Man could get 35+ years in prison for destroying SUVs.

[Eric J in MN]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20040821/ap_on_re_us/suv_arson

Billy Cottrell, 24, a physics student at the California Institute of Technology, was indicted in March in connection with the damage or destruction of about 125 vehicles in the San Gabriel Valley last August.
....
Cottrell faces one count of conspiracy to commit arson, seven counts of arson and one count of using a destructive device — a Molotov cocktail.

He is being held without bail pending a trial set for Oct. 26. If convicted, he could be sentenced to 35 years to life in prison.

[wuushew]

1. Arson is dangerous

perhaps if he destroyed the SUVs with a sledgehammer.

[olddem43]

2. He should be given a lot of leniency if it was only SUVs.

Although misguided, his heart was in the right place. Killing "Gas Sucking SUVs" should be a minor misdemeanor, punishable by a small fine and payment of insurance deductibles. Those things are a big reason that crude oil is now $50. per barrel.

[Jon8503]

4. Agree, Will Said

I am not one for destruction of property but not sure in this case if the maximum should be given. Of course not familiar with what actually took place either.

I am sure community service along with a fine, I hope, could be considered.

[djg21]

17. Bullshit!

The man used molotov cocktails -- BOMBS -- to violently destroy property. Despite his political beliefs, no matter how justifiable, he shouldn't have resorted to violence, or to the destruction of others' property. A misdemeanor? whatever it is you're smoking, I'd like some!

Here's a few simple questions for you:

Assume that acts of violence are undertaken in further of a truly held political belief. Who, then, should be charged with the responsibility of making the determination as to whether the perp's "heart was in the right place," or on the otherhand, whether his political/moral beliefs are unjustifiable? Who is to determine whether his crime should be "nothing more than "a minor misdemeanor" or whether is thould be "a more serious felony"?

Perhaps John Ashcroft should do it? Then, when abortion opponents blow up clinics and assasinate physicians providing abortions, they can be convicted "small misdemeanors, punishable by small fines and payment of insurance deductibles." Hell, they too are simply misguided souls, who, at least in Ashcroft's view, have their hearts in the right place.

I, for one, would prefer that justice aspire to remain blind and even-handed! I'd also prefer that assholes not use molotov cocktails to express their political views, and thereby endanger the public at large.

[wuushew]

20. Most arguments against abortion are not secular/rationalist in nature

Given that childbirth itself is not free from danger the state has made the determination that prior to viability a woman is within her right of privacy and health to freely terminate a pregnancy.


I believe arguments of property against vs. human rights is in an entirely different league. Although the arson aspect of this crime IS extremely dangerous and the individual should be sentenced accordingly.

[djg21]

22. I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

[DS1]

42. I didn't either

While I agree with this guy's belief, his way of 'expressing' himself was dangerous and stupid, and after the insurance companies cough up the money the same SUVs will be built all over again.

[lanparty]

53. Ironically ...

... he is making SUV production more profitable for manufacturers. Every vehicle he blew up would have been replaced by the insurance company.

[Llewlladdwr]

3. Destroying other's property is wrong...

regardless of the method employed. Thirty-five years (which he won't get) is less than four months per vehicle. Hardly enough time in my opinion.

[Eric J in MN]

5. It is unjust to lock up man for 35 years for something

he did against property, nor people.

[Llewlladdwr]

25. I disagree.

People's lives went into the creation of this property. Other's lives are dependent on the orderly transfer of this property to those who desire to own it. To say this is merely a crime against property fails to take into account the damage done to real people by this.

[Piperay]

37. Somebody could have been killed

suppose there was cleaning staff there or a night watchman they would have burned to death.

[mitchtv]

6. by your standards Ken lay and co.

would get life+.

[LibraLabSoldier]

8. bumper stickers in bright orange

proclaiming "My SUV supports Terrorism" stuck in conspicuous spots would have been a better statement.

[Ms. Clio]

11. I got no problem with that!

But it's sickening that drunk driving politicians can kill people, and they don't get 35 years in prison for it.

[LibraLabSoldier]

12. I was going to have 1000 of them

printed and do it myself, but my wife ( the more level headed of the two of us) talked me out of it......Besides, the military tends to frown on activism. I already got into trouble once for being a member of PFLAG....lol.

[Ms. Clio]

16. I was actually responding to the post above

But yeah, I do think you could get in trouble for putting bumper stickers on people's cars, too, so it's probably a good thing you didn't do it. I know that I've been sorely tempted to place a few Kerry-Edwards stickers over Bush stickers, though.

Another great sticker I would love to slap on SUVs would be "I'm Changing the Environment--ask me How."

