• BillCheddar@lemmy.world
    213·
    25 days ago

    And still not one goddamn Epstein Rapist has been arrested.

    But we’re gonna throw federal and state charges at a guy for fighting back?

    This country is fucking ridiculous.

  • naeap@sopuli.xyz
    125·
    25 days ago

    All of them were inspired by a shit system and not by another man, who was also fed up with it

  • IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com
    76·
    25 days ago

    Do what you gotta do. By any means necessary. We live in a slave culture marketed as freedom.

    Being a good or hard working person doesn’t get any reward.

    America Makes the Terrorists and then complains.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    60·
    24 days ago

    This guy rules. Nobody died. Should have paid him more.

    Edit: I can’t believe a warehouse that big didn’t seem to have sprinkler systems. This kind of thing was practically inevitable. Is this just some kind of water conservation exemption in california?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      27·
      24 days ago

      Edit: I can’t believe a warehouse that big didn’t seem to have sprinkler systems.

      You want fireproofing? In this economy? How am I supposed to return 30% YoY profits to my investors?!

    • FUCKING_CUNO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      27·
      24 days ago

      Read in an internet comment, so take with a grain, but he apparently had a multistage plan. Started a small fire, fire dept came to deal with it, and company brass had them turn off fire suppression to limit unnecessary damage to product in other areas. It was then that they lit a bunch more fires, and by the time the figured it out, it was too late.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        3·
        23 days ago

        Idk how accurate any of it is, but looked at several articles that claimed the fire suppression system was working but insufficient (statement from fire chief)

        My guess at this point would be that the warehouse shelving design was actually preventing effective use of sprinkler systems by protecting the fire and being too dense to allow the system to be effective.

    • MML@sh.itjust.works
      16·
      24 days ago

      No one died? Dope I mean I might have semi-supported him before, long as he took full steps to protect people and just burn business, legend.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      3·
      24 days ago

      uh huh, now dozens of his coworkers don’t have a paycheck. Mission accomplished, I guess. If he really ruled, he would have left the door open.

      • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
        39·
        24 days ago

        co-workers already weren’t getting pay checks that’s why he sent the place on fire they hadn’t been paid in months…

        • BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world
          1·
          24 days ago

          This doesn’t make much sense. If my employer didn’t pay me for months, the only reason I’d stay is if it was a great company that I loved and believed in. Even then, I have hard time believing a company could make this sort of arrangement in California.

          …also-if what you’re saying is true-then the company was a hair breadth away from bankruptcy. Someone burning down the warehouse could have been a best case scenario for everyone but the insurance company.

          • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
            5·
            23 days ago

            Is that the location that was doing bad? Because the company has been around since 1872 and is a fortune 500 company with annual revenue over 20 billion.

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    25·
    24 days ago

    I’d say he’s more of a Milton. Still understandable, though.

    Source: LA times reporting “Videos posted online appear to show a man igniting a fire at an Ontario warehouse while complaining about being paid low wages.”

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    21·
    24 days ago

    Why do they prosecute people multiple times at different levels of government? Doesn’t that seem kind of unfair?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      33·
      24 days ago

      Laws here are intended to protect to the wealthy. Its illegal for homeless people to sleep anywhere outside. Law and fairness are not ideas that ever touch each other.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      24 days ago

      Because it is such a high profile case, every level of the bureaucracy wants a bite at the apple. Everyone wants to get in front of a camera and say “We’re doing something about it!” to a gaggle of social media influencers and party apparatchiks with press badges.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          24 days ago

          Not corruption, per say. This is a fatal flaw of any democratic institution. You need to be seen doing your job or people will assume it isn’t getting done. So more and more of the job of an executive level official is marketing yourself.

          Everyone who isn’t running around cutting their own promos is setting themselves up for defeat against someone who does.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            24 days ago

            I’m always defending politicians, so… no, just kidding, I’m not. But I will offer a more sympathetic explanation not from experience, just from my hindquarters.

            If there were three different people in power who are all independently upset about a crime, I could imagine each of them figuring out what the suspect did in their jurisdiction. That’s to fight back personally as well as to have a story for the next town hall when someone includes the crime in a long list of places why $currentCity has gone down the tubes over $longPeriod

            So then have these three separate cases because everyone felt disrespected and wants a billboard, “don’t mess with us“. Maybe it wasn’t very relevant that the perp scraped a mailbox while peeling out of the scene of the crime, but is that a reason for the postmaster not to have his friends from the US postal inspection over? :)

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      3·
      24 days ago

      There are valid reasons to do so, that wouldn’t necessarily feel unfair against someone who for sure did something wrong. Basically, it’s so that one sticks. Derek Chauvin was charged on second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.

      These all have different degrees of severity, including average and maximum punishments.

      Unintentional 2nd degree is the hardest, and requires a felony (3rd degree assault) to stick. Max penalty 40y, average 12.5.

      3rd degree murder requires less; just an “eminently dangerous” act with a “depraved mind” and no regard for life. 25y max, same average

      2nd degree Manslaughter is just culpable negligence that can cause unreasonable risk of death or great harm. 10 year max, 4 average.

      Now they have to convince a Jury to convict on those charges. If they don’t think the felony happened, then the first charge is out. If they don’t think he had a “depraved mind”, then the second charge is also out. So to make sure he actually gets a punishment, they charge all charges they believe they can get a jury to accept. Charging in both federal and state can also protect against only one politically motivated Governor or president from pardoning all charges, so they would need two pardons.

      In addition, if the federal government is worried the state trial might be too biased, they may want their own charges just in case. It seems unfair because you may identify with his actions, but if this was someone lynching people in an extremely racist state (I’d like to say like in the past, but maybe even today) the federal government tacking on charges (in a better admin) could protect against racists just absolving someone from said murder.

      In Derek Chauvin’s case all charges were successfully convicted, but that isn’t always the case. It is a double edged sword though.

      • eclipsez0r@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        24 days ago

        Thank you for the explanation (sincerely).

        Beyond the pardon thing, it just seems like they’re having multiple bites at the same pie whilst being able to ignore double jeopardy.

        It would seem saner to make them commit to whatever the maximum crime/penalty they are aiming for and ignore the rest. Instead it seems like they (the government, in all its forms) can just try to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

        • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          24 days ago

          Yeah, with corrupt governments in place it’s used more negatively than positively. While there are valid reasons, in practice it’s misplaced good intentions at best, more what you’re saying more likely.