Re:Man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messa...
by anigbrowl on Friday June 28, 2013 @01:58AM
(#5956506)
Who would even mention 13 years, even as a joke, in this context?
A lawyer, to drum up sympathetic media coverage for his client (and increase his own public profile).
a reporter, to get eyeballs on a story.
Seriously, just because you read it on a news site does not mean it is true.
Re:Man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messa...
by PavlovsCat on Friday June 28, 2013 @02:26AM
(#5956583)
Seriously, just because you read it on a news site does not mean it is true.
It also means it doesn't, so I don't see your point?
A lawyer, to drum up sympathetic media coverage for his client (and increase his own public profile).
a reporter, to get eyeballs on a story.
Aaaaand: a prosecutor, to intimidate. Just because you leave out an option doesn't mean it's not one.
"In fact, since the defendant has no previous convictions for vandalism that I'm aware of I'm pretty sure the maximum penalty that can be imposed under CA law (CA PC 640.5/6) is community service and a $1000 fine."
seems to imply that at least in this case it is slightly more than "just arithmetic".
This is a human we're talking about, too. Arithmetic, bleh.. speaking of that, if society gets to pay for the ill-meant fuckups of banks, why can't it pay for the well-meant fuckups of individuals?
Who would even mention 13 years, even as a joke, in this context? I think that's my question. I understand that such idle threats are used to get people to give in without trial, and that's bad enough, but in this case, I still can't fathom someone saying or writing it with a straight face. Without stopping to think for a second. That it would not actually come to such a punishment is a small, but not sufficient consolation for me, I'm still puzzled.