McIntire, a 19-year-old student at Boston’s University of Massachusetts, appeared in federal court Friday and has been charged with one count of unlawful possession of an unregistered destructive device and one count of malicious damage by fire of any property used in interstate commerce.
The keyword here is “Alleged”. As far as anyone knows, She was just falsely-flagged.
We honor the sacrifices of our soldiers o7
Impossible. She was at my house at the time of said incident.
I set fire to that dealership.
Another witness filmed a video of the fire and posted it on X, the affidavit said. The witness claimed they saw McIntire fleeing the scene.
And the rats? What do they get? Honestly, disgusting that someone would help the police find her. Like what even are your morals. Fucking pathetic.
him* possibly them*
-The article says the suspects full name is “Owen McIntire” being the only hint to suspect gender.
I kinda both like and dislike that something as arbitrary as long hair and no beard can cause this kind of debate. In the '80s, the assumption probably would’ve just been that they’re a fan of hair metal lol.
I like it because it means that it’s a lot easier to bend gender norms (and be seen as bending gender norms) than I thought and it also just proves how full of shit people are when they claim they “can tell” and that at least half of their perception of the world is dictated by their culture.
I dislike it for the same reasons though. Because it means that this world is still a lot more puritanical and prone to pearl clutching than I thought. It means that boys with long hair who don’t like sports are going to be getting beaten up and bullied for being ‘gay’ or whatever. It means that sightly butch women won’t be able to use public bathrooms without judgmental, psychotic people wanting to make that woman’s genitals their own business. It means that I’m living in a world with people who still think in terms of long hair = girl, who haven’t ever expanded their minds or considered that their own cultural norms don’t apply to everyone in the slightest.
“Leave the multi billion dollar company alone unsheaths plastic katana”
“Listen, I’m legally required to tell you to cease your ingress ma’am. Please don’t make me tell you again. I will raise my voice if i have to!”
They really are this dumb.
They think this will discourage targeted destruction of an oligarch? Decades for worthless cars?
If you get decades for that- make sure to get the rest of the lot. Bonus points for for a factory.
I mean, arson itself is usually punished very harshly because it can easily get out of control and kill people (and most of those laws predate modern fire safety standards). It might be a good idea to look for alternative ways to vandalise Tesla’s that don’t have harsh punishments associated with them. Or if you do, try not to get caught.
If you’re going to go part way, may as well go full way. Shooting season is about to start.
I used to drive on State Line past that lot full of Teslas daily, always saw a ton of Cybertrucks just sitting. Once Musk started getting so much (more) hate I figured it was a matter of time before someone torched it.
Also, I always find it funny how it’s totally just a road that divides the states, I’d drive to work and be “in” Missouri and drive home “in” Kansas lol
It’s honestly better if that inventory sits on the lot unpurchased. It costs them money to store it and it looks bad for them having old inventory around months or even years out of date. Torching it just gives them a nice insurance payout.
I work in KS and live in MO. Love paying income tax in two states! /s
If we ever get another President not named Trump this will be pardoned instantly.
Too bad he wasn’t a right wing kid shooting liberal protestors to death because he’d be hailed as a hero and given awards and tv appearances.
Needs to cry in court first
Yes, arson is a crime, and rightly so. “Decades behind bars”, however, for setting two cars on fire (and damaging two charging stations) is insanely disproportionate. There’s a very important reason that not all infractions are sentenced to the maximum possible extent:
If the government is going to drop any pretense of mercy or sanity, then there’s no reason why people shouldn’t take their time, plan things carefully, and destroy the whole dealership. People who would otherwise do less damage are taking note. Sure, some will be scared away, but I think more will be emboldened. Maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t matter. Either way, the end result will be worse.
The government is basically telling people that prosecutors won’t be reasonable, so you might as well make sure the crime is truly worthy of the punishment. I cannot overemphasize what a terrible idea this is.
Absolutely, it’s called a proportional response for a reason. I always think of the West Wing scene when this subject comes up. The whole scene lives in my head rent free to be honest.
Her punishment should be at least as bad as the sentences rioters served for breaking into the U.S. capitol. Or maybe that should be the cap since her actions didn’t result in death and weren’t intended as an attempt at insurrection (unless someone that owns Tesla is now considered the head of government).
The problem of disproportional punishment is, if you get the death penalty for destruction of property and also the death penalty for murder, the incentive to not choose murder over property destruction, when making a plan to right some wrongs, is nearly erased. Only the individual’s morals will prevent them from choosing murder if the penalties are equal.
It’s like the zero-tolerance policy my at my kid’s school…
I told them if you get hit, since you’re going to get suspended anyway, fight back until I get there to pick you up.
Hi!
We’re the Trump regime.
Every idea we have is the worst one imagined!
Have a horrible day!
Should have led an insurrection instead, and then become president. Though I forgot if you need to also defraud a charity, be a cheating rapist slumlord and get convicted of 34 felonies first, or if the order doesn’t matter. Things are changing so fast nowadays.
EV fires are insane. Please find other less dangerous ways to protest, something not involving fire at least. The fire department are the ones who have to deal with it, and its not pretty.
Haha. Would you please also tell the Republican party that you’d appreciate it if they could find prettier ways of destroying our government and constitution.
I guess I never assumed it was a serious revolt against the government. My mistake.
You’re right, maybe there’s nothing to see here. I forgot that people start setting cars on fire as a goof.
I thought it was just a dummy caught up in the moment, who didn’t understand the massive damage an EV fire does.
Also, lighting up a cybertruck is probably making them money on an insurance claim, because they’re so overvalued by the corpos.
I’m not a lawyer but the feds claiming it as a federal case because cars could be used in interstate commerce seems lame. Should be a Missouri case, not a federal case.
The rule of law isn’t important anymore.
The rule of law is dead. Enter the age of action and consequence.
They are pushing for federal because it involved Elonazi’s Swasticars.
How can you possibly blame this kid when Cybertrucks have been known to self-immolate? They have faulty batteries that catch on fire left and right; the rustbucket was likely already on fire before he got there.
Yeah, it’s like prosecuting women for miscarriages. Oh wait.
I really don’t like jury duty. And would do plenty to get out of it. If I got called for this one. I would happily nullify it as hard as I could.
No you would not. You would find that she is not guilty.
Only if nullification was not a possibility. Nullification sends a much stronger and important message. Namely we don’t give a fuck if they’re guilty or not. Because this is a bullshit show trial that does not have Justice in mind. Yes I’m aware prosecutors often ask for the largest applicable sentence possible eventually negotiating down. That doesn’t make this any less bullshit.
What you’re describing has a name, and that name is nullification.
No it’s not. Discussing nullification would get be booted off a jury. However, if considering all the facts, I were to vote not guilty, it would not.
Think whatever you like but jury nullification is when a juror votes “not guilty” when they actually think someone is guilty of a law that they disagree with.
Okay. Apparently you think I’m fighting you for no reason. Is it nullification? Yes. Don’t call it that. Don’t talk about that. Because it will get you booted off a jury.
Haha, I mean, we’re definitely arguing over semantics but you’re saying something equivalent to, “No, don’t eat ice cream. Put some in your mouth and then swallow it, but don’t eat. We never eat.”
Except the point is that if you say you would eat ice cream, you don’t get the ice cream. Legally speaking as a juror you are supposed to uphold the law. If the judge or prosecutor has any inkling you might nullify, they’ll boot your ass out of the pool in a hurry.
Damn if that’s what happens for hurting a car might as well go after the man
For real, those piece of shit cars have more rights than we do
