• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

that SUV vandalism story

W

Wadded Beef

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

a student from caltech spray painted a bunch of SUV's with anti-suv hippie slogans (Fat Lazy Americans, Suv Terrorism, No Respect for Earth) he's also suspected of setting fire to some suv's, but that is yet to be proven. I'm not in favor of what he did, but...

What I'm wondering is why he got more time added to his sentance when the judge "discovered" that the defendant was trying to sway consumers away from suv's with this act of vandalism. Wasn't this pretty freakin obvious?

from the article:
"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."
 
I guess this goes along with "hate crime" legislature. Maybe there is something to the "thought police" accusations.

The kid's a pretty poor student of psychology if he thinks that vandalism is going to make people sympathetic to his cause, however.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
I guess this goes along with "hate crime" legislature. Maybe there is something to the "thought police" accusations.

The kid's a pretty poor student of psychology if he thinks that vandalism is going to make people sympathetic to his cause, however.
Click to expand...

^^ what he said too
 
Originally posted by: jagec
I guess this goes along with "hate crime" legislature. Maybe there is something to the "thought police" accusations.

The kid's a pretty poor student of psychology if he thinks that vandalism is going to make people sympathetic to his cause, however.
Click to expand...

physicists don't study psychology 😉
 
Originally posted by: Wadded Beef

from the article:
"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."
Click to expand...

I don't like that part at all... That means that I am doing something wrong by telling people not to buy an SUV. Or I am doing something worthy of jail time by telling people not to buy a Civic. Or a Taurus. Or a sports car. That is wrong.
 
Originally posted by: radioouman
Originally posted by: Wadded Beef

from the article:
"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."
Click to expand...

I don't like that part at all... That means that I am doing something wrong by telling people not to buy an SUV. Or I am doing something worthy of jail time by telling people not to buy a Civic. Or a Taurus. Or a sports car. That is wrong.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly.
 
says he (the defendant) suffers from Asperger's Disorder, it's kinda like autism. heres a description...

In Asperger's Disorder, affected individuals are characterized by social isolation and eccentric behavior in childhood. There are impairments in two-sided social interaction and non-verbal communication. Though grammatical, their speech is peculiar due to abnormalities of inflection and a repetitive pattern. Clumsiness is prominent both in their articulation and gross motor behavior. They usually have a circumscribed area of interest which usually leaves no space for more age appropriate, common interests. Some examples are cars, trains, French Literature, door knobs(wtf?), hinges(double wtf??), cappucino, meteorology, astronomy or history. The name "Asperger" comes from Hans Asperger, an Austrian physician who first described the syndrome in 1944.

lol i love the doorknob and hinges part
 
Originally posted by: radioouman
Originally posted by: Wadded Beef

from the article:
"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."
Click to expand...

I don't like that part at all... That means that I am doing something wrong by telling people not to buy an SUV. Or I am doing something worthy of jail time by telling people not to buy a Civic. Or a Taurus. Or a sports car. That is wrong.
Click to expand...

Um, no. This mean his actions went beyond simple vandalism to economic terrorism. He was committing violent acts in an attempt to cause economic harm and/or fear.
 
what an idiot. and his 2 buddies fled the country... too bad. they left him alone to deal with the consequences by himself.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
I guess this goes along with "hate crime" legislature. Maybe there is something to the "thought police" accusations.

The kid's a pretty poor student of psychology if he thinks that vandalism is going to make people sympathetic to his cause, however.
Click to expand...

I said this before, but the idea behind the "thought police" is TOTAL BS.

Intent and motive are KEY to some of the highest crimes on the books. Muder and treason to name some of the most important. Without motive for murder it's manslughter, which doesn't carry the death penalty or life imprisionment, treason is the same. Heck without intent/motive in treason cases, there isn't even a crime.

More relevant to this case, there is a law that protects businesses from illegal activities that are meant to destroy the business (name of the crime escapes me right now). The judge probably "discovered" the intent and added time because he was trying to stop a legal business (an act that affects MANY people).
 
Originally posted by: tami
what an idiot. and his 2 buddies fled the country... too bad. they left him alone to deal with the consequences by himself.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? It's not like like they'd go easier on the one guy if they could punish his buddies too. They'd all get punished equally.
 
The government needs to spend its money on more important things, such as anti-tobacco programs, pro-tobacco programs, killing wild donkeys, and Israel.
 
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Intent and motive are KEY to some of the highest crimes on the books. Muder and treason to name some of the most important. Without motive for murder it's manslughter, which doesn't carry the death penalty or life imprisionment, treason is the same. Heck without intent/motive in treason cases, there isn't even a crime.

More relevant to this case, there is a law that protects businesses from illegal activities that are meant to destroy the business (name of the crime escapes me right now). The judge probably "discovered" the intent and added time because he was trying to stop a legal business (an act that affects MANY people).
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. It DOES get messy when dealing with intents, however, since they are so relative and hard to judge. You can triple that the second lawyers get involved. When the sentence is modified because of intent/motive, the propability that the punishment will not fit the crime just goes through the roof. Which is why they shouldn't even come up in "lesser" crimes.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Intent and motive are KEY to some of the highest crimes on the books. Muder and treason to name some of the most important. Without motive for murder it's manslughter, which doesn't carry the death penalty or life imprisionment, treason is the same. Heck without intent/motive in treason cases, there isn't even a crime.

More relevant to this case, there is a law that protects businesses from illegal activities that are meant to destroy the business (name of the crime escapes me right now). The judge probably "discovered" the intent and added time because he was trying to stop a legal business (an act that affects MANY people).
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. It DOES get messy when dealing with intents, however, since they are so relative and hard to judge. You can triple that the second lawyers get involved. When the sentence is modified because of intent/motive, the propability that the punishment will not fit the crime just goes through the roof. Which is why they shouldn't even come up in "lesser" crimes.
Click to expand...

Which is why we have judges, who are supervised by district judges who are supervised by superior judges, who are supervised by the supreme court to make sure such things don't happen. IIRC there is a constitutional something or other about cruel and unusual punishment which is often refreneced in cases where "the punishment doesn't fit the crime".

"Though police" is BS, don't read something and buy into it wholesale because *some* of it's arguments make sense. You should double check your position on that. Evaluate the crime for what it is and set the punishment based on the actions/results within the set limits.

Proof is in the pudding. Does the punishment for *this* act fit the crime? Did the judge add too much? Those are the relevant questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top