Student Charged In Anti-SUV Arson (CBS/AP)

AP) A college student with apparent connections to a radical environmentalist group was charged with firebombing or otherwise vandalizing 125 sport utility vehicles.

Billy Cottrell, a 23-year-old graduate physics student, was indicted for damaging or destroying vehicles at car dealerships and homes in the Los Angeles area last August, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office on Wednesday.

Cottrell, who could face life in prison, has been held without bail since his arrest on March 9. His attorney, Stephen Alexander, said Cottrell was innocent and declined further comment.

--

Im not sure what to think of this guy but, faces life in prison? Sheesh, thats more than the average rapist or child molestor faces... don't make sense to me.

on edit: link http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/10/national/main605042.shtml

When you set fire to things, it's arson. When you spray paint them its vandalism.

I assume the reference to life in prison is that if found guily on all counts he would serve them consecutively. Or is that in reference to 3 strikes?

for setting Iraq on fire

nt

Normally, I'd feel the sentence was severe but once anyone incorporates fire/arson into the mix then that person has basically lost any possible control of the situation in how the fire behaves. Especially idiotic given that the cars all likely had gas in the tank and he attacked vehicles at private homes as well according to the article.

Read the last paragraph of the article: (yes, I know it has nothing to deal with the case at hand but it proves the point re: fire)

The Earth Liberation Front has claimed responsibility for a string of arsons in Detroit, Philadelphia and San Diego, where a fire last year destroyed a 206-unit apartment complex under construction, doing $50 million worth of damage.

The article doesn't really establish if the apartment was an intended target but if it was collateral damage and it had been inhabited what could have been the potential loss of life as a result. I don't see any difference between the two situations.

No sympathy for this guy on my part.

...arson is a cowards crime, a car can certainly act as a bomb. My truck often carries hypo-chlor and tri-chlor, which no one could see from the outside. If I'm parked near a building with people, you're talking BOMB!!!

http://www.judibari.org/

What sentence would you propose for the culprits there? The ones the FBI couldnt be bothered to look for? How about the Anthrax killer?

Because this guy decided promoting his politics via fire and some have issue with it, we must immediately condemn all other acts that have ever happened?

Sorry but it seems you are desperate to change the subject.

Edit: (sp)

truly outraged at things that are truly outrageous. Anyone who thinks some misguided kid needs to do more time than some psychotic fire bug who burns down thousands of acres needs to think again.

"truly outraged at things that are truly outrageous. Anyone who thinks some misguided kid needs to do more time than some psychotic fire bug who burns down thousands of acres needs to think again"

It's fine to be outraged. The place in this thread seems odd.

Why not start new threads detailing what needs to happen with those outrages. Bringing up other things and chastizing people for not being outraged about them as well(even if those poeple didn"t have a clue as to what you were referencing originally) without any reference to past support of the outrages by those same people is just plain silly. It's the "it's not like he's Hitler" defense. You have posting priveleges, use them to highlight the stories you feel strongly about.

"Anyone who thinks some misguided kid"

Who is allegded to have committed many arsons propagated as a political statement.

"needs to do more time than some psychotic fire bug who burns down thousands of acres needs to think again."

Are you referenceing the fire last year(Los Alamos) or the hunter from this year in SoCal?

Taking your word on the psychotic firebug I think it's fine if him and the "misguided" kid get equal time if convicted.

and if I decide something might be relevant to the lynch mob, I guess that is your problem. As important a consideration might be the history of Cointelpro tactics which certainly would thrive in this situation, if they arent already.

"I decide something might be relevant to the lynch mob, I guess that is your problem."

Not my problem...you're just ticked that your original postings didn't get enough attention.

"As important a consideration might be the history of Cointelpro tactics which certainly would thrive in this situation, if they arent already."

Oh the classic copout...no one from our side could possibly do something this dastardly. It has to be the other guy's fault. That's not ignoring history but the automatic assumption of such is paranoia.

C'mon, radicals have at times chosen a more violent expression of their politics. Existing at the fringe of the fringe, actions by a few of the more bellicose is not surprising.

Sorry, youre too sophisticated for me to contend with. I love you baby. Have fun.

....just that arson is a despicable crime that needs to be punished.

You set a fire in my driveway, all I can say is I hope you accidentally get caught in the inferno yourself and burn to death, motherf*cker. My baby's bedroom is by my driveway; you don't mess with my baby! No sympathy here.

