• Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    18 hours ago

    Okay internet. The first hero was meme’d into this guy:

    Since this second hero has facial hair, I think we should keep with the theme and meme him into this guy:

    Let’s make it happen internet denizens.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    59·
    1 day ago

    This guy rules. Nobody died. Should have paid him more.

    Edit: I can’t believe a warehouse that big didn’t seem to have sprinkler systems. This kind of thing was practically inevitable. Is this just some kind of water conservation exemption in california?

    • FUCKING_CUNO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      27·
      1 day ago

      Read in an internet comment, so take with a grain, but he apparently had a multistage plan. Started a small fire, fire dept came to deal with it, and company brass had them turn off fire suppression to limit unnecessary damage to product in other areas. It was then that they lit a bunch more fires, and by the time the figured it out, it was too late.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 hours ago

        Idk how accurate any of it is, but looked at several articles that claimed the fire suppression system was working but insufficient (statement from fire chief)

        My guess at this point would be that the warehouse shelving design was actually preventing effective use of sprinkler systems by protecting the fire and being too dense to allow the system to be effective.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      28·
      1 day ago

      Edit: I can’t believe a warehouse that big didn’t seem to have sprinkler systems.

      You want fireproofing? In this economy? How am I supposed to return 30% YoY profits to my investors?!

    • MML@sh.itjust.works
      18·
      1 day ago

      No one died? Dope I mean I might have semi-supported him before, long as he took full steps to protect people and just burn business, legend.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      429·
      1 day ago

      uh huh, now dozens of his coworkers don’t have a paycheck. Mission accomplished, I guess. If he really ruled, he would have left the door open.

      • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
        39·
        1 day ago

        co-workers already weren’t getting pay checks that’s why he sent the place on fire they hadn’t been paid in months…

        • BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world
          13·
          1 day ago

          This doesn’t make much sense. If my employer didn’t pay me for months, the only reason I’d stay is if it was a great company that I loved and believed in. Even then, I have hard time believing a company could make this sort of arrangement in California.

          …also-if what you’re saying is true-then the company was a hair breadth away from bankruptcy. Someone burning down the warehouse could have been a best case scenario for everyone but the insurance company.

          • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
            5·
            21 hours ago

            Is that the location that was doing bad? Because the company has been around since 1872 and is a fortune 500 company with annual revenue over 20 billion.

              • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
                1·
                11 hours ago

                It means not everybody will take the same course of action that you will some people will continue trying and hoping that they’ll finally get paid considering they’ve got all this time sunk into it it’s called the sunken time fallacy actually…

                Despite whether or not they actually will and who knows the motivations of the management of that particular Warehouse on why they weren’t getting paid or what was happening it’s easy enough for us to speculate as arm chair quarter backs.

                So we have to go off of what we have available is and we have the video of the person who set the fire openly stating exactly why so let’s just go with that how about that. At least until new information that’s becoming available otherwise all we’re doing is speculatig bullshit.

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    221·
    1 day ago

    Why do they prosecute people multiple times at different levels of government? Doesn’t that seem kind of unfair?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      33·
      1 day ago

      Laws here are intended to protect to the wealthy. Its illegal for homeless people to sleep anywhere outside. Law and fairness are not ideas that ever touch each other.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      The United States is a federation.

      Each state has a code of laws, and the federal government has one. You break a state law, you’re going to state court. You break a federal law, you’re going to federal court. You break a state law and a federal law, you’re going to state and federal court.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        4·
        1 day ago

        Only if you piss off the rich. A good example is Ted Bundy. Murdered non rich people in 4(?) different states, a situation where it would make complete sense the federal government would be bringing the charges because the crimes weren’t all within the jurisdiction of just one state… Yet no federal charges were brought against him, they left it to the states.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          1 day ago

          That would have been so very high profile back then. Did the lack of federal charges tick everybody off? Just wondering if anyone was going for a “let’s play this out through all of the four courts and that’ll be enough” game plan, or if it was ineptitude, focus elsewhere, your explanation, etc.

