Quote (Goomshill @ Feb 11 2022 10:41am)
Why should this mitigate responsibility instead of amplify it? If you burn a building on a random tuesday, first responders are vastly better equipped to deal with it. There's a better chance of the fire being contained, or people being rescued. And by burning a building in a riot, you're escalating the overall violence and lawlessness in a way that can lead to further imminent violent action. If you burn a liquor store on a random tuesday, its not going to embolden everyone else around to pillage and burn with impunity. Participating in a violent riot should be an enhancement at sentencing, not a mitigating factor. People who engage in lawless action bear a collective responsibility for all the crimes being committed, not just their own, and that should be reflected not in direct criminal liability in charging but rather in the heinousness of those actions at sentencing. And all the moreso when violence is motivated by politics. That's the whole basis for hate crime modifiers. We've long established that enhancements for ideological motive behind a crime do not violate the first amendment like criminalizing ideology itself does. Now I have my problems with that argument, but as long as it stands as law of the land, its only consistent that politically motivated violence should be treated as especially heinous.
1. psychology finds that in erratic events humans have a tendency to go blank and primal, doing things they otherwise wouldnt do. people throw rocks at windows, people trample others at the first sign of danger, etc. these things can be crimes, but pretending there isnt a reduction of individual mens rea is absurd.
2. the CRIME is killing someone due to a lit fire, so the lockdown ties directly to the likelihood that someone would or wouldnt be in the business, not the liklihood the fire could be put out. "oh im sorry your honor, i assumed if someone was in there the fire dept would rescue them" would be a funny defense to hear but doesnt hold water.
did he light fire to a building under the assumption it was empty, imo yes, although its arguable he didnt care to a criminally negligent level bordering on intentional action. was he motivated by mob mentality to do what he did, imo yes, and less arguable than the first point. does 10 years in prison sound about right to me for lighting a building on fire and then finding out much MUCH MUCH later it had a person in it, imo yes.
This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 11 2022 10:02am