|
| zerohp wrote:
| Good. Make an example out of him.
| Fricken wrote:
| Yes. When there aren't any victims in a crime, it's important
| to create one.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Curiously, the charge he pled guilty to as part of the plea deal
| has nothing to do with planes. He pled guilty to obstructing a
| federal investigation (of the crash). Makes sense. Proving his
| intent w.r.t. the crash back then would be harder than proving
| that he DID remove the wreck and subsequently destroyed it.
| mc32 wrote:
| I dunno. I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for
| recklessness, etc. but I don't like it when authorities rely on
| indirect charges to "get" someone.
|
| Prove the original crime, don't rely and peripheral procedure
| like "they lied to a federal agent" (uhh) cop-out. Do your job.
|
| Likewise I'm not don't of people getting off on
| "technicalities" (Some more than others)
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > Prove the original crime
|
| The evidence of which was destroyed?
| MattRix wrote:
| It's not really an indirect charge, he did try to cover it
| up.
| thrill wrote:
| Harsh, but fair.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-11 23:01 UTC) |