From another article that was phrased like this:
Both men were originally facing felony mischief charges. If Taylor and Hall meet the requirements of their probation, the offenses will later be removed from their records.
And my first thought was - good luck with that, it’s all over the internet. It may not matter to the courts but this will follow them around for ever (and good riddance)
They’ll face several thousands of dollars in fines, and although I never heard the final result, I’m sure that Taylor’s lawsuit for injuries would have died after that.
Not nearly good enough by far.
Flogging would be a good start. At the very least make the assholes spend the next 20 years of weekends having to sit next to the rock and explain to all who pass by how stupid they were.
Not everybody got worked up about a rock falling over. The canyons these are in have thousands if not millions of them scattered around. It’s also hypocritical of a park system to bitch about it considering they built camp sites and trails there. And we’ll just forget about parks like Zion that hacked up a mountain so us mortals can hike up it without exerting any effort. Or parks like Yellowstone where the cretins let fires burn out of control instead of putting them out. Was anybody prosecuted/fired or even randomly annoyed over this destruction? No.
The damage they did was minimal and the park rangers would have had to deal with the unstable rock if it was brought to their attention. Their sentence reflects this and not the emotional baggage that surrounded the trial.
Has a senior lawyer or judge here given his/her opinions? IANA lawyer but I think some temperate (actual damage that’s hard to valuate) and exemplary damages here call for criminal charges.
If either of them ever have to apply for a job, Google will remind the interviewer what they did. Their sentence isn’t the only punishment they face.
Only if the HR department discriminates based on emotional vigilantism.
I’m a small business owner without any HR; do my own hiring. I’ll admit that I’d never hire someone with a history assholish as these fellows.
cite they have a history of doing this kind of thing.
This thread.
Oh, you mean more than once? Why? Hell, once is enough for other offenses. Nobody says “we don’t know if he’s a murderer yet, there was only that one time he killed six people.”
My mother (RIP) had a history of breast cancer. She only had it once.
Are you serious? * old rolleyes *
ETA: there was the insurance fraud as well. what was the final disposition there?
I’d be perfectly willing to wipe their record clean…
…once they put the rock back where they found it.
he pushed a loose rock over. That loose rock was a pristine national treasure but all the land the park bulldozed up for a concrete camp site next to it was… what exactly?
The punishment fit the crime. The trial was over before it started and all the emotional nonsense behind it was left at the door where it belonged.
But the piece you are missing is this: The goverment owns the land and has the right to bulldoze for a concrete camp site if they wish. The campers did not have such rights of ownership. I can bulldoze my house any time I please. If you bulldoze my house without my permission you’re going to jail. Topple a rock on your own property? Go ahead. On someone else’s property, including public property, get ready to face prosecution.
You guys have all heard the aphorism about wrestling with pigs, right?
Stranger
Or maybe considers an applicant’s demonstrated decision making ability. Or lack thereof.
Or possibly considers that their customers might take issue with doing business with them based on who works for them. The customers making the decision where to spend their money are under no obligation to be rational. So if the choice comes down to hiring one of these bozos or someone who hasn’t made national news by being and idiot, the choice is pure economics.
In addition, it’s been demonstrated that he has filed at least one frivolous lawsuit. He was in a minor fender bender and claimed that he had such bad back pain, years later, that he couldn’t work and yet he was able to go hiking and knock over a giant rock. I wouldn’t want him in my work place because I would be rightfully scared that he would pull the same crap on me.
You’re the one who keeps viewing this emotionally. From an outside perspective, they vandalized a site under public protection, irrevocably altering it.
If someone chopped down a tree on your property I might think you were overly emotional for caring about it, since there are plenty of trees about, and it would have rotted eventually. It doesn’t make it right for someone to violate your property.
The court ruled as I suggested so your outside perspective is noted and filed under wishful thinking.
The court ruled that they were criminals (actually allowed them to plead to lesser charges), fined them many thousands of dollars and put them on probation for a year. What is it that you imagine that Big T is wishing for that came out differently?