You must log in or # to comment.
“I love my car. It’s the safest car,” Ramsdell said. “I’m not going to let somebody else judge me for the car I drive.”
It’s not and you are, you’ve just chosen not to care.
And just like that, worrying about climate change has become a thing of the past.
The time for worrying has passed it’s time to prepare and hold on
Oh no those poor cars, such horrible violence and suffering caused to these inanimate objects
Came here to say this. I guess it could be considered violent because someone COULD get hurt…but I also feel like calling it violent to start is misleading and disappointing.
How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a great book exploring this concept. Why is destruction of private property even considered violence, and why is private property more protected than vulnerable populations? Why does the average person, not owning private property, even consider this dynamic?
I’ve heard of this book. It’s on a long list of things to read for me. I feel like I have to have this same conversation every time there’s a protest somewhere in the world where property gets damaged. That tired line of “I don’t understand why these people destroy their own city.” as if any of us own anything involved. It’s such an annoying thing that we are brainwashed to think this way. Like yeah, it’s my city, but if want to plant flowers in it, i can’t. If i want to plant crops in it, I can’t. If I want to decorate it, I can’t. If I want to have say in how it’s used and developed, I mostly can’t. So who’s is it again?
The word “violence” hasn’t historically been specific to just people. One can get violent with a vending machine or in British English one could say “the reporters did violence to my speech”, meaning they twisted the meaning of what was said. Violence is nearly a synonym for damage.
Beyond that most Media refers to Arson as violence, the fact that they’re using the word with property instead of a person isn’t unusual or suspicious.
It is inaccurate.
So, I’m not suggesting anyone do this but just as an FYI if you use fire or explosives to do it, the sentencing will be much harsher.
Because Tesla gets federal funding, the federal government can charge you as though you burned down government property.
This is the statue Pam Bondi is using to go after folks.
Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.
Anyway, there’s quite a few things that could be fired at a distance that could do a lot of damage to the paint job. Which isn’t cheap to fix, and makes the cars unsellable in the meantime.
If a person was so inclined anyway
That statute is bullshit! Just because a corporation has some federal contacts doesn’t mean they need or deserve extra federal protection.
Unfortunately it will probably take a defendant with very deep pockets to hire very good lawyers to defend charges based on the statute…
Removed by mod
Stop. Hammer time.
Elon entering the find out stage. It is yet to be determined if his programming will allow him to actually learn the lesson.
If this keeps up at this rate then it won’t be a spike it will be a trend. You want to be trendy don’t you?
