowed to charge for their premiums?

Rather than incarcerating this kid for a HUGE portion of his life, incarcerate him for an actual reasonable timeframe and force the insurance company to pay up, since that is the entire reason one gets insurance in the first place.

So far your whole argument for imprisoning this kid for a massive period of his life is that he was involved in a big number vandalism case and you don't want to pay a bigger insurance premium. Sounds like compassionate conservatism. (You know, that which is neither compassionate, not conservative due to the amount of tax dollars going to keep this kid in jail for that long and the drain he will be on the economy once he gets out and is unable to find work because of his felony conviction).

[slackmaster]

172. He threw away up to 8 years of his own life - not my choice or problem

You and I and everyone else who pays for auto insurance is going to end up absorbing some of the cost of his rampage. There is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about either of those outcomes.

What difference does it make if you pay for the incarceration or your insurance premium? Either way you are paying.

That's an absurd question - obviously a false dilemma since you and I are going to end up paying for both.

I won't even get into the fact that insurance companies are nothing more than legalized protection rackets (instead of the mafia enforcer breaking this kids legs, the US government (the insurance company's enforcer) is sending him to prison for 8!!! years)).

If you want to do without insurance that is your choice.

Rather than incarcerating this kid for a HUGE portion of his life...

Give me a fucking break. Eight years is not a "huge" portion of his life. It's about 1/3 of how long he's lived so far. By the time he's out it will be less than 1/4 of his life, and he still won't have reached his intellectual or productive prime. He got a light sentence.

So far your whole argument for imprisoning this kid for a massive period of his life is that he was involved in a big number vandalism case and you don't want to pay a bigger insurance premium.

My argument for imprisoning this felon is that he committed a horrible crime - ARSON, not vandalism - and deserves to pay for it. Whether he goes to prison or not has no bearing on what happens to our insurance premiums. Your whole line of analysis here is completely ridiculous.

Sounds like compassionate conservatism.

I have no compassion whatsoever for the creep. People who deliberately set fires in order to cause damage are assholes. Coddling people who commit dastardly and dangerous acts is not a liberal or progressive value.

...not conservative due to the amount of tax dollars going to keep this kid in jail for that long and the drain he will be on the economy once he gets out and is unable to find work because of his felony conviction....

And while he's in prison he A) Won't commit arson and B) Will have plenty of time to think about the horrible thing he did.

[dragon695]

163. No it won't

The companies which insure dealerships are not the same as the ones which cover consumer home/auto/life. Its a completely different industry with a different paradigm, given the level of liability involved. If anything, it would make the cost of insurance for some of the other odious retailers go up.

[slackmaster]

174. Cite, please

Can you list which insurance company or companies are going to end up paying for the mess?

[iamjoy]

152. Don't They Cane For This In Singapore?

Wasn't some American kid beaten/flogged for (supposedly) doing this sort of thing in Singapore?

We were all outraged at the time, but sometimes I wonder if in some ways physical punishment isn't kinder than several years in prison.

[kodi]

13. maybe he can get a cell with another asperger-physicist, ted kozinski

what he did was stupid. that he thinks being sorry makes it excusable is laughable.

i have no more sympathy for him than i do for those nut cases who smear blood on aborton clinics and fire bomb them.

i am sorry that an obviously bright young man screwd up his career, but i did not place the man in his situation. he did by his willful actions.

[Zorra]

14. Gosh, there's this one guy who lied to start this war where entire cities

were destroyed and tens of thousands of innocent people were killed and lots and lots of really expensive vehicles got burned, and he wasn't even arrested.

Go figure.

[MnFats]

16. good point n/t

[BadNews]

18. Yes but,

One criminal getting off scott free does not mean that everyone else should. * has done his crimes but probably won't do time. Yet there is an old saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." This guy was a fool. This fellow deserves punishment, but 8 years seems steep.

