Skip

SOS (Save our SUVs?)
May 9, 2005 2:31 AM   Subscribe

Vulnerable SUVs? William Cottrell gets sentenced to 8 years for vandalising SUVs, while this guy originally got just 18 months? Wow.
posted by Duug (70 comments total)

 
"his two friends started lighting Molotov cocktails..."

Seems like pretty serious arson, in addition to just vandalism. When your friends start throwing firebombs around that's a pretty serious crime and huge risk of things getting out of control.

Not sure why the second link is relevant at all. One is a state court in Maryland, the other is a Federal court in California. Not suprising that you can pick out examples that come out wildly differently if you search hard enough.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:40 AM on May 9, 2005


Rapists just target individuals, not the corporations that own the government.

But seriously, the kid is a terrorist. And not in the modern "I'm trying to be sensationalist when I say that I don't like him" manner. But in the Carlos the Jackal, old school "He's trying to influence public opinion by spreading fear" manner.

And that Asperger's defence is just weak. The kid has pretty shitty counsel if the best defence it can come up with is "No jury in the world would convict Rain Man!"
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:57 AM on May 9, 2005


Flipside, for Mayor Curley: if Cotrell really is suffering from Asperger's, one of the effects of the syndrome is that he's really bad at understanding/communicating with other people about emotional issues. Which means he may well have retained an inappropriate or inadequate lawyer, briefed them inadequately, and failed to understand (in the first place!) what he was getting into.

So he got screwed by a legal system that lets charming sociopaths off the hook if they can emote the jury into sympathizing with them.

Oh, one other point: he's likely to serve six years. The other guy -- the child rapist -- served 18 months. So this sentence sends the message that spray-painting grafitti on Hummers is four times as serious as raping a child. (Or, after the public uproar and the second trial for the rapist, 80% as bad as raping a child.)

Personally, I think a society that holds to that kind of value judgement is a diseased society. Certainly not one I'd want to live in. (But luckily for me, I don't.)
posted by cstross at 3:05 AM on May 9, 2005


cstross: So this sentence sends the message that spray-painting grafitti on Hummers is four times as serious as raping a child

article: Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one count of conspiracy

The article says they were firebombing Hummers. The kids were caught with Molotov cocktails. That's a hell of a lot more than spray-painting.

This kid claims that he wasn't involved in the firebombing part, but the only witnesses have fled the country. I think it's pretty plausible that the jury didn't believe him when he said "I swear, I didn't know why they asked me to bring gas, rags, and glass bottles."

There's a huge difference between "vandalism" and "arson." This kid was convicted for arson.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:11 AM on May 9, 2005


he should have raped the damn trucks instead of spray-painting them -- he'd be out in about a year, then
posted by matteo at 3:25 AM on May 9, 2005


Remember too that the jury convicted this guy. A jury comprised of members of the public, in California no less. They unanimously thought that he was guily of arson, wich full knowledge of the consequences of that decision. To my knowledge the jury is not owned by corporate interests.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:25 AM on May 9, 2005


he should have raped the damn trucks instead of spray-painting them

See the ARSON comment above. He was convicted for ARSON. As in "lighting things on fire."

Calling throwing molotov cocktrails "vandalism" is like calling murder "a light beating."
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:26 AM on May 9, 2005


It's all fun and games until someone dies in an explosion. That said, the judge is ignorant of Asperger's. cstross here is an example of someone with Asperger's who was screwed by the system.
posted by mlis at 3:28 AM on May 9, 2005


MLIS: good example, that.

thedevildancelightly: you need to read up on Aspergers. Seriously. If there's a medical diagnosis attached to this guy (Cottrell) then it's a clearly inappropriate sentence.

But then, the US is generally notorious for using prisons as a substitute for psychiatric institutions.
posted by cstross at 3:59 AM on May 9, 2005


you need to read up on Aspergers

There was a good thread about it here a while ago (too tired to linky - problem with being a west-coast insomniac). I'm not contesting that the sentence might be unfair in light of his condition, but I'm contesting the mis-information inherent in the FPP and the perpetuation of it in the thread.

Saying that "he got 10 years for spray-painting SUVs" is incorrect, regardless of whether you think 10 years for fire-bombing SUVs is correct in light of his condition.