I understand the passion against SUVs, but can't support the method here.

Under the old theory of American law, we generally don't punish people for potential consequences. You can speculate all you want about what might have happened, but, fact is, it didn't. This guy destroyed property. If any of the parade of horribles that people are trotting out here had occurred, he would be charged with homicide. But it didn't, so he's not.

I realize that destruction of property is, for many, a far more serious crime than injury to humans but, until recently, the law didn't see it that way.

If we were permitted to say, "Well, he might have killed my baby, thus, although he didn't, he should be put away for life," then it seems we are obligated to put away for life all drunk drivers. They might, after all, have had an accident which killed someone. So far, that's not the rule.

I still feel that if you use fire to commit any crime against property OR individuals you should be put away for a really long time strictly because you don't know what's going to happen once you strike that match. (The only thing that worked in his favor was luck).

To be honest, I'm not expecting that he will get life. But I hope what ever punishment he gets is long, hard, and I hope it'll perhaps persuade him to use more common sense the next time he decides to protest something.

Not trying to be a hardass but history is filled with too many cases where a fire got out of control with catastrophic results to minimize what might have happened had the fates not been kind.

wheres your outrage there?

I don't know specifically what punishment the arsonist received in the forest fires but if he got less than the firebug could get in this instance I'd consider it a travesty of justice.

Personally, I think I touched upon my feelings about ANY crime committed upon property or individual through the use of fire in paragraph one and my reasoning for my feelings are summed up in the last sentence. Sorry if you need specific instances spotlighted but I think the statement stands on its own.

Nice try though.

I guess it was the Arizona firebug/fireperson. You want your cake and eat it too? There are some SERIOUS inequities in sentencing taking place, and you are cheering them on. Feel free to make up your mind.

It is used in many areas where the action could or couldn't have led to a specific result. I believe it is a valid point to be considered in determining the level of punishment.

Consider the case of drunk driving. People get pulled over for broken tail light, not wearing a seat belt or an expired tag and are then found to be drunk. They weren't speeding or driving recklessly but the still get a penalty WELL above that for a broken tail light. It is also behind the rational of having a speed limit.

I have to agree that a life sentence is over the top, but I am glad this is not being treated as a simple arson. You have no control over fire and when you set something filled with gasoline ablaze you are saying you really don't care what happens.

I also think there is a slight intent to instill a sense of "this could happen to you also" in other SUV owners.

For instance, in the State of Washington (used as an example because, well, that's where I live), here's part of the definition of Arson I:

(1) A person is guilty of arson in the first degree if he knowingly and maliciously:

(a) Causes a fire or explosion which is manifestly dangerous to any human life, including firemen; or

Arson II is knowingly and maliciously causing a fire, but without the danger to humans aspect.

As to your tail light analogy: to properly apply your reasoning, you need to have a person charged with a broken tail light, but punished as if for drunk driving. See, the difference is that whatever probable cause the officer uses for the stop, the person is in fact DUI.

FYI: The "reasonable person" standard is a tort standard. It may exist somewhere in the law of crimes. But, really, crimes (except conspiracy crimes) are based on what actually happened, not what might have happened.

excellent analogy. just us?

"I realize that destruction of property is, for many, a far more serious crime than injury to humans but, until recently, the law didn't see it that way."

The law would see property destruction without the element of fire alot less severe. That's the key component, if this had been baseball bat smashings or something like that it is likely the sentence would be less severe.

He should NOT be put away for life because of this.

However, I still say no one sets a fire in my driveway, or near my child. I also don't let anyone dangle my child off balconies. Nor do I let anyone take my child in a car without a carseat. We do have child endangerment laws in place to punish individuals for reckless behavior which might result in devastating consequences. We don't always have to sit and wait for devastating consequences to occur before a crime can be charged.

You say, "We don't always have to sit and wait for devastating consequences to occur before a crime can be charged." Where did I say that? Where did I say anything remotely resembling that.

There's another basic principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence (which exists in the real world, as well as in Gilbert & Sullivan): the punishment should fit the crime.

If somebody dangles your baby off the balcony, they are charged with whatever is the appropriate crime. They are not charged with murder. Likewise, baby out of carseat.