[bunkerbuster1]

39. 8 years is about what I'd expect from Texas

But CA?

Yes, the vandalism act was serious. Yes, it deserved punishment. But mandatory eight years hard time? Ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

57. And there's no distraction like a good Red Herring

n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. Good...

I have complete hatred for those who light fires and burn down people's property and homes.

I'm going to presume that he commited his actions at night, if it were Texas and someone caught him it would be totally legal, and IMO completely justfied to shoot him on the spot.

I've never had the misfortune of losing my house to a fire but I know people who have, and its terrible.

[BadNews]

22. True. They would be justified.

[enki23]

26. legal to shoot someone who was committing vandalism, or even arson...

acting upon unoccupied vehicles, and you would agree with shooting them. nice. more evidence the texas stereotype isn't inaccurate.

[Jack_DeLeon]

30. Texas Penal Code Section 9.42

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Hey maybe you dont see anything wrong with people lighting vehicles with rather large gas tanks on fire in a residential neighborhood, how would you like it if I light your car on fire?

I consder any arsonist to be a violent criminal, and those fuckers deserve to die.

[enki23]

32. hey. i didn't doubt it's legal in texas. and i rest my case.

for the record... if you ever set my car on fire, i promise i won't shoot you. that is, unless someone's in it. even in texas. i don't believe in applying deadly force for anything less than to counter immediate and serious threats to someone's life and limb. that's another way of saying i'm a decent human being, admittedly something i may not have in common with a very large proportion of texans.

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. wow, I guess you live in a place where the laws of physics are different..

cause I can tell you right now if I set any of the cars in my neighborhood on fire, I'm sure almost everyone would consider that a serious and immediate threat to thier lives and limbs.

[Sterling]

79. Seems like any post with a Texas flag will have that kind of content.

I have always hated Texas. The only part worth a shit is Austin.

I think more SUV's should be set on fire. By the time all is said and done I have a feeling the entire US will look like LA circa Rodney King. The SUVs should be used for kindling.

[dragon695]

168. Amen

Well Said!

God, you sometimes wish we'd just have let the Mexicans have it (maybe throwing in Missippi and Oklahoma to boot). I'm proud to say that the last time I visited Texas, I did what Ozzy did and pissed on the Alamo :P.

[leesa]

42. This attitude is part of America's shame.

[dragon695]

166. Boo Hoo

I have no sympathy for the people who had their cars burnt and certainly no sympathy for the dealerships.

[AP]

20. rapists, murderers and pedophiles get less time than that!

[slackmaster]

109. That's definitely a problem

Rapists, murders, and pedophiles should get more time.

[seriousstan]

25. This is exactly the way human nature is.

Message:
In another thread about an Asperger's syndrome sufferers rampage on SUVs,2003 vandalism and firebombing spree that targeted about 125 large sports utility vehicles at four Southern California dealerships and a few homes, we see how easily we are deceived.

Nobody is immune. Mental health is everyones concern.

[SKKY]

31. I think what the judge was saying was...

...he should have known better- if he was so smart.

[ConsAreLiars]

34. but if he had a conscience or a soul

he did what was right. Not perfect, but more honorable and decent than anything done by his critics.

"He should have known better" if he wanted to evade fascist reprisals, or even if he had a better understanding of how things really work. But he did what he could to say NO to raping Gaia, and deserves respect.

[SKKY]

36. Don't get me wrong Cons, I'm torn on this...

...but I just can't figure how committing a string of crimes is justifiable as a morally acceptable way of protesting.

[Piperay]

37. I'm torn too

because I know that the guy was acting out of principle. Still he was darned lucky that a night watchman or someone who was just there to do cleaning wasn't killed. I have to come down on the side that doing something like that no matter how high minded you are is not justifiable.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

43. Principle?

What fucked up principle implies that it's OK to destroy others' property and endanger lives... to make a point?

