The Obama justice department has instructed its attorneys in North Dakota to file criminal charges against 7 oil companies. The complaint - 28 migratory birds have landed in their oil pits over a 45 day period. The problem, folks, is that many multiples of that number of birds die ALL THE TIME in windmills and no charges have ever been brought against this industry. Hey, I want green energy as much as the guy but a blatant double-standard this humongous is way outrageous. And, besides, maybe we should just stop harassing businesses over piddly stuff like this, in general, and let them go about the business of DOING their business. Just a frigging thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You certainly don't sound very much like a bird.
I'm with you Will. The oil companies should be able to kill as many birds as they please. I mean, if BP wasn't prosecuted for the 11 people they murdered in the Gulf... why the heck should they be prosecuted for killing birds?
Like you said, corporations should be allowed to go about the business of DOING their business... and if birds or people are killed in the process... so what?
Corporations may be people, but they're RICH people. Everyone knows the law doesn't apply to rich people!
Will, would it cost too much for them to cover the pits? With something? It shouldn't be rocket science.
"I mean, if BP wasn't prosecuted for the 11 people they murdered in the Gulf"
Well, there is no evidence of murder. Unless, like you, someone is am armchair attorney, able to fling about false criminal accusations that informed legal minds either laugh out of the courtroom or don't even consider. Just like calling George W. Bush a "War Criminal".
Sorry, there has to be actual criminality. Crimes. Charges. Considered by people who know what they are doing. Not your "I don't like someone so I will make up stuff about them" lawyering.
There is a story from a long tiem ago saying "BP’s former chief executive Tony Hayward could face manslaughter charges over his role in the Gulf oil spill"
Manslaughter is not murder. Do you have even a layman's knowledge of the criminal justice system? And nothing came of this. No evidence, no basis, so no place in an actual court of law.
As usual, you miss the point, wd. It's the double-standard here. Windmills kill FAR MORE birds than do oil pits and the government isn't prosecuting them. And some of these oil companies were small oil companies, not the behemoths that we constantly rail against (you know, the same kind of small oil companies that Teddy Kennedy made part of his fortune on)......As for BP, if they can find any criminal negligence against them, absolutely, prosecute them to the hilt (you see, I, unlike you, don't defend the indefensible).
Yeah, and you're loaded use of the term, "murder", isn't (as dmarks has so adroitly stated) isn't exactly accurate/honest, either.
Will: ...your loaded use of the term, "murder", isn't... exactly accurate/honest...
It's 100 percent accurate and 100 percent honest.
What happened on the Deepwater Horizon wasn't manslaughter, it was negligent homocide, which is a type of murder (it's a lesser charge below second degree murder).
Wikipedia says, "murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation".
BP's negligence was so extreme that what they did most certainly qualifies (or it should) as murder. You see, I, unlike you, don't defend the indefensible by refusing to call what BP did murder.
I'll be waiting for the charges to be brought by an actual justice official and not a weaselly partisan, thank you.
WD said of the term murder:
"It's 100 percent accurate and 100 percent honest."
The criminal justice system, which is the only actual authority to determine whether or not such accusations are true, says "no".
I do tend to side with people who know what they are doing over those who think that reading a lot of pundits somehow makes them informed about anything.
"What happened on the Deepwater Horizon wasn't manslaughter, it was negligent homocide, which is a type of murder (it's a lesser charge below second degree murder)."
It wasn't even negligent homicide. Again, the criminal justice system disagrees with your punditry.
Will: So far, no one has. And enough time has passed to make this unlikely. Which makes the "I got my law degree of the back of a cereal box" opinion of "murder" one that is rejected by people who know what they are doing. Actual professionals.
Just like with the Bush 'war criminal' charges.
The Jury sent Casey Anthony home. That must mean she was 100 percent innocent? What about OJ? He was 100 percent innocent too?
dmarks: The criminal justice system, which is the only actual authority to determine whether or not such accusations are true, says "no".
This statement shows how little you know about the criminal justice system. When deciding to bring charges, other factors are considered. Whether or not the case can be proved to the satisfaction of the law is probably the big one... and that has nothing to do with whether or not those who may prosecute think the potential defendant is guilty.
Saying "no" to prosecution isn't the same as saying "we think you're innocent".
dmarks: It wasn't even negligent homicide. Again, the criminal justice system disagrees with your punditry.
Show me a statement from Eric Holder where he says this. Again, a lack of a prosecution is not a deceleration of innocence. I'm sure there are a lot of cases that aren't prosecuted and those who decide not to go forward do so for reasons other than they think the potential defendant is innocent.
Also, your deceleration of innocence is way premature. A number of lawful death lawsuits have been filed which haven't been resolved yet. Although I'm sure you think they should be thrown out. Even though you don't know what the evidence is. As far as armchair attorneys go, I think dmarks is the worst!
dmarks: I do tend to side with people who know what they are doing over those...
Who are these people you are siding with? Give names and links to statements they have made. No prosecution isn't the same as a deceleration of innocence.
Once you've provided the names and statements I'll take into consideration what the people you're siding with have said. Until then I'll continue to believe this is just another example of how much dmarks hates workers.
Post a Comment