The FPP is framed around comparing a sentence for "vandalizing" (cute euphamism for "arson") SUVs compared to a rape. I'm happy to debate whether Aspergers should lighten the sentence for this sort of thing. However, calling it "vandalism" is doing the jury a pretty big disservice since they (with all the evidence in front of them) explicitly convicted him of arson.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:05 AM on May 9, 2005


Welcome to the US (land of the free, etc., etc.). Here are some simple rules:

1. Read your "Christian Bible." Even if you don't believe, no one will take you seriously if you can't quote scripture properly.

2. Get yourself lots of money and a position of power and you'll be OK. For example, see Reckless Bill.

3. Property is more cherished than people (see this thread).

4. Enjoy your stay and spend lots of money everywhere you go.
posted by a_day_late at 4:22 AM on May 9, 2005


3. Property is more cherished than people

Because throwing molotov cocktails at gas-filled vehicles could never result in anything going wrong. Nope, no danger there. No risk of fire, explosion, firefighters getting killed at all. Let me come and "vandalize" your house then.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:25 AM on May 9, 2005


3. Property is more cherished than people (see this thread).

Also, way to make generalizations from sample size of 1. Two random cases from different sides of the country and different court systems. This case still has an appeal left in it. Give me statistics about multiple cases instead of anecdotes from one and you might have a point. Until then I won't let the facts get in the way of your worldview.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:27 AM on May 9, 2005


It's all fun and games until someone dies in an explosion.

He had no intent to kill and no one died. He should serve time but the sentence should reflect that. I think you missed the point. Here it is:

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>

posted by a_day_late at 4:28 AM on May 9, 2005


Christ, matteo, if he had raped the trucks he'd have gotten the chair.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:35 AM on May 9, 2005


Devil, you seem fixated on point #3 (property rights). Just sayin'.

Also, yet again, I never said he should not get jail time, so your "coming over to vandalize my house" example is pretty lame. We have different penalties for different crimes, or degrees of a crime. Driving drunk is not the same as running someone over while driving drunk, etc.
posted by a_day_late at 4:50 AM on May 9, 2005


violence against people and property is a poor substitite for political dialogue. if an arsonist wants to make a statement, self-immolation is the way to do it.
posted by three blind mice at 4:58 AM on May 9, 2005


violence against people and property is a poor substitite for political dialogue

The same can be said for violence against one's self.
posted by a_day_late at 5:05 AM on May 9, 2005


while this guy originally got just 18 months

Duug, did you happen to read the article? The guy originally got a sentence of 10 years, which is longer than the 8 years given to the vandal. The sentence was later reduced to 18 months at the request of the victim's mother.

Not that a state court in Maryland should be compared to a federal court in California for purposes of determining the relativity of social justice. Show me 2 wildly different crimes tried before the same judge in the same year if you want to argue that the vandal was treated worse than a rapist/murderer/etc.

posted by bugmuncher at 5:27 AM on May 9, 2005


...oops. Sorry for the entirety of my post appearing in italics.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:28 AM on May 9, 2005


Personally, I think a society that holds to that kind of value judgement is a diseased society.

personally, i think an individual who ascribes those kinds of broad value judgements to an entire society based on the individual actions of different courts in wildly dissimilar cases is a diseased individual.
posted by quonsar at 5:40 AM on May 9, 2005 [1 favorite]


An aspiring physicist? Molotov cocktails?

Bullshit, bullshit, bulllllllllshit, bulllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiit bullshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
posted by nervousfritz at 5:42 AM on May 9, 2005


Last night, a hummer set me on fire.
posted by breezeway at 5:54 AM on May 9, 2005


"Judge Thompson allowed him to go back and live in the same house with the same child he began raping when she was 9"

Cottrell's situation is totally irrelevant to the irresponsible actions of Judge Thompson. These two links have absolutely no relation to each other. Attempting to use the rape case in an attempt to condemn Cottrell's sentence is illogical.
posted by boymilo at 6:14 AM on May 9, 2005


MLIS: seems to me that all they'd have to do is give that guy a job in the transit system and everybody would win. Nice link.
posted by flabdablet at 6:21 AM on May 9, 2005


a_day_late: Devil, you seem fixated on point #3 (property rights). Just sayin'.

