A grocery store threw out $35,000 in food that a woman intentionally coughed on, sparking coronaviru

Crazy. They are arresting ppl for similar incidences. Or in Brazil they are gonna kill ya- read an article on reddit but can’t find it.
 
Justice Dept just informed people caught doing that will be charged with terrorism.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Justice Dept just informed people caught doing that will be charged with terrorism.
Click to expand...
And one person has been charged. Some people are idiots. Can a citizen stop an act of terrorism with deadly force? I hope we won't find out the answer.
 
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I saw another one where some guy went to Wal-Mart and was licking a bunch of stuff and taking video and posting it. He's been charged with some sort of terrorism thing and could be facing 25 years...
 
I wish she sneezed on some toilet paper...……..I haven't been dumpster diving in weeks!
 
Almost as bad as licking ice cream at the supermarket.
 
A good ass kicking would be an appropriate response to such idiocy. A smartphone that just happened to be nearby could provide a refreshing change in the stupid videos posted on social media too.
 
What are really the odds of someone contracting Covid-19 from eating some food which was earlier sneezed on by an infected person? And then having a serious enough illness from it to be injured?

People have lost all sense of proportion. Certainly it should be a crime to do so, but is that really terrorism? Or clear and present danger of serious bodily injury or death?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
People have lost all sense of proportion. Certainly it should be a crime to do so, but is that really terrorism? Or clear and present danger of serious bodily injury or death?
Click to expand...

I think it is a great idea to make a very public example of someone like this. No, she won't go into the pokey for 20 years for terrorism - in a few months, a prosecutor or the DA will lessen the charges. However, the immediate publicity will dissuade the next person from doing it, and she'll learn an important lesson in how expensive and life changing it can be to intentionally destroy $35k of someone else's stuff.
 
Man, this is what we need up in hur' !! Volunteer deputy applications would skyrocket!
 
kyleb said:
I think it is a great idea to make a very public example of someone like this. No, she won't go into the pokey for 20 years for terrorism - in a few months, a prosecutor or the DA will lessen the charges. However, the immediate publicity will dissuade the next person from doing it, and she'll learn an important lesson in how expensive and life changing it can be to intentionally destroy $35k of someone else's stuff.
Click to expand...

Well, the trouble with arbitrary prosecutions is you never know which group or who will be next.

Perhaps some violation of an FAA reg will be regarded as over the top in the next panic frenzy.

Certainly the perpetrator should have to pay for the $35k of damage, no question.
 
I think they should have a sign ....

If you lick/ cough/ sneeze/ pizz.... you buy it
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Well, the trouble with arbitrary prosecutions is you never know which group or who will be next.
Click to expand...

When you intentionally damage $35k of stuff, it isn't an arbitrary prosecution. Ain't like they said "eenie, meenie, miney, moe" and picked a random person queuing up in the checkout line.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What are really the odds of someone contracting Covid-19 from eating some food which was earlier sneezed on by an infected person? And then having a serious enough illness from it to be injured?

People have lost all sense of proportion. Certainly it should be a crime to do so, but is that really terrorism? Or clear and present danger of serious bodily injury or death?
Click to expand...
Would you eat the food?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Would you eat the food?
Click to expand...

No of course not and if I owned the store I would throw it out and expect the person who did that to pay for it.

But that act is not terrorism in any reasonable definition of the term or an act which justified immediate use of lethal force to defend yourself.
 
This is just a couple towns over from me. Crazy.
 
kyleb said:
When you intentionally damage $35k of stuff, it isn't an arbitrary prosecution. Ain't like they said "eenie, meenie, miney, moe" and picked a random person queuing up in the checkout line.
Click to expand...

What is arbitrary is trying to use over the top prosecutions for crimes which bear no reasonable relationship to the actual actions.

It is the tendency of prosecutors to use such charges in a selective manner that is so dangerous, and “make an example of” one individual when the normal punishment meted out for the behavior is much less.

In this case, for example, to call such wanton destruction of property “terrorism”. That term originally meant the use of violence against innocent civilians en masse to incite fear in a population for political purposes.

What is the political purpose in this case? Is this the use of violence against a population?
 
And apparently the woman was having mental health issues, so it seems very unlikely she was engaged in violent acts to make a political point.

The Federal prosecutors want to consider Covid-19 as a biological weapon. Then what about the seasonal flu, is that a biological weapon as well...
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
What is arbitrary is trying to use over the top prosecutions for crimes which bear no reasonable relationship to the actual actions.

It is the tendency of prosecutors to use such charges in a selective manner that is so dangerous, and “make an example of” one individual when the normal punishment meted out for the behavior is much less.

In this case, for example, to call such wanton destruction of property “terrorism”. That term originally meant the use of violence against innocent civilians en masse to incite fear in a population for political purposes.

What is the political purpose in this case? Is this the use of violence against a population?
Click to expand...
I don’t think of it as terrorism. In fact I think an outlandish charge like that is probably easily defended. but It’s the modern day equivalent of yelling fire in the theater. This wasn’t even a stunt.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
And apparently the woman was having mental health issues, so it seems very unlikely she was engaged in violent acts to make a political point.
Click to expand...

If I'd done something stupid like that, I'd have claimed mental problems too. I don't see what she did as political. I see it as an extension of the youtube/reality TV culture where people are almost encouraged to do absolutely stupid things. Thing is, do the stupid things to YOUR stuff, not someone else's stuff.
 
benyflyguy said:
This wasn’t even a stunt.
Click to expand...

No, it was apparently the action of someone with mental health issues. In that sense, such a person is not likely to even modify their behavior much in response to the charges.
 
kyleb said:
If I'd done something stupid like that, I'd have claimed mental problems too. I don't see what she did as political. I see it as an extension of the youtube/reality TV culture where people are almost encouraged to do absolutely stupid things. Thing is, do the stupid things to YOUR stuff, not someone else's stuff.
Click to expand...

Definitely stupid and if she did not have pre-existing mental health issues, should definitely be punished. In any case, mental health issues or not, should be responsible for the property damage.

But agreed not terrorism and that was my original point about people not having a sense of proportion in trying to charge things like this as terrorism.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
No of course not and if I owned the store I would throw it out and expect the person who did that to pay for it.

But that act is not terrorism in any reasonable definition of the term or an act which justified immediate use of lethal force to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

PeterNSteinmetz said:
And apparently the woman was having mental health issues, so it seems very unlikely she was engaged in violent acts to make a political point.

The Federal prosecutors want to consider Covid-19 as a biological weapon. Then what about the seasonal flu, is that a biological weapon as well...
Click to expand...
What if she sneezed into a spray bottle filled with water and started spraying people with the contents?
 
hindsight2020 said:
Man, this is what we need up in hur' !! Volunteer deputy applications would skyrocket!
Click to expand...

What, people armed with sticks? I don't want to be poked with a stick as much as the next guy, but I just don't think that's the direction our police or military forces are going to take this fight.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
What if she sneezed into a spray bottle filled with water and started spraying people with the contents?
Click to expand...

Getting even crazier. I think it is a biological weapon only if the contents were processed somehow to increase the concentration of the virus and she actually had the illness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top