[Sterling]

80. What fucked up principle implies that it's OK to destroy others' property

I don't know but our country does it all the time to secure fuel for those SUV's. What comes around.......

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

82. That isn't a principle.

It's a justification. And not even a very good justification.

[Piperay]

119. Apparently the 'fucked up'

principles that this guy has does.

[dragon695]

170. It was done in the past

e.g. Boston Tea Party

[leesa]

41. 8 years?? That is so sick! Sounds like one of those reactionary judges.

Why is intelligence so hated in this country?

[elehhhhna]

45. He'd get less time for molestattion or rape. Only in America.

[Blue Moon]

67. True

The answer is to increase the time for rapists to life sentences. As far as his sentence, he did the crime, now he's got to do the time.

[slackmaster]

61. Here's a link to the entire California Penal Code

And a chance for you to play Moot Court Judge on the Internet.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20

Please look up the definitions and penalties for arson and explain to us how you would have sentenced this defendant.

[flvegan]

63. His Honor WAS appointed by *

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations/727.html

[Red State Rebel]

47. Student gets 8 years for SUV vandalism

http://us.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/suv.vandalism.reut/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- An aspiring physicist was sentenced Monday to more than eight years in prison and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles.

[Mr.Soul]

48. hmmmmm

Guzzling hummers takes on a whole new meaning now.

[formerrepuke]

49. and how many years do Hummer owners get for polluting the air...?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Forget the owners...

There will always be some class of dumbasses who just have to have the ugliest, fattest, biggest, most-polluting vehicles they can get their hands on. I say:

1) Fuck Detroit for opposing new mileage standards.
2) Fuck Bush & co. for opposing clean air standards, new mileage standards, and giving tax breaks to these fuckers.

They want to own these things? Fine. Let's make it harder for them, and let's make them pay through the nose.

[barb162]

102. and wasting gasoline

[American Tragedy]

51. I don't like SUVs, but wanton destruction of property is inexcusable

That kind of protest is also incredibly counter-productive. Radicals severely undermine their own message when they employ methods with which normal people cannot sympathize.

My mother has an SUV (23 mpg), and while I would never purchase one myself, realistically I'd probably want to kick the ass of someone who torched or sprayed self-righteous slogans on it.

On edit: I do think the length of the prison sentence is excessive, especially relative to the punishments doled out for other more serious crimes. However, he should definitely be obligated to recompensate everyone for the automobiles he vandalized.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. Nearly all the damage was on dealerships' lots.

Those who took the hits were the dealerships, the manufacturers and the insurance companies.

Aspies find the world to be a confusing, foreign place. Eight years in prison will be absolute hell for him and he very possibly will not survive it, because of an inborn inability to relate to people.

An appropriate sentence would be a year in jail and five years monitored probation as he works for a major car company developing environmentally responsible cars. He has the intelligence to do that and what he could offer the manufacturer would more than compensate for the losses. Once the probationary period is over he could go back to school.

A sentence like this is very possibly a death sentence.

[slackmaster]

66. You aren't thinking this all the way through, NCevilDUer

Those who took the hits were the dealerships, the manufacturers and the insurance companies.

Please tell us how those corporations are going to ultimately recoup their losses.

Who pays in the long run?

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. By charging more for SUVs. Tough noogies. nt

[slackmaster]

77. You still don't get it

That type of "protest" action raises the prices of ALL motor vehicles and EVERYONE'S insurance.

It wastes resources and energy, and pollutes the air too.

[wuushew]

138. Why would it raise rates on everybody if it only affected one type of car?

Insurance rates are set by make, model and liability potential. Your arguments against the criminal affect on insurance rates would logically also apply to free market forces and in that case everybody who is a cheapskate should bitch at those not driving a Saab. The premium is added on top of the rate calculated by the actuaries.

