mai said:
Well, that we're the worst, that I somehow have figured out already :D Thank you, I watch Fox News. How about yet another poor creature (not the swastika guy, another one) jailed for whatever he's done in synagouge? It's on the very first page.
Never cease to amuse, why among all possible questions to ask regarding the topic you choose the stupidiest? Like the discussion we're both (hopefully) enjoying right now, despite how idiotic it is :D it's "was a 9/11 an inside job?" all over again! Why don't you ask why, say, the whole topic was picked up by worldwide media in the first place among all possible options? it's no like the story is any close in being hot, disgusting or whatever to 'staff sgt killing a couple dozen civilians for no apparent reason', no? |
Which one? The people who got 90 days in jail, far less time for a crime worse then what pussy riot did. Which was, stepping somewhere in a public area people rarely go?
Or the guy who got 1 year becauese
"In addition, Lichtfuss said he wanted to go to jail because he suffers from depression and was considering suicide.
"I thought, maybe if I go to prison, it'll straighten me up," he told Garb."
As for what he thought of the sentence...
"With credit for time served, Lichtfuss, a mason apprentice, could be released from jail at the end of June. He called the sentence fair. So did his lawyer, John Fioravanti, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Diane E. Gibbons."
I mean, I don't get what your point is, to keep bringing up extreme versions of american law that are more serious crimes, and got less serious jail time.
It's like suggesting you shouldn't judge a murderer if you punched someone once.