[Pushed To The Left]

44. "Bush/Cheney" sticker on your car

If you found an unwanted "Bush/Cheney" sticker on your car, would you see it as an acceptable form of political activism by the other side?

[Ms. Clio]

45. No, I would not see it as acceptable

To affix a sticker to someone's else's vehicle. That is why I would never do it, myself.

Now, if someone put some Bush/Cheney literature on my windshield (without damaging anything!) that would be acceptable--annoying, and exasperating, and depressing, but a legitimate form of activism.

[Llewlladdwr]

27. As they should.

Do you have a problem with that?

[wuushew]

7. But because of the Blood for Oil theory

such actions serve to fight terrorism and combat American Imperialism. Reducing oil consumption saves lives, therefore human life has greater value than property.

The IWR proved that political solutions do not work.

[WillyT]

14. So... Let's Say Ya Wake Up One Night, And A Burglar Is Making Off With...

your computer. He hasn't touched a hair on anyone's head, and in fact has got the door open and is leaving with your property. Now you happen to have a gun in your hand, and you tell the guy to stop, but he continues towards the door intent on leaving with your property.

Question: Since he is in your house, and ripping you off, and refusing to stop...

Do you shoot him???

:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

15. No. I wouldn't kill a man just becuase he was stealing my

computer.

[WillyT]

19. Me Neither !!!

This was a 'morality' question in a Sociology class way back when. Caused you to think about how much one values property, versus how much one values human life.

Was asking our 'sentencer' above.

:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

23. did some of your classmate say they would

kill a man over a computer?

[WillyT]

56. Yep... A Number Of Them Did !!!

But after we talked it out, many had changed their minds. Most of us were straight out of high school, and Junior College in the early 70's was the beginning of our enlightenment.

And I thank the Cosmos for some of the coolest most informative and righteous teachers that I've ever come across in my lifetime!!!

:hi:

[Llewlladdwr]

29. But it's not just my computer.

In the case of the particular computer on which I'm typing this the theoretical burglar would be making off with approximately 50 hours of my life. Hours which cannot be replaced. I don't have the right to defend that?

[The Straight Story]

55. It's not just a computer

If they are breaking into your house, seeing they can get away with such a thing, will only empower them to do it again - and next time may not be simply stealing. I would shoot in the general direction first to show I was serious - if he/she refuses to listen to that than I can only assume they have some serious mental problems and are a tad more dangerous than your average thief.

If they did listen, the question I would have to ask myself is - do I call the cops? If someone is in need of money, has kids to feed, etc I would be more understanding than if they were some crack head. Each situation calls for judgement based on the circumstances involved. I knew a guy from pakistan who ran a store whom I used to do a lot of computer work for. We were discussing shop lifting one day and the case of a young kid that a store owner shot. He told me he will turn a blind eye to young kids stealing things and at most ask them to put it back.

Property is not worth killing over, but when someone enters your home it is a different scenario. How does one know all they want to do is steal?

I am reminded of a tibetan buddhist who wrote several books which I read when I was a teen (and I will paraphrase because I forget the exact wording): A student asked if it was ok to take the life of another, he did not feel there was a reason to ever do so. His master replied that if he was in a boat with 400 people and the captain was going to purposely sink the boat and kill all aboard and you did nothing, then you would have in effect killed 400 people by not acting (and assuming the only action was to kill him in this case).

Stopping someone who was so brazen to come into your home and steal from you may well save the life of the next person's home he breaks into (given the nature of criminals, and having been a cop for some time, many moons ago, I would tend to feel that this was not their first or last crime).

[Llewlladdwr]

26. Of course.

This individual is taking a piece of my life away. I don't know about anyone else, but I have to devote a considerable amount of my labor to acquire the funds needed to purchase a computer. Taking that computer is no different than taking my labor without compensation. Once performed my labor cannot be replaced. That portion of my life is gone forever. Why should a robber's life be considered more valuable than mine?

[Julien Sorel]

33. You are talking about a small part of your life,

vs all of the robber's. There has to be some proportionality to any justice system. Death for a computer? Sorry, that's not proportionate.

[Murky Waters]

9. if you can't do the time...

...don't do the crime.

Arson is a serious crime for good reason. It hurts the cause he holds so dear. He seeks to change behavior through threats and intimidation and destruction. Definitely not a progressive/liberal tactic!

Not to mention the harm this fire alone caused the environment. Four tires plus a spare times 125 vehicles equals 625 large burning rubber tires for christ sakes. Not to mention the toxins released from the burning paint and metal. And for what? Is anyone going without an SUV as a result of his actions?

No, this act of his did no good. He puts a wacko face on a serious issue. He strengthens the argument that enivironmentalists are extremists.