How did this get so binary? The issue is not: "Should this guy be charged with no crime?" Neither I nor anyone else in this thread has advocated such a position.

But you and I agree (although there are those who do not) that life in prison is an utterly inappropriate penalty for this crime.

In Washington, sentences are meted out within ranges. The ranges are determined by the seriousness of the crime; where the sentence falls within the range is determined by various mitigating and aggravating factors.

But you do not go outside the range of the punishment for the seriousnes level. In other words, there's no option to be really, really sad about what could, potentially, maybe have happened under a different set of circumstances (although it didn't) and thus go outside the prescribed sentencing range.

Unfortunately, the article at the other end of the link provided in the orginating post doesn't say what particular crime is being charged. I recall reading something a while back to the effect that the feds were promising to prosecute under the USAPATRIOT act, which probably does offer life in prison for "terrism."

But in this thread, we've all been talking as if the crime were arson, and people seem to be reserving the right to demand whatever punishment they deem appropriate depending, it seems in large part, on how emotionally worked up they are about imagined harm to their children or to their SUVs.

That approach is called frontier justice. We moved away from that for a while here in the USofA, but I think we're headed back to the halcyon days of Judge Roy Bean.

"potential vs. actual." My point was merely that we do punish individuals in some circumstances for the potential danger of their reckless behavior, even when no one has in fact been harmed.

I think you and I agree that putting someone away for life should only be done for the most severe of crimes.

And let me wonder aloud for a moment (I learn a lot at DU this way). If a guy blew up my SUV in the driveway just outside my kid's bedroom window, might that not be construed as attempted murder (of some degree?), or does that go to motive? If he only meant to blow up the SUV alone, and didn't know anyone was in my home, does that absolve him? Or would attempted murder only be charged if he had specifically intended to kill my kid in this manner? Is there even such a thing in the law as "attempted murder" in an arson case? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I find the subject very interesting, that's all!
:hi:

It actually depends on how the crime is defined. In the case of arson, the endangering lives aspect is the difference between Arson I and Arson II. Sorry, but I'm too lazy right now to pull up the sentencing grid to tell you how many years the difference might be.

But here's a good illustration of how tricky some of this stuff is:

We all started off talking about the whole matter as arson. I did, as well, and, frankly, I'm sorry I did. I would be pretty darned sure that they're not offering to send this guy up on arson charges (as I speculated elsewhere in this thread, I would not be surprised if they're going to try to give him life on some terrism beef). You are now talking about what if he blew up your SUV. Well, that would be a different crime; not arson at all. Washington law, for instance, has a specific, named crime for setting off explosives.

Truth be told, in order accurately to talk about the potential sentence for this young person, you'd have to know what he's been charged with.

My opinion, based on the facts of the case as I understand them (and, having got them through the media, I have no confidence that they represent but a dim reflection of the truth), is that life in prison is an inappropriate sentence for that crime.

AFAIK, no human being was killed by this guy; no human being was injured. That, in itself, says to me that a life sentence is ludicrous.

If people want to be logically consistent, if they argue for life in this case, surely they'll want to argue for life in any case involving major property damage. But, y'know, I somehow suspect that those same people, some of whom are posting to this thread (not the person to whose post I am respondingn) would find the sauce was quite different if the person in the dock was a corporate bigwig who had directed a course of action that exposed people to the potential of exposure to a bunch of deadly effluent. In that case, methinks, there would be loud and mordant cries of "but he din't actually hurt anybody!!"

Yes, there is confusion here.

If this guy is found guilty of multiple counts of property damage, that makes him one thing under the law: a guy who destroyed lots of property.

Now, it's debatable whether the law is wise in providing for a life sentence. But that question has nothing to do with hypothetical bodily harm, nor should it.

Let us not be in a hurry to imagine harms for our government to punish! The inquisitorial spirit is the last thing needed in a nation convulsed by fear, where the president has arrogated to himself the right to lock up people without trial.

The guy not only destroyed property but he destroyed it in a way that could possibly be classified as reckless endangerment and in carrying out his actions he showed a callous disregard to the possible safety and health of others. I seriously doubt he would have stopped had he not been caught and putting him away for a while is probably guaranteeing he won't have a chance to do this again anytime soon.

We have a mad arsonist out running around the DC area right now and so perhaps that's coloring my perspective on what penalty this guy should receive but I'd feel the same way if this had happened with Clinton in the White House.

