I really enjoy a good bit of legal context. No doubt that trained prosecutors do things for legitimate and rational reasons.
However, there is also a role for the "peanut gallery" of uninformed speculation here. In fact, I'd argue the public perception of this stuff is 1000 times more important than the legalese.
You want a crime that's got "mass destruction" in the title, you need to demonstrate to the common man that this involves mass destruction. I don't believe that's too much to ask from the system.
> You want a crime that's got "mass destruction" in the title, you need to demonstrate to the common man that this involves mass destruction. I don't believe that's too much to ask from the system.
Since when did blowing up two bombs that cause 3 fatalities and 150+ persons to sustain often-horrific injuries not count as as mass event? It is not the prosecutor's fault that American servicemembers have caused the medical field to innovate for the past ten years on how to save lives in response to these attacks.
You want to define "mass destruction" as some number dead and injured? I'm fine with that. You want to define it as the intent to kill and/or maim a certain number of people? I'm fine with that too.
But that's not the way the law is worded. Right now, a high-school student playing around with blackpowder in an effort to blow up his neighbor's mailbox is flirting around with getting a WMD charge. Do you want that in the same category as this? I don't.
Comments
I don't read reddit, so apologies.
I really enjoy a good bit of legal context. No doubt that trained prosecutors do things for legitimate and rational reasons.
However, there is also a role for the "peanut gallery" of uninformed speculation here. In fact, I'd argue the public perception of this stuff is 1000 times more important than the legalese.
You want a crime that's got "mass destruction" in the title, you need to demonstrate to the common man that this involves mass destruction. I don't believe that's too much to ask from the system.
> You want a crime that's got "mass destruction" in the title, you need to demonstrate to the common man that this involves mass destruction. I don't believe that's too much to ask from the system.
Since when did blowing up two bombs that cause 3 fatalities and 150+ persons to sustain often-horrific injuries not count as as mass event? It is not the prosecutor's fault that American servicemembers have caused the medical field to innovate for the past ten years on how to save lives in response to these attacks.
You want to define "mass destruction" as some number dead and injured? I'm fine with that. You want to define it as the intent to kill and/or maim a certain number of people? I'm fine with that too.
But that's not the way the law is worded. Right now, a high-school student playing around with blackpowder in an effort to blow up his neighbor's mailbox is flirting around with getting a WMD charge. Do you want that in the same category as this? I don't.
Did you miss the "resulting in death" part of the charges?