OT: Toomer's Corner Poisoner Faces Up To 40 Years
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=6575499
Sorry if this has been posted already, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I read this and was left dumbfounded. How can a guy be facing 40 years in federal-pound me in the ass-prison for poisoning some trees. I can understand some punishment but I don't think I would ever wish 40 years on someone just for killing some trees. Sure, if an OSU fan came into the Big House and completely poisoned all the grass, I'd be upset, but I wouldn't be calling for the head on a plank.
Secondly, how do they select jurors in this case? Does the prosecution come right out and ask where potential juror's football allegiances lie?
Just wondering what you all thought. I was shocked at hearing this. Also, it's a pretty good read for those who have not read it yet.
They're school property worth a couple hundred thousand dollars. Try seting a fire in the Big House press box or take the floor and some seats out of Crisler and you'd be looking at that much time too.
I can see that, but I honestly don't think this guy deserves THAT much time. Maybe a year or two, a hefty fine, and some serious probation. I just think that if we are so worried about overcrowding in American prisons, this could be a reason why. Someone with a drug related offense could do more time if it were't for this dude. Or Dante Stallworth could have served a legitimate sentence for killing a man, not a tree.
Oh absolutely I agree. Property crimes should involve restitution, not jail time IMO. I just don't think the deciding factor in the amount of time is that he killed trees, it's actually a pretty gross case of vandalism based on the value of the trees he killed.
But I think the question is: What is the value of the trees? Can you put a monetary value on sentiment and rivalry? The actual cost of the trees is quite an interesting conundrum IMO. Truthfully, you could just go buy more and let them grow...From my understanding, they are being treated as venerated objects, which raises even more questions.
I have no idea what additional value could be assigned for their intrinsic value. That's probably more rightly put into a civil suit than a criminal one though. I'd assume the criminal value is just the cost of replacing them and making the site whole again.
In my township they recently had to move a road to fix a blind corner. The township used eminent domain and the homeowner took it to court because they thought the few feet of property and the oak tree were undervalued.
Court said that the lumber value of the tree was what mattered in regards to the tree.
I wonder if they are looking at the longterm effects of the poison he used. Is that now a mini Superfund site? I honestly don't know, but I'm just picturing Bubba dumping the shit on the ground with a more-is-better mentality.
That's just an outrageously dumb standard. If he had walked into an art museum and thrown water all over a Monet, the standard shouldn't be the value of the canvas and paint, it should be the sale price or insured amount or something else reasonable. It's not the lumber in the tree that's valuable, it's the tree itself. Not to mention that the entire point of law is to make an injured party whole again; Auburn isn't exactly back to where it started with a stack of wood from Home Depot.
Comparing a tree to a painting by Monet is outrageously dumb as well.
How so? Two goods with monetary and intrinsic value...would you rather that I said some other good or service?
For starters one is not a man made piece of art.
I get what you're going but to compare the two is rediculous but I have to admit that I am probably the most (Un)enviromentally conscious person on the planet.
However I am sympathetic to the tradition and think the man should be punished but 40 years is a little steep IMHO.
To answer your question maybe the hedges at Georgia?
The nature of the good isn't as important as just saying that they're both valuable in a few ways. You could say the same thing about a mountain or a painting or a house or any other good you can think of.
As I said above, I don't think imprisonment is the right punishment for property crimes. This joker should have to pay Auburn the cost of cleaning the soil and bringing in the most comperable trees they can find, and if he can't write a check for it, he should be forced to work until the payment plus interest is worked off.
We agree on punishment but not analogies MGoFriend.
There's no legal value for sentiment. It's completely irrelevant. Had he killed Uga or something, he probably wouldn't get 40 years in prison. (See Vick, Michael). It's likely a maximum sentence that his ultimate penalty won't approach. It was an extremely stupid thing to do, but still, it's way too much for poisoning trees that can be replanted.
Don't mistake that I somehow support this clown or excuse what he did. But you can kill a person and not get 40 years in prison.
or maybe you could read up on the dante stalworth situation instead of sounding like an ignorant jackass
I'm a Browns fan so I know the details due to the fact that I watched it unfurl in the press when we were desparate for wide recievers. 26 days for involuntary vehicular manslaughter is a joke.
but i have to ask you to clarify - you think there are too FEW people in prison on drug charges?
As for the Stallworth incident, i'd be surprised if you knew all the facts involved and still felt the way you do
I know all there is to know. I get that it isn't a cut and dry case of involuntary vehicular manslaughter, but either way, a man is dead because Stallworth hit him. Now, I'm not saying that he deserves a huge sentence, I'm just saying that 26 days is a bit weak. As for the drug offenders, I know there are WAY to many drug offenders, namely weed dealers, in prison. I was just trying to come up with an easy offense. I guess a better one to come up with would have been domestic violence offenders or something of the sort.
lol @ your first thought when talking about overcrowding being "someone with a drug related offense could do more time if it weren't for this dude"
Guess what the #1 reason for prison overcrowding is?
I agree with you but it did bother me how you said someone with a drug related offense could do more time. Most drug related offenses dont even bother anyone. I think what this guy did to those trees is worse than any drug offense, not becuase what he did to the trees was that bad but a drug offense should not be as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
How in the world can TREES be valued at several hundred thousand dollars? How do you even get an apraisal on a tree? Maybe I'm just ignorant on how the correlation between money and woody plants, but that is shocking to me.
Or landscaper could probably shed some light on this. I imagine if there is a going