• chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, between getting doxxed and annihilating any chance he had at getting a lenient sentencing, the more sensible decision would have probably been to sit on his hands and bide time for a couple months lol.

        • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But at least we can punish him. Eh?

          That’ll teach him for being congenitally neurodivergent.

          • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And… I mean, a criminal.

            I’m not commenting on the moral issues but laws exist and they were broken.

                • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, but that’s because of an “old boys club” looking out for their members, and limited liability companies protecting directors from the consequences of their direction. Those white collar criminals should suffer the consequences of their crimes: they are deliberate and malicious.

                  This poor schumck has autism spectrum disorder. He may be genuinely incapable of self regulating various behaviours. Therefore he needs support not punishment.

                  BTW “what about-ism” is a logical fallacy. You’re creating a false equivalence to argue a point disingenuously.

                  • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    BTW “what about-ism” is a logical fallacy. You’re creating a false equivalence to argue a point disingenuously.

                    Did you mean to respond to me? I’m not the other person you responded to. And I didn’t give a “what aboutism” which I’m familiar with that term from reddit.