          Also has that happened in recent history within the past couple of administrations? If you know

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            2·
            20 hours ago

            In my personal opinion (anecdotal and possibly wrong) I feel like we had a period of a few decades where there was not so much of a state/federal governments not getting along. Unlike today where you have the FBI blatantly taking cases out of states hands and trying to not allow them to have evidence as we are seeing in say Colorado or California. Jimmie Carter would have been president when Bundy was caught in Florida. I think there may have been a trust in the states to deal with it. Floridas government very much was trying to take pride in the fact that they would execute him from what I know of the case, but I was born in the late 80s so I wasn’t around for the the arrest and public reaction in 78’. Someone else may be able to shine light on the differences between how it was portrayed to be handled after/now vs how it was taken by the public then.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      Because it is such a high profile case, every level of the bureaucracy wants a bite at the apple. Everyone wants to get in front of a camera and say “We’re doing something about it!” to a gaggle of social media influencers and party apparatchiks with press badges.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 day ago

          Not corruption, per say. This is a fatal flaw of any democratic institution. You need to be seen doing your job or people will assume it isn’t getting done. So more and more of the job of an executive level official is marketing yourself.

          Everyone who isn’t running around cutting their own promos is setting themselves up for defeat against someone who does.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            I’m always defending politicians, so… no, just kidding, I’m not. But I will offer a more sympathetic explanation not from experience, just from my hindquarters.

            If there were three different people in power who are all independently upset about a crime, I could imagine each of them figuring out what the suspect did in their jurisdiction. That’s to fight back personally as well as to have a story for the next town hall when someone includes the crime in a long list of places why $currentCity has gone down the tubes over $longPeriod

            So then have these three separate cases because everyone felt disrespected and wants a billboard, “don’t mess with us“. Maybe it wasn’t very relevant that the perp scraped a mailbox while peeling out of the scene of the crime, but is that a reason for the postmaster not to have his friends from the US postal inspection over? :)

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      3·
      1 day ago

      There are valid reasons to do so, that wouldn’t necessarily feel unfair against someone who for sure did something wrong. Basically, it’s so that one sticks. Derek Chauvin was charged on second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.

      These all have different degrees of severity, including average and maximum punishments.

      Unintentional 2nd degree is the hardest, and requires a felony (3rd degree assault) to stick. Max penalty 40y, average 12.5.

      3rd degree murder requires less; just an “eminently dangerous” act with a “depraved mind” and no regard for life. 25y max, same average

      2nd degree Manslaughter is just culpable negligence that can cause unreasonable risk of death or great harm. 10 year max, 4 average.

      Now they have to convince a Jury to convict on those charges. If they don’t think the felony happened, then the first charge is out. If they don’t think he had a “depraved mind”, then the second charge is also out. So to make sure he actually gets a punishment, they charge all charges they believe they can get a jury to accept. Charging in both federal and state can also protect against only one politically motivated Governor or president from pardoning all charges, so they would need two pardons.

      In addition, if the federal government is worried the state trial might be too biased, they may want their own charges just in case. It seems unfair because you may identify with his actions, but if this was someone lynching people in an extremely racist state (I’d like to say like in the past, but maybe even today) the federal government tacking on charges (in a better admin) could protect against racists just absolving someone from said murder.

      In Derek Chauvin’s case all charges were successfully convicted, but that isn’t always the case. It is a double edged sword though.

      • eclipsez0r@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 day ago

        Thank you for the explanation (sincerely).

        Beyond the pardon thing, it just seems like they’re having multiple bites at the same pie whilst being able to ignore double jeopardy.

        It would seem saner to make them commit to whatever the maximum crime/penalty they are aiming for and ignore the rest. Instead it seems like they (the government, in all its forms) can just try to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

        • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, with corrupt governments in place it’s used more negatively than positively. While there are valid reasons, in practice it’s misplaced good intentions at best, more what you’re saying more likely.

  • Ironfacebuster@lemmy.world
    20·
    1 day ago

    Ai voice cloning has gotten so good they cloned the voice of my best friend who is known for NOT burning down warehouses and framed him!

  • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    17·
    1 day ago

    So we have a Luigi and a Waluigi. Next up… Mario? Who wants to beat up the evil fatass kidnapping girls?

  • BillCheddar@lemmy.world
    218·
    2 days ago

    And still not one goddamn Epstein Rapist has been arrested.

    But we’re gonna throw federal and state charges at a guy for fighting back?

    This country is fucking ridiculous.

  • naeap@sopuli.xyz
    129·
    2 days ago

    All of them were inspired by a shit system and not by another man, who was also fed up with it

  • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
    108·
    2 days ago

    I heard about the fire, but I thought it was just a fire. I had no idea it was a brother in arms fighting against capitalism and wage theft. Good on him.