Ummm, maybe because that's the only point that had anything to do whatsoever with this thread. But hey, thanks for bringing all that up, we were in serious danger of not realizing what a cool antiestablishment attitude you've got going there. So how's that working out for you?
posted by TungstenChef at 6:26 AM on May 9, 2005


Devildanced: He wasn't caught with Molotov cocktails. Read the article. His two friends had the bombs, and fled the country. And this sentence was too harsh. Juries, even unanimous ones, aren't infallible and eight years is far too long for a property crime.

Mayor Curly: He's not trying to influence the public through fear. What fear? That their SUVs may be torched before they get them? He was trying to engage in a sensational bit of political theater, but I don't see any evidence that he meant this to provoke terror. The Carlos the Jackal comparison is just as specious as comparing him to the rapist in Mass.
posted by klangklangston at 6:31 AM on May 9, 2005


Thanks nervousfritz, for that lucid and meaningful comment.


He wasn't caught with Molotov cocktails. Read the article. His two friends had the bombs, and fled the country.


According to the article, that's what the defendant says. It's up to the jury to decide whether he's credible or not. And if they were carrying molotovs then 8 years (which means they'll probably be paroled before they've done 5) sounds fine to me. That's dangerous shit to be messing with just to make a point, even a point I more or less agree with.

But the rape sentence was a joke, too.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 AM on May 9, 2005


So how's that working out for you?

Nice! Thanks for asking.
posted by a_day_late at 6:42 AM on May 9, 2005


What fear? Presumably the fear that a) the money they poured into their not inexpensive new SUV would be down the drain, minus whatever they recovered from insurance, or b) that whatever was in their SUV at the time somebody firebombed it would also be destroyed, which for all they know could include themselves.
posted by aaronetc at 6:54 AM on May 9, 2005


Arson should recieve the same sentence, regardless of the political motivation (a second link to a similar arson case may have been more appropriate). Since I've yet to see a comparison, it's hard to know, but I'm willing to bet he's being sentenced based on his beliefs.
posted by iamck at 7:02 AM on May 9, 2005


Yeah, I would say the fear that someone would light stuff on fire. Like buildings.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:14 AM on May 9, 2005


I blame Beavis and Butthead...

FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! heh heh FIRE!
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:21 AM on May 9, 2005


thedevildancedlightlyfilter?
posted by bardic at 7:54 AM on May 9, 2005


This sort of sentence isn't unprecedented. It's wrong, mind you, but it is considered eco-terrorism and any time the word "terrorism" is used, you can expect ghastly results.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:54 AM on May 9, 2005


I wonder what the reaction of some of the people here would be if the guy was a pro-gas guy who was bombing electrical cars, or a bicycle factory or hemp shop or some other lefty sacred cow. Or, a guy who was burning down an abortion clinic to make his political theater/point.

There seems to be an awful lot of excuses made for a criminal based on the political "message" he was trying to make with his criminality.
posted by dios at 8:06 AM on May 9, 2005


Or, a guy who was burning down an abortion clinic to make his political theater/point.

There seems to be an awful lot of excuses made for a criminal based on the political "message" he was trying to make with his criminality.


I don't want to derail the thread, but it seems awfully difficult to call Eric Rudolph a right-wing terrorist without being laughed at as a crazy liberal. If the right can't handle that a few on their side are terrorists, then perhaps they shouldn't throw stones at the left.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:12 AM on May 9, 2005


Yeah, I would say the fear that someone would light stuff on fire. Like buildings.

The judge has stated clearly what "the fear" is. Straight from the horse's mouth:

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.

This is about protecting business and the free market economy. I am not an anarchist. I own property, and I don't want nuts like this running around free without fear of punishment. I just find it very odd that our jails are full of pot smokers and wild-eyed fools--leaving less room for the guys who would cut your heart out just as soon as look at you.


posted by a_day_late at 8:14 AM on May 9, 2005


thedevildancedlightlyfilter?

Was up late and procrastinating, sorry. [sheepish]

One thought that came to me early this morning is that the trial was in LA. LA is a city where brushfires/wildfires are a HUGE problem -- even a little fire can quickly start devouring neighborhoods when the Santa Anas are kicking it up.