I want arsonists locked up, too. Locked up for what they do; not for what they might have done. If they harm people, lock them up longer.

If convicted this young fool will go away for a long time (indeed possibly the longest time) for the destruction of property. Sure, the crime of arson is also understood to endanger people; the sentencing guidelines provide for that element of the offense if it is present.

of course property is more important than human life.

Does this really surprise you?

This is in a country that allows children to go hungry, people to go without shelter, yet shovels taxpayer money at the largest corporations, protects property rights with religious zeal.

Why'd ya think I put that in there?

I hope the guilty party enjoys jail.

Potential loss of life, terrorism and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage?

I hope this guy NEVER gets out of jail if convicted.

You decry "potential loss of life," and yet your sig invites us to die.

Ehhhhh. Choose life, buddy. ;-)

There is no reason for folks to die in some moron's firebombing. But yes, there are indeed some battles worth dying for.

Died for any of those lately? Or do you just approve of others doing so?

I'm reminded of W.H. Auden's poem "Spain," on the Spanish civil war, in which he also romanticized dying for freedom:

To-day the deliberate increase in the chances of death,
The conscious acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder

Auden was a smart writer who, at that time in his life, driving an ambulance for the International Brigades, thought that he knew all about causes "worth dying for," too. But as Hemingway said of him, it takes someone who knows nothing about death to recommend it to others.

http://perso.wanadoo.es/joan-navarro/tigre/tigre6/auden.htm#Spain

Freedom is a cause worth dying for. Hundreds of thousands of Americans -- black and white -- died to gain me my freedom.

I don't recommend death to anyone except maybe terrorists. I'd love for all of them to die on their own without harming another soul.

No one died, but because of the fact that someone could have potentially died, he should be in jail for life? Isn't that a bit extreme?

I don't condone what this guy did, but no loss of life occured. I think he should serve time, certainly, but not more than rapists and people convicted of manslaughter!!

What do rapists get nowadays...6 years, tops?

Maybe covering police and fire departments years ago made me sympathetic to people who put their lives on the line, but arsonists are dangerous and potentially deadly asswipes.

And, believe me, if I was doing the sentencing, rapists wouldn't get six years.

"Billy Cottrell, a 23-year-old graduate physics student, was indicted for damaging or destroying vehicles at car dealerships and homes in the Los Angeles area last August, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office on Wednesday."

One of these vandals comes near my SUV I'll knock his frickin teeth out.

I've got no sympathy for these people.

You don't like SUV's, try to get the law changed. In the meantime, these are legal vehicles and no one deserves the slightest bit of support for running around damaging others property.

Imajika

Hmmm. I don't see people demanding rapists getting more than a few years. Why should destruction of property give life in prison, while raping or assaulting someone gives only a few years?

For the record, I think the guy should go to jail for a while. I dislike SUVs, too, but what he did was absolutely ridiculous and wrong.

But how is property damage worth more than damage to a human being??

I agree completely with your post. And for the record, yes, lock up arsonists.

Hmmm. I don't see people demanding rapists getting more than a few years. But how is property damage worth more than damage to a human being??

America does not consider rape a crime equal to property damage because it does not believe women to be fundamentally in possession of their own bodies. Others are the real owners: fathers, husbands, fetuses, churches, the state. Just last month our attorney general wished to subpoena names of women who had abortions; he wished, in essence, to punish the burning of embryonic SUVs.

give the driver's and passengers exactly what they deserve, the FINGER! Do not bust their mirrors up, no matter how much the replacements cost, that is vandalism. Do not stick needles in more than one tire because that leaves them stranded with or without a spare. Do not sugar their gas tank just because you cant see around, under or through their unsafe vehicle while they meander down the road talking on their cell phone and watching a porn DVD. Dont do these things, even though they are foolishly, selfishly contributing to the ever faster depletion of resources and could care less about your future. Even though you may not survive a collision with one of these overbodied underchassied symbols of inequitable distributiions of wealth. That would be wrong.

And for GODS SAKE, dont torch the turds, because that only fucks up the air and water supply we all rely on.

Heaven forfend you should act like a civilized human being and respect the property of others. Heaven forfend that you should perhaps drop back and punt so to speak and look for an opportunity to move into another lane away from the SUV. Heaven forfend that someone should buy something that they can afford as a sign of their income range which they earned by having talents not held by others.