Yes, destroying SUV is wasteful, but obviously someone is employed in the auto industry building a replacement vehicle, the insurance people earn their keep and the total environmental impact may be less over the life of the SUV if the potential buyer became scared and drove a Prius for the next 10 years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. Have you told your mother that you don't like her driving one

of those things? Not because of the gas mileage, or the esthetics of it, but because they are among the most dangerous vehicles on the road. The are prone to roll-over, and with the high seats a person is far liklier to be crushed than if they are in a normal car with seats that are more reclined. They block the vision of vehicles on the road with them, causing a higher liklihood of passing accidents. And the worst part of it is that while they are more dangerous, they impart a feeling of security.

I think he should pay compensation for every one of the vehicles that was not covered by insurance. Meaning, none of them. The prison term is excessive, considering the mitigation of being an Aspie, and the compensation ordered will keep him in debt slavery for the rest of his life. Literally. The punishment is way excessive for the crime. He didn't burn down a neighborhood or a national forest. Just a bunch of cars.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

120. I THOUGHT I was being responsible when I bought my Honda Pilot...

...and I did it primarily because Honda decided that they had to become BMW whores and "European-ize" the Accord. (That's an actual term the Honda dealer shared with me..."Europeanize.")

I had a 1991 Accord. Drove it well past the 135,000 mile mark. A RESPONSIBLE car, a car with GREAT GAS MILEAGE.

I sat in a 2003 Accord, with the intention of test driving it. They "scooped" the roof, to give it "European" styling. They made it an impossibility to drive for anyone with claustrophobia (which I have). I went to the dealer's lot, with 135,000 miles on my 1991 Accord, with the intention of buying ANOTHER Accord. Honda turned the Accord into the "Cramp-Mo-Bile," because an insecure segment of the population MUST drive a "status car" from Germany in order to define themselves. Honda had a GREAT thing going with the Accord, and they SOLD THEIR SOULS to the Beemer crowd.

This vigilante SUV BULLSHIT has got to stop. Yes, I see more than my share of soccer moms in Silicon Valley driving Chevy Silverados and frigging MONSTER V8 trucks to pick up their FUCKING KIDS and their FUCKING GROCERIES. They are not ME, and I am not THEM. They have THEIR reasons for doing what they do, I have MINE.

I made a decision when I bought my Honda Pilot. It's not a Hummer, but it is classified as an SUV. This rhetoric about "SUV owners DESERVE vandalism, DESERVE to get BONED at the gas pump, DESERVE to get FLIPPED OFF AT EVERY INTERSECTION" is UTTER, CHILDISH BULLSHIT. I'm the one who has to pay when I pull up to the pump, so I cordially invite anyone who wants to criticize my choice of vehicle to BLOW ME. There is NO EXCUSE FOR VANDALISM. Whoever makes that decision DESERVES the consequences.

Just my two cents worth.

[tinonedown]

53. Just another domestic terrorist

Thank goodness no one was killed. He won't be threatening civilians anymore, for awhile, at least.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amagusta]

55. Does the judge own stock in GM? (should be disclosed)

Perhaps he's taking the heat for GM's 1.1 billion loss.

These vehicles should be banned except for those who can show special needs-- like, "I'm moving with my family to Iraq to help spread democracy."

[slackmaster]

56. For those unfamiliar with CA law, the guy got off VERY easy

He could easily have gotten the equivalent of a life sentence.

This wasn't just a little graffiti rampage that got out of hand. He admitted to throwing Molotov cocktails, which are considered "destructive devices" here - Same as an illegal explosive device. Just possessing the materials to make one can bring a felony charge (if intent can be shown).

We take misuse of fire very seriously in this state. If you don't believe me here are some items to Google:

Oakland fire
Malibu fire
Cedar fire
Laguna fire
Iñaja fire
San Francisco fire

I have no sympathy at all. Cottrell is only 24. With good behavior he could be out before his 31st birthday, and he can pursue his education while he's incarcerated.

:nopity:

[Zynx]

60. Eight years for seven counts of arson? That's actually pretty light

Arson can be up to a 40 year sentence in most states.