As for "it wasn't him", 12 unanimous votes from a radomoly-selected jury pool beg to disagree. We haven't seen the evidence, but nothing in the CNN article overcomes my presumption that the jury (who saw all the evidence and testimony) got it right.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:16 AM on May 9, 2005


Or, a guy who was burning down an abortion clinic to make his political theater/point

Anti-abortion terrorists tend to be executed, so seems pretty fair.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:19 AM on May 9, 2005


This is about protecting business and the free market economy

Or the judge added years because he was making a political message with his conduct at all. It's one thing to commit a criminal act as a stupid prank. It's another to have a political message behind a the same criminal act. The first says you have poor judgment. The second says that you have poor judgment and you're willing to put lives in danger over your politics, whatever they may be. If you're doing it to make a point it shows that you're a lot more dangerous because of your willingness to plan, and because it shows that you have stepped outside the normal realm of our democracy. See above for the anti-abortion protestor who got the chair for what otherwise would be a "normal" (20-40 year sentence) murder. The courts (understandably) REALLY don't like people putting lives at risk to make political points.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:26 AM on May 9, 2005


I don't want to derail the thread, but it seems awfully difficult to call Eric Rudolph a right-wing terrorist

News to me. Actually right wing extremists tend to get (deservedly) executed. It dosen't look to me like, as a nation, we're all that soft on violent rightie wingnuts.
posted by jonmc at 8:27 AM on May 9, 2005


Anti-abortion terrorists tend to be executed, so seems pretty fair.

Rudolph received a plea deal. He had murdered many with forethought and planning, usually a first-degree sentence that qualifies for execution. That's a soft deal to me. Anyway, I didn't mean to derail so feel free to email me to take it off-list.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:32 AM on May 9, 2005


Three blind mice, you've been MetaTalked.
posted by me3dia at 9:11 AM on May 9, 2005


Or the judge added years because he was making a political message with his conduct at all.

Devil, you make a good point. I however, object to the degree of the sentence based on this: If I firebomb a synagogue at night (when there are clearly no people inside), I am destroying private property, interfering with their right to worship freely, and threatening or creating a threat for Jews everywhere by spreading anti-Semitism. I am doing similar things if a burn up a whole bunch of SUVs at a car dealer one night, but to much less of a degree, IMO. Even if you felt threatened in owning an SUV because of a nut case like this (and I wouldn't), you could still drive a Honda Accord and get to work just fine.

I think that in this case, 1 year in a prison that won't make the guy a worse criminal, 3 years of picking up garbage by the side of the road, and some financial restitution (I don't know how he is going to come up with the $3.5 million he was ordered to pay) is a fair sentence. Don't forget that the property owners have the option of civil litigation (in case he becomes the next Carl Sagan and makes a bundle of money). Now, if he raped a woman or injured an old man to take his wallet, let him do hard time. As far as I am concerned, this guy is probably a stoner and threatens the free market system about as much as the guy on the corner who peddles T-shirts without a licence. Putting him in a federal prison is going to make it worse for him, and eventually, us.
posted by a_day_late at 9:15 AM on May 9, 2005


The sentence is clearly based on the motivation - perhaps to keep people in line in society, it should be. After all, destruction with a motivation opens up the possibility of a movement, and we don't want that.

Of course, we could hop over from the blue into the grey area - isn't driving an SUV (or any vehicle) a form of violence against people? (or to go further, is NOT doing something a form of violence?)

/relativism
posted by iamck at 9:29 AM on May 9, 2005


And this sentence was too harsh. Juries, even unanimous ones, aren't infallible and eight years is far too long for a property crime.

My gosh... Metafilterians don't want people to go to jail for anything anymore. I hate Hummers and excessively large SUVs as mucgh as the next person. But this guy was clearly out of control, over the top, extremely violent and terrorized dozens of people and their familes with these stunts.

klangklangston, seriously, how much time should he get? He should get some time, no?

Let's say he torched your SUV, sitting in your driveway, damaging part of the house, which threatened to set the whole place ablaze, while your children were sleeping. Should he get 6 months? Too long? I assume 1 year is too long. So let's say 90 days? He targeted 125 vehicles with these kinds of shenanigans. My math says 30 years at 90 days for each vehicle... which may be excessive, yea. But 8 years sounds good to me. That'll learn 'em.

arronetc - What fear?

