Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Why is it that a property crime committed against corporate interests is judged to be worse than some blue-collar crime committed by corporate agents against the general public?

 

Did it start in 1886 with the US Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad?

 

And why are some 'people' more equal than others, i.e., are granted more leniency?

Posted
Put that fuck inside an SUV and start it on fire. That's a fitting punishment.

 

hellno3d.gif

 

Huh? Dude the SUV's were sitting in a car dealership lot. What the fuck are you talking about? Or are you joking? In that case, you're still pretty sick.

Posted

Certainly seems like they want to make an example. I saw some Ascroft rants recently where he would like to try these eco-warrior types under the same punishment guidlines for "terrorists". Idiot.

Posted

Well creating your own little militant sect and trying to do battle with your own government has always been frowned upon, and dealt with accordingly. But destroying a young man's life because he burned some cars is fucking psychotic.

Posted
Read the article. MANDITORY MINIMUNS SUCK!

 

I don't see this as the problem. The problem is the judge somehow decided that this man was trying to hurt people, when in fact all he tried to do and all he did was damage property.

Posted
Put that fuck inside an SUV and start it on fire. That's a fitting punishment.

hellno3d.gif Gee. I guess a life's worth $400k to Greg.

Correction $40k. 22 years in prison for $40k damage? And Neil Goldschmidt gets off for Child Molestation thumbs_down.gif to Oregon Justice.

Posted
Well creating your own little militant sect and trying to do battle with your own government has always been frowned upon, and dealt with accordingly. But destroying a young man's life because he burned some cars is fucking psychotic.

 

He destroyed his own life.

Posted

You guys are not looking at this thing rationally. Just because it was done in the name of "envioronmentalism" you think he should get off easier than some other kind of criminal. I think setting an example of this guy is fine. The ELF and others like them are getting away with too much. I don't like these guys or their tactics at all and I know the government is fed up.

 

Only problem is he may become a martyr of sorts.

 

I believe part of the reason arson carries such a strong sentence is because while it may not be the intent, it has the potential of injuring or killing emergency responders and innocent bystanders. Once the arsonist has lit the fire, he really has no control over how far it'll go. It takes a pretty malicious mind to light fires in hopes it'll destroy someone's property. I doubt he has much regard for human life and belongs in prison.

 

What the hell is a minimun?

Posted

I'm kinda on the fence here. Torching a few SUVs, while reckless and irresponsible, does not include the willful harm of humans. His intent was to destroy the property, not hurt anyone. As such, I don't like that his sentence is greater than that for crimes where the intent WAS bodily harm (eg murder, rape, etc). Then again, he deserves punishment, and as for the case that the sentence will ruin his life, well, nobody forced him to burn the SUV. He fucked up, it's his fault. boxing_smiley.gif

 

As for classifying him as a terrorist, here's a definition:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.

Hmmm....

Posted

Give me a fucking break. It doesn't matter one bit if it was "ecoterrorism" or just some kid setting some shit on fire. 22 years for $40k worth of arson damage is completely fucking unreasonable.

 

I guaratnee you guys would be claiming the same if it was some dude that caused $40k of damage to "washingtonians against gun violence" in the name of gun rights. rolleyes.gif

Posted
Well creating your own little militant sect and trying to do battle with your own government has always been frowned upon, and dealt with accordingly. But destroying a young man's life because he burned some cars is fucking psychotic.

 

He destroyed his own life.

 

You're ridiculous.

Posted

The sentencing in this case is completely disproportionate. I don't care if it's eco-terror or plain old arson, torching some SUVs doesn't warrant 22 years in the clink.

Posted
He fucked up, it's his fault. boxing_smiley.gif

 

As for classifying him as a terrorist, here's a definition:

One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.

Hmmm....

 

I'm fine with classifying ecoterrorists as terrorists.

 

As long as the next anti-abortion protester or white supremacist or other right wind fruit job gets charged as a terrorist.

 

Yeah he made his own choice. But like the Boy who burned the Bush's boat

randomly throwing the book at someone isn't justice.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...