Don't expect the Sierra Club to come running to his defense, they know he is hurtful to the cause.

[Eric J in MN]

18. Yes, he should be punished, but he shouldn't be locked up

for decades.

[FeebMaster]

21. Yeah, he should be forced to make restitution

for the property he destroyed. I wonder how long it will take him to buy 125 new SUVs to replace the ones he destroyed.

[Eric J in MN]

24. I would be fine with that solution. Give him a debt of the

value of the property to pay off.

Don't lock him up for decades.

[kiahzero]

48. SUVs cost an average of 25,000 or higher

That's $3,125,000... he's not going to pay that off in his lifetime.

[FeebMaster]

49. Then he probably shouldn't have set all those SUVs on fire. (nt)

[kiahzero]

50. Exactly my point

I was pointing out why that idea (make him pay for the SUVs) wouldn't work.

[FeebMaster]

51. Well he'd have to sell off all of his possessions or something

and make as much restitution as possible.

He and the people whose property he destroyed would have to come to some kind of agreement.

[Pushed To The Left]

41. Right on, Murky Waters!

Destroying property is not activism, it's a crime. Just imagine if that fire had spread and killed innocent people. This guy is to the environmental movement what the people that bomb abortion clinics are to the anti-abortion movement. I'm seeing some posts here about putting bumper stickers on other peoples' cars, and I think that is also totally wrong. I know I would be pretty upset if I found a "Bush/Cheney" sticker placed over my Kerry/Edwards sticker. Can't people just leave others' property alone and find a legal way to make their point? I am close to people with differing politicial views and who drive SUV's and I wouldn't take kindly to somebody harassing them or damaging their property. You can disagree with somebody politically and still respect them as a human being.

[leesa]

10. How much time does Bush get for destroying a country and murdering

tens of thousands? None? Oh, that seems fair.

[Geo55]

13. As much as I despise these ego machines

it's not justification to destroy someones property. I sympathize with the emotion....but this ain't the way to slay the monsters.

[MrSlayer]

28. Sounds OK to me.

If true, the guy is a serial criminal and he should be put away. Think of all the people he put at risk by doing this stupid shit. I hate these radical destructive "protest" groups. They aren't much different than terrorist groups in my opinion. There are many other ways to get your message out without destroying property and potentially killing people.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. What would he get for murder? And what would

the parole opportunities be for his crimes, compared to parole opportunities for murder?

[Logansquare]

31. Involuntary Manslaughter is usually no more than 20 years

If he had run over and killed someone while driving too fast, he'd be out earlier than if he set a bunch of SUV's on fire. Makes you wonder about the justice system.

[Junkdrawer]

32. Priority Check:

Kill a Human: 20 years

Destroy some SUVs: 35 years

Priorities Confirmed. All is normal.

[Lucky Luciano]

34. If he took a sledgehammer to the SUVs

I don't think he would be looking at 35 years...but he also committed a major arson attack that could have killed several people including any unsuspecting people at the dealership as well as the firefighters that risked their lives to put out the blaze.

I think he deserves a severe punishment including prison time and fines. A Cal Tech grad student is extremely intelligent (although not in this particular emotional instance of his) and I would be ok if he used his brain for constructive purposes in exchange for a lighter sentence. Maybe he could be allowed out of prison for a couple hours a day with an ankle bracelet while he is forced to work on creating alternative fuel sources. :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

36. Oh I agree with prison time - but 35 years????

Seems a tad over-the-top.

[KittyWampus]

47. Further, A CEO Makes Decision That Spews Toxic Waste

just to save money so he can further bloat his own salary... and yet nothing happens to him.

And toxic waste HAS caused at least birth defects if not shortened lives/premature deaths in American citizenry..

[Piperay]

35. IDIOTIC

to do something so stupid, what did he achieve...NOTHING. This guy could spend 35 years in prison for a stupid action that did no good and harmed environmentalists making them look like vandals and 'terrorists'. I'm an environmentalist and have no sympathy for this nitwit.

[Tight_rope]

39. Thanks what I was thinking.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

40. He should be given a medal in MY book.

Funny how the penalty for "murdering" a SUV is worse than for murdering a person in most cases.

[JVS]

43. Blow stuff up ---> go to jail. Seems reasonable enough

Blowing stuff up is dangerous. Someone could get hurt. I'm glad that people who blow stuff up are imprisoned.

[Eric J in MN]

52. He should be punished, but not with 35+ years in prison (nt)

nt

[FeebMaster]

54. Maybe they should chop off his hands. (nt)

[Deja Q]

46. The symptom needs to be dealt with, but so must the problem.

Our society wants to coddle the problem and obliterate all symptoms.