What fear? Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? My guess is no (which would be a good thing).
posted by Witty at 9:43 AM on May 9, 2005


One thought that came to me early this morning is that the trial was in LA. LA is a city where brushfires/wildfires are a HUGE problem -- even a little fire can quickly start devouring neighborhoods when the Santa Anas are kicking it up.

No neighborhoods were devoured. No one was put at risk. Let's remember that ELF has never injured anyone in any of their acts of a) civil disobedience or b) eco-terrorism. (Pick which term you want to use depending on your point of view.)

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.

Obviously this sentence had nothing to do with endangering anyone; it had to do with the fact that the judge deemed it an act of terrorism.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:51 AM on May 9, 2005


*tries to bite tongue, fails*

Hummers have killed far more people than eco-terrorists, probably more than right wingnuts too. Maybe we should all go down to our local dealership and roast marshmallows and make s'mores...though burnt tire smell probably won't taste too great.

Obviously this kid isn't the brightest star in the sky, or he would have fled to mexico with his accomplices. Perhaps he truly thought he was innocent because he didn't throw any firebombs.
posted by schyler523 at 10:19 AM on May 9, 2005


Let's say he torched your SUV, sitting in your driveway, damaging part of the house, which threatened to set the whole place ablaze, while your children were sleeping.

Why in the world would we look at that scenario??? Threatening your sleeping children while damaging your house has less to do with this case than the rapist's case that was pooh-poohed as comparing apples to oranges.

Sheesh.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:24 AM on May 9, 2005


Why in the world would we look at that scenario???

Why not? From the article:
Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one count of conspiracy related to a 2003 vandalism and firebombing spree that targeted about 125 large sports utility vehicles at four Southern California dealerships and a few homes.
Some of the vehicles were at people's homes. So it's certainly possible that the people were home at the time, possibly sleeping, possibly including children, and possibly risking other property damage in the process of "cocktailing" an SUV.
posted by Witty at 10:38 AM on May 9, 2005


hummer burns brightly
the urban assault is done
now let's rape babies
posted by mosch at 10:46 AM on May 9, 2005


he should have raped the damn trucks

I'm not falling for a banana in the tailpipe.
posted by papercake at 10:50 AM on May 9, 2005


You gotta say it with more bass.

"Hey man, I ain' fallin' for no more banana in da tailpipe." /Chef
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:25 AM on May 9, 2005


No neighborhoods were devoured.

In this case, no. But does that mean that we shouldn't punish people for attempted murder since nobody died? Or attempted rape since nobody got raped? Or DUI since nobody got hurt?

No one was put at risk.

Actually the whole city was put at risk. As it happened they got lucky and they were ineffective. But there was a huge risk to a lot of people in a wind-blown dry city.

Part of the criminal law is about deterring people from putting others at risk (eg, DUI). Given that there's no way to put LA back together if it burns, it's reasonable to hold this guy liable for creating a risk that it might burn. Or punish him even though he got lucky and the wind wasn't blowing the wrong way. He did everything that was required to create a firestorm, and got lucky that the conditions external to his actions weren't right for it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:25 PM on May 9, 2005


No one was put at risk.

There was risk to the everyone in the city because of the wildfire danger, the homeowners whose driveways got torched, firefighters who had to put gasoline fires out, people who couldn't get fire responses because the firefighters were out battling arson fires, service/maintenance/security workers at the car dealerships...
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:29 PM on May 9, 2005


Hummers have killed far more people than eco-terrorists,
Huh?
Your sentence reads; airplanes are evil since they have killed more people than soccer moms. Also you be wrong if you are saying hummers actually do the killing unless you can show me some story talking about the driverless killing Hummers. p.s., transformers don’t count.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:49 PM on May 9, 2005


According to Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Group, Cottrell has done something a whole lot worse than just destroying a few SUV's.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:54 PM on May 9, 2005


According to Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Group, Cottrell has done something a whole lot worse than just destroying a few SUV's.