Incidentally, a lot of people talk on their phone, watch DVD's and participate in otherwise unsafe driving practices regardless of the make or model of their vehicle. Personally, I'd like to give into the baser impulse of driving a spike through the tires of the select obnoxious bike couriers who zoom recklessly through car and pedestrian traffic in DC. But, my better nature as a human being won't allow me despite watching these irresponsible individuals zoom through car and foot traffic without much regard for other people's health.

worried about your insurance premiums, or just the deductible?

Obviously not because you're on your one note rant against the evils of mechanized vehicles and justifying vandalism against a person's property because you disagree with their lifestyle choices.

I guarantee you these bicycle couriers aren't peddling at "Grandma on her Sunday ride" speeds and their constant zipping in and out amoung lanes of stopped traffic and running against the light when PEDESTRIANS have the right of way is no less obnoxious and dangerous to walkers than your scenario of the self-absorbed SUV driver watching porn while on the road. At least you have some sort of protection being in a car...a WALKER doesn't stand a chance if broadsided by one of these idiot couriers.

yeah, I guess I did. No big thrill, I must say.

Especially after all the others who have destroyed fortunes, families, ruined lives and so on, like Kenny Lay, have been strapped in and lethally injected!

Oh yeah, and that Martha woman, too!

Life in prison? I thought only murderers got that. Oh wait, even THEY only do a few years hard time nowadays...

or possible consecutive sentences for multiple accounts.

That's how they do it in CA nowadays.

This guy would have been better off using a baseball bat, with arson he quickly racks up the "strikes".

I think this thread has gotten a bit off the ol' beaten path. He "could face life in prison" is a possible sentence. Plus, does anyone see where he also set fires to homes? Or are we just focussing on the SUV's cause they're easy to hate?

Seriously, it wasn't the front 10 cars in the lot, it was ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE of them. I mean, think about the fire fighters who had to put their asses on the line to battle fires fueled by gasoline, plastics, and poisonous materials cause this kid has a hard on to destroy stuff. And the homes! HELLO?? Did anyone see where he set fire to homes?

Homes = places where PEOPLE LIVE. So, do I think he deserves a life sentence? No. Perhaps 25 TO life. Let's see how he behaves, and how he rehabilitates in prison.

Martha has the POTENTIAL to do 5 years on each count, consecutive of 4 counts for a maximum of 20 years, less 15% for good behavior, possible to see her in another 17 years. Will that happen for lying to Federal prosecutors? No. Of course not. I don't think he'll get life. But, he committed the crime of arson without any regard for anything. Wow! He showed those insurance companies how to write out checks! Yowza! He kept those firefighters from a nice easy night of sleep and potentially saving other's lives. You showed them!

Idiot. Yeah, 25 - life sounds about right. Check back in 20 years, kid. See if you've grown up and can take responsibility for your actions. And if California law is 3 strikes and your out and this is number 3 for little Billy, well, don't bend over for the soap!

~Almost

is a great way of making bad people worse.

Read a study once about how convicts who have served two years or more will never be able to reintegrate with society. Lock them up forever or not at all I say.

On the other hand, 30 years of 60 hours a week community service might deflate his ego and his anti-democratic desire to force his beliefs on others.

*** Seriously, it wasn't the front 10 cars in the lot, it was ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE of them. I mean, think about the fire fighters who had to put their asses on the line to battle fires fueled by gasoline, plastics, and poisonous materials cause this kid has a hard on to destroy stuff. And the homes! HELLO?? Did anyone see where he set fire to homes? ***

Exactly, Almost_there. He deserves no sympathy here.

Rapist and child molesters should get life and these arsonists should get 20 years and have to pay for everything they torched. Simple enough?

...and if it can be proved, he's a member of a despicable U.S. terrorist group (ELF). The prosecution will throw every charge they can at this guy, because they've never come close to nailing these lowlifes with anything.

Here in Indiana, those bozos have torched forests in the name of the environment. "Better to torch them, than to let someone build custom homes there," they argue. Howz 'bout this. Organize. Raise money. Buy the land yourself and keep it pristene.

I feel the same thing about pro-lifers who blow up abortion clinics, or otherwise act out in violent ways. Terrorism is terrorism. Just because lives aren't lost, doesn't make it any less so.