3 ms·
She identified the maximum the same way a protection racket says "It'd be a shame if anything happened to this nice business you've got here". They never actua
by roc 14y ago
She identified the maximum the same way a protection racket says "It'd be a shame if anything happened to this nice business you've got here".
They never actually say they're going to make 'something' happen if you don't deal. But everyone knows that is exactly what they mean.
It's no different for the prosecutors. Stating the maximums in a case that clearly does not compel the maximums is an intentional negotiating tactic that amounts to intimidation. It quite clearly and obviously means "I will use the threat of the worst-case-scenario, in negotiations, to wring every last month of term and dollar of penalty out of you." And that implicitly indicates the prosecutors were gunning for Swartz.
- btilly 14y agoYou were fine until the last sentence. And that implicitly indicates the prosecutors were gunning for Swartz. No. This was business as normal. This is what they do to EVERYONE. Whether THAT is OK is a different issue. But they really weren't singling him out for significantly worse treatment than they give to other people.
- roc 14y agoThe point that they gun for everyone is no defense. (That everyone gets shaken down for protection money does not mitigate the immorality of that act in individual cases.) Such a defense would not only be an admission that the original criticisms against the office were 100% correct, but that the 'problem' of their unethical and immoral behavior is, in fact, much deeper than just Swartz. Which is, in fact, why Ortiz won't go anywhere near a claim that they treat everyone the way they treat Swartz, with similar disregard for the particulars of their case or any human sense of justice or proportionality. Attempting that argument would concede that the Swartz case is but today's face on the larger issue of proescutors run amok. [1] [1] A subject well covered in a blog post by Charles Pierce, that I previously linked to in a thread on this topic: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swartz http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swar... I'm well aware that they treat everyone this way. That's not a different issue. It is the issue.
- sixbrx 14y agoSo if they are shamelessly using any means available to try to convict everyone they prosecute, say to increase their rate of successful prosecutions and thus professional status, then by your definition then they aren't gunning for anyone? I'd say in that case they would be gunning for everyone they prosecute. As opposed to the people they aren't prosecuting. An alien invader could be gunning for everyone on Earth. "Gunning for" doesn't have some distribution defined definition when enacted by a single individual - an individual can "gun for" everyone in context and some do.