3 ms·
That’s an incredible statement to make, and I have no idea why you’d be defending the guards. The idea that someone can’t be charged for an indirect harm that t
by ryacko 7y ago
That’s an incredible statement to make, and I have no idea why you’d be defending the guards. The idea that someone can’t be charged for an indirect harm that they took no effort to avoid, that plausibly led to the outcome is absolutely absurd and is likely the reasoning why so many CEOs walk around freely.
Expressing awareness of something and taking no preventative measures is certainly damning in one perspective.
- dogma1138 7y agoI’m not defending the guards, I’m wondering what is the offense that those who would presumably paid them off would be charged with other than bringing a government official.
- ryacko 7y agoPayer would be charged with? I don’t know what you could charge a person who disabled a safety feature. I don’t know what you could charge a person who wants to avoid responsibility for a crime. I mean, crimes are serious, if the complexity of charging a person exceeds the willingness of the government to prosecute, what does that say about the government? Everyone is effectively looking the other way? Those officials could be charged with misprision, depending on the evidence. Those officials could be charged with negligence. Those officials could be named and shamed so that they may never be employed. The payer himself could be charged crimes involving malice aforethought if there was evidence. The US government is an extremely powerful entity, for which the members of which are choosing to act like cowards?