zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
Maximum sentence is 10 years, she's unlikely to get that, but _minimum_ is 5 years IIRC. That's a _long_ time. And then you're a felon and you can't find a decent job. What was the calculus there, I wonder? Under what circumstances would a person rationally consider torching a police cruiser to be worth the risk of 5 years in the slammer?

>>m0zg+Wc
Apparently she picked up an already burning piece of wood and threw it in. So it's less likely that she left the house that morning with the intent of torching cars.

In the moment, with everyone and everthing going on around her, I doubt she was thinking rationally or even knew that torching a car would be a long prison sentence. (if someone asked me before reading this article, I would have assumed a large fine + some community service maybe; then again I am not American so I have no idea how sentences compare).

>>koyote+5e
In the moment, with everyone and everthing going on around her, I doubt she was thinking rationally or even knew that torching a car would be a long prison sentence

"Everyone else was doing it" didn't fly with my mom, and probably won't get a pass from Judge Wapner, either.

>>reaper+Ve
"Everyone else was doing it" is pretty close to "nobody else got in trouble for it".

Which is the logic behind Qualified Immunity.

>>GurnBl+7j
No. The reasoning is to protect police from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear situations. If you want to get rid of it, get rid of it for all government employees, including elected officials.