Considering this had some terror motivations as well, he's damn fortunate.

[mmonk]

62. I'm sure

he best serves American society behind bars and broke than being a physicist. His "high intelligence" should have made him know better because in the new America, a disability such as asperger's should NEVER be a mitigating factor. In the new America, we can't have that there liberal "special rights" stuff, ya know.

[TX-RAT]

92. Sorry, but he's nothing but a convicted felon.

(In the new America, we can't have that there liberal "special rights" stuff, ya know.)
Are you saying that firebombing peoples property is (that there liberal "special rights" stuff)?

[theboss]

71. Arson is a violent crime

He was a willing participant in a violent crime that could have killed people. I don't think Asperger's syndrome affects the ability to differentiate between right and wrong so I don't have a lot of sympathy.

However, I imagine that the sentence would be less if the other two defendants were in the country. The judge is probably pissed and is making an example of their accomplice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. I agree. And justice that makes an example of someone rather than

punishes within the context of the crime, is not justice at all.

If he would have gotten a lighter sentence had his companions been in the dock, that is the sentence he should have gotten without them.

My understanding is that the targets were specifically picked to not threaten people. Masses of cars on dealership lots, after hours. Isolated vehicles on the street at night. No one was ever endangered. You can't punish for what might have happened, only for what did happen.

[theboss]

87. And by statute, he could have gotten twenty years

Being a party to a crime makes you responsible for every act your compatriots do. Even if he didn't know that they were going to be arsonists, they were and he was there. Therefore, he's an arsonist.

And I don't find sympathy in the fact that the targets were carefully chosen. You blow up a lot of cars, you risk lives. Period.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. How do you risk lives when there's NOBODY AROUND?

Sorry for shouting, but it is a physical impossibility to risk people's lives where there are no people! No people!

How can you not get that?

The guy is an Aspie. That makes it virtually impossible for him to recognize the motives for peoples' actions. His 'friends' used him to be a patsy, to make their point because they were too cowardly to do it themselves. He's a victim, here. The ones who actually did burn the vehicles are the arsonists, and I would have no objection to their doing serious time. He's just a goat.

[KittyWampus]

115. Fires Spread. Only Takes A Little Breeze. If The Whole Area Went Ablaze

would you still be so quick to excuse someone who, despite Aspergers, DOES have the capacity to tell right from wrong?

[theboss]

127. Fires spread

People arrive unexpectedly.

I really doubt this dealership was in a deserted field in the country. If it's like any dealership I've ever seen, it was on a crowded secondary road.

Who knows. But when you light a fire, you are risking that someone will get hurt or killed. That's why it is a serious serious felony.

[theboss]

128. I just thought of an example of how a fire can kill someone

Remember the Worcester fire a few years ago? A homeless person started the fire in the abandoned wharehouse and left. Six firemen died in fighting the blaze.

ANY fire can be deadly.

[Willy Lee]

75. WTF? He is a "domestic terrorist"

yet that fuck Rudolph is a "Serial Bomber" or "Olympic Bomber"????


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[MisterP]

105. yup.

At least AHNULD didn't give a sobbing state burial for "Dah Hummahs."

[barb162]

101. I thought this was a joke; my brain doesn't want to deal with this

[New Dealer]

106. 8 years sounds like justice to me

"Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one count of conspiracy related to a 2003 vandalism and firebombing spree that targeted about 125 large sports utility vehicles at four Southern California dealerships and a few homes."

This is pretty serious stuff. Spray-painting slogans on a few SUVs is one thing, but targeting car dealerships and homes is another. He could have done millions worth of property damage and killed many people. Since the minimum sentence he could have gotten was five years, I don't think eight years is anything extreme. I oppose gas-guzzling cars too, but he should be lobbying for more restrictions on those types of cars, not vandalizing and burning SUVs. Anyone who doesn't have a special type of insurence (I can't remember the name at the moment, it isn't liability of collision) will have to pay for the paintjob and repairs themself, which is thousands of dollars.