Doesn't this just prove that Cottrell is retarded??? He got involved in a serious crime with some accomplices, stayed behind to take the rap while they fled the country, sent e-mails exonerating someone else, thereby getting nabbed, and now he's lost any support from his chosen buds by turning informant. This guy should either be planning the Iraq war for Bush or the become the new A-Q #3 man/copy guy.
posted by a_day_late at 1:14 PM on May 9, 2005


from leftcoastbob's link -- Although each of the charges he was convicted on carry up to 5 year jail sentences, Cottrell will likely serve any prison terms concurrently

Oh, one other point: he's likely to serve six years. The other guy -- the child rapist -- served 18 months. So this sentence sends the message that spray-painting grafitti on Hummers is four times as serious as raping a child.

Looking from his trial, no. As he should be doing 40 years for the 8 convictions (do realize, this may still be 5 years if served concurrently). Then the charge for using a destructive device in a violent crime was dropped which may have added another 30 years.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:24 PM on May 9, 2005


Check This Out!
posted by ParisParamus at 1:26 PM on May 9, 2005


I thought this post was comparing two trials yet now it points both federal and state judiciary systems being lenient today.
"Do the crime, pay not the time."
posted by thomcatspike at 1:31 PM on May 9, 2005


nobody on the planet has aspergers.
posted by Satapher at 1:36 PM on May 9, 2005


> This guy should either be planning the Iraq war for Bush or the become the new
> A-Q #3 man/copy guy.

From the reactions in this thread, he'd be welcome on metafilter. Fit right in, he would.
posted by jfuller at 3:41 PM on May 9, 2005


127 SUVs.

I'm willing to bet a reasonable portion of those people didn't have insurance that would cover this and are now in debt and don't even have a car.
posted by delmoi at 4:13 PM on May 9, 2005


I'm sure that guy would have been given a longer sentance if he'd torched the little girl, rather then fucking her.
posted by delmoi at 4:18 PM on May 9, 2005


127 SUVs.

Something about the way you bolded that reminds me of Clerks. "127 SUVs? Including mine? 128! Don't torch any SUVs on your way through the parking lot."
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:34 PM on May 9, 2005


What he did was wrong , burning stuff isn't going to demonstrate that there's truth in what they claim.

I think their disruptiveness was an attempt to vent their anger and attract media attention rather then an attempt to scare SUV buyers into not buying SUVs anymore or punish them for their poor choice, as they could have (for instance) thrown washable paint on a SUV ..enough of an annoyance without any significant damage.

One should rally those rather brainy but misguided and somewhat unstable guys out of the reach of extremists ...who are sometimes sent by the very same forces they try to fight in an attempt to corner them into extremist and irrationality...see Faux News, agitator a-la Coulter/Limbaugh style who have derailed political discussion into partisan hate.

How to attract those brainy wanna-be samaritans to moderate positions were they skills could help contain government and corporate abuse ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:26 PM on May 9, 2005


I've been following this story for a little bit (and considered posting it) and it's pretty complex. The most informative document that I could find is the Affidavit. Only 1 surveillance tape shows "possibly as many as 3" individuals - the other mentioned shows 2. Given that this is part of his story, I think that's an important distinction. I think there is a definite possibility that he was involved, but I don't think it's an open and shut case. And I think it's absurd that his diagnosis wasn't allowed as evidence. I don't think that it should clear his name, but it should at the very least be considered for sentencing.

Amusingly, "POLLUTE LOVER YOU FUCK" was apparently painted on one of the vehicles, but this excerpt from his correspondence with the paper takes the cake:
"I'm sure the police will confirm that the equation 'e^{i*pi} + 1 = 0' was written on one of the SUV's"
With respect to the choice of Euler's formula, "No particular reason, it's just pretty."

For More media coverage, see also:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
posted by nTeleKy at 10:11 AM on May 11, 2005


For More media coverage, see also:
[1] [2]


Amusingly, #2 claims that the entire thing was a CIA hoax. For whatever reason the CIA decided to get involved in blowing up SUVs and the pinned the blame on this guy. It's not an FBI hoax, or a secret service hoax, the report is quite adamant about it being CIA without any evidence to really back it up.

Further proof of why Indymedia is 85% useless. (The 15% is good when it's good, but that's pretty infrequent)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:31 PM on May 11, 2005


« Older The Huffington Post   |   World statistics Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post