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
Perhaps when prioritising their morality and cause, over what's beneficial for them?

>>coldte+Bd
What "morality" or "cause" are you talking about? She burned a police cruiser.

>>m0zg+ce
So? Some people consider police bad, either at specific instances (some policemen/departments at some times doing bad things) or inherently (the police as an institution in general), and have been fighting against them for centuries...

Some people think police should pay for the abuses that they regularly and without punishment do.

Some others think police should stop existing in general, or exist only in a very limited capacity, or be replaced by citizen patrols, and several other varieties...

So, that morality and cause... Doesn't have to agree with yours to be a morality, and even less so to be a cause...

>>coldte+Yg
Their beliefs are irrelevant. You don't get to break laws and due process just because of your beliefs and anger. How many mass shootings have we seen from people with "beliefs". Stop trying to justify people burning cars just because they don't get one they want right away.

>>buzzer+Tn
>Their beliefs are irrelevant. You don't get to break laws and due process just because of your beliefs and anger.

Yes you do. You might not get away with it, but that's not really pertinent.

In fact historically most change happened through people breaking laws because of their beliefs and anger.

And in every past society, like ours, most thought its laws are the apex of law-making, and should never be challenged or broken in anger, nor its law agents assaulted etc. Only history doesn't work that way.