[chlamor]

107. A culture that values property over life

that is what we have, see it in that context and the judicial context of of who makes the laws-those in power. As for lobbying hahahaha. Tried to outlobby the auto industry lately?
We are on the brink of wiping out life on earth if it isn't already too late. Look that reality in the eyes and let us not pretend there can be solutions with our corporate government.


THE SUV PROBLEM

The auto industry is pumping out a dangerous and irresponsible message:
"Drive our gas-guzzling monsters wherever the hell you want."
Expect escalation as history ends.

[slackmaster]

110. Property is part of life

If someone destroys your home (and all your worldly possessions) or a vehicle or something else you paid a lot of money for, that person has robbed you of the time you spent earning that money. That time is a piece of your life.

It makes no sense to try to make property and life completely separate concepts.

[chlamor]

114. What you described

home etc. is quite different than what is considered property.

I understand what you are saying but as relates to this case and many other situations regarding "property" in our savage capitalist society we are living with distorted values.

[slackmaster]

116. Please explain

All of the ownership interest in all the property that was destroyed in this crime ultimately translates to the interests of individuals. Just because something belongs to a corporation doesn't mean that individuals aren't harmed when that property is destroyed.

People who have ownership of the corporations were harmed, and all policyholders of the insurers that had to pay out have been harmed. People who breathed the air polluted by the fire were harmed.

[chlamor]

118. I think

the key element in your description as well as one of the crucial myths of capitalism is "the Individual". Now I won't go into the corporate personhood crime or we could be here all night, but what I am essentially suggesting is that we share the commons and when gluttony and destruction has been normalized and in fact sanctioned by the corporate state (Development-Ownership-Accumulation-Gross Consumerism etc.) we reside in a psycological condition of normalized pathological behavior. This is partly why it is so easy for us to destroy the Earth so willy nilly- the fact that our groteque features, as exemplified by SUV's, are seen as 'okay' and in fact to be aspired towards.

Investors rights is the hallmark of globalizers-it is killing us all.

[slackmaster]

124. Sure, but by consensus we live under rule of law

We can't have people deciding on their own that one form of economic activity is harmful to the whole and therefore unacceptable, and ACTING OUT that interpretation.

Investors rights is the hallmark of globalizers-it is killing us all.

That's the way our system works. If you'd rather see things run by people who have no economic interests and only altruistic ones, that's a fine dream and and ideal to work toward. Tolerating anarchy is not the way to get there.

Our system has ways of working out situations where corporate interests become at odds with human ones. Torching a bunch of valuable property that represents a lot of peoples' time and money and labor is just destructive.

[chlamor]

126. Your first step

is to really pore over the words you just said. Then closely examine the cant that is drilled into heads via the many mechanisms of the corporatocracy. As you are seeing the similarities in fact exactitudes in your words and those of the corporate tongue
challenge all your assumptions about what you think you think.

Our system does not have ways of working out differences between corps and people except in the fact of ruling always in any meaningful way for the corps who, by the way make the rules.

Do not call what happened here 'anarchy' again you are using the language of the oppressor. Research what Anarchy is and its different forms and you will see that it is quite a well articulated theory of governance closely resembling many forms of little d democracy.

You might wish to look into what "ECONOMY" means. What we have is a FINANCIAL system that is uneconomical, soul smashing and destructive to the environment upon which we depend.

That mythical RULE OF LAW was IN NO WAY established by the consensus, that is pure bunk.

Ignorance of what is just is no excuse for obeying the law. Beware the perils of obedience.

[BadNews]

136. To quote The Matrix

"The trick is to realize that there is no spoon."

Dude, you have just outthought me. I felt like I was in the middle of a Mel Brooks skit reading that post.

I still think he did the crime, now he should have to do time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. "Ignorance of what is just is no excuse for obeying the law."

That is a wonderful statement. Is it yours? Can I steal it?

It's the perfect reply to Scalia's (paraphrase) "Mere factual innocence is not reason enough to overturn a legally arrived at death sentence."

[chlamor]

151. Yes it is mine

and now it is yours.

Here is another "When one is heading towards the cliffs edge a step backwards is a step in the right direction". I use this for all the techno-euphorians who say such ridiculous things as "Luddite" or "Should we go back to living in caves?"

Thinkin' about writing a book with these kind of phrases and why they matter to combat the disinfo.

[tammywammy]

122. I'm with you slackmaster

I work at a car dealership. It's a big deal when someone walks by and "keys" 5 or 6 cars. It takes a considerable amount of time and money to repair such damaged vehicles. While those vehicles are being repaired, you can't sell them and when you do sell them, you have to take money off because of the damage.

Now, I can imagine if 20 cars are on the lot are damaged, keyed or arson, there would be a lot of ramifications to the employees here. First, I imagine a few salespersons would be laid off. It's not like the money from insurance would be in within a day or two. Also, it's not like those 20 cars can just be easily replaced. You have to wait for them to be built, and then shipped and we only get about 8 cars at a time, so you cannot replace 20 cars in just a few days.

And arson at a car dealership is very dangerous. All those cars have gas tanks and many dealerships have a fill up station on their property. One car set on fire, can cause many cars to light up.

I think 8 years is a long sentence, but he and his friends did a lot of damage.

[New Dealer]

121. We don't value property over life

But we do imprison those who purposely destroy the property of others. Again, for someone without insurance, having their SUV spray-painted costs a small fortune to fix. My parents used to not have much money; an expense of several thousand dollars would have devestated them. A car is the most expensive thing you will buy in your life besides a house. I don't think this criminal, who obviously isn't stupid, should get anything less for what he did.

[chlamor]

129. You may not but it is in the fabric of our society and institutions

As a sidebar do know that if the gov't wants your land for any purposes it will take it regardless of your lifes investment. Need room for airport, highway and you and yours are in the way you will see how indeed your life is of no value. Dam comes in and sweeps your village away? Too bad.
We have created a global culture that values money and materialism over life itself. In our pursuit of money we have given the institutions of money--banks, investment houses, financial markets, and publicly traded corporations--the power to rule over life. Recognizing only financial values, accountable only for money's replication, and wholly unmindful of the needs of life, these institutions are wantonly destroying life to make money.

[New Dealer]

131. The government is required to reimburse me for what they take

I don't see how this has anything to do with the debate about the guy's punishment. He vandalized property, so he should be imprisoned. Period. The end.

[chlamor]

133. Have you seen

or researched case studies of the governments "reimbursement" programs at work? Here is a lead-look at what happened in Bridgeton, Mo. when the Gov't want to expand Lambert Airport. Anyway the focus is always placed upon the individual and their crimes rather than the criminal nature of the system which brings us to the place of "property damage".

Be well.

[New Dealer]

134. So property damage shouldn't be a crime?

I don't understand what you're saying...

[chlamor]

137. Get to the root

of the problem is the message. We are forever addressing symptoms and so variations on theme recur such as this. If we live in a culture of cooperation and interdependence than property as a notion does not exist. There are many examples. The Ladaki people would be one to examine. At present the reason for theft, vandalism etc. emanates from the notion of individual possession writ large. Individualism is a cult in our ironically homogenized society. It is also false as we can express individuality but it is dangerous as a religion.

Now do away with the notion of conspicuous consumption and inculcate respect for the land and such things as SUV's do not exist.

One of the geniuses of the capitalist system is that it always points to the failings, criminality etc. of the individual so as to diffuse any possible argument that it is a system wide failing. Ask yourself why it is the we have widespread petty theft? It is not human nature, it is a socio-economic disease.

[LiberallyInclined]

156. actually- petty theft may very well be 'human nature'...

chimpanzees and other primates do it in the wild all the time.

[slackmaster]

159. Genetic fallacy as a rationalization for criminality

:eyes:

[LiberallyInclined]

162. who's rationalizing criminality?

i'm not excusing petty theft- as human beings we have developed a society based on the rules of laws- i was merely pointing out that petty theft may indeed be a part of our "nature"- infidelity among married couples is another example where our animal 'nature' is in effect- as a way to insure genetic diversity.

[slackmaster]

164. Several people in this thread think the SUV vandalism was OK to do

I'm not accusing you of anything.

:argh:

[LiberallyInclined]

171. i don't think SUV vandalism is acceptable-

property destruction never is. I really love it when some PETA 'moran' throws red paint on someone's fur coat- and then the judge makes them pay for a new coat- that moran then has to fund the death of more of the animals that their boneheaded manuever was somehow supposedly meant to protect.
i would say that as long as someone is engaged in a legal activity, nobody has a right to interfere- except that it's legal for someone to gamble away their(and their spouses) life savings.

[RaleighNCDUer]

149. Anyone who thinks he needs an SUV but cannot afford the

insurance needs to seriously rethink his priorities.

Admittedly, I despise SUVs, and the only thing that pisses me off more than a 'W' sticker on an Expedition is a 'Kerry' sticker on a Expedition.

[Leftest]

108. Party To A Crime

Am I wrong in believing that even if a person isn't the one themselves who actually set a fire, or pulled a trigger, or actually committed any other criminal act, but participated with the person(s) who did, that they are guilty of accessory during the fact, which then makes them guilty of conspiracy, which is equal in the eyes of the law to the actual criminal act itself - even though their part was only vandalizing with a spray-paint can?

And also would I be wrong to classify an act of arson of someone's home as an act of violence, recklessly endangering human life, instead of just an act of vandalism? On that same note, if you consider this act of arson as an act of vandalism, would you then consider a person firing a gun at a house to put holes into it an act of vandalism, or an act of violence, recklessly endangering human life?


I agree it is a tragedy that this young man's life is going to drastically change, but I think its fair to say that this young man isn't mentally incompetent, and that he knew what he was doing was both wrong and dangerous to human life. But he 'chose' to disregard right from wrong, and chose to disregard that his unlawful actions could endanger human life, he chose that his unlawful actions to make a political statement where more important.


That is how I see it.

[slackmaster]

112. You are right

If someone, even one of the perpetrators, had happened to die as a result of the fire this young man would be facing a possible death sentence.

[Leftest]

117. Thanks Slackmaster

Having an older brother who's a Deputy Sheriff Los Angeles County, kind of puts me in a position to hear all about his job, and sigh does he sure love to talk about his experiences at work..

So I kind of a lot about legal stuff.. LOL..

[dragon695]

169. Get some glasses

Where does it say someone's home was set on fire? Where does it say someone's life was in danger? Sorry, try again.

[rinsd]

123. Poor guy's so called "friends" are cowards....

...take the autisitc kid to do that shit then leave him high and dry to face the wrath.

Pussies.

[slackmaster]

125. Amen to that

If you are going to take drastic action to make a point, at least you should have the decency to stick around and take responsibility for your actions.

[Deja Q]

135. IQ and human nature are two very different things.

[Save The World]

141. Pollution

It occurs to me that this guy and his friends did more damage to the environment by burning all of those vehicles (burning tires, burning fuel, burning asphalt and tar, burning chemicals, etc.) than driving the vehicles would ever have done over their lifetime. Moreover, more vehicles will have been built to replace those (causing still more pollution) and not one person who intended to buy an SUV will have been prevented from buying and driving one.

[Auntie Bush]

144. Oh my!...Another evil left wing activist judge!

:sarcasm:

[Mr.Green93]

165. Free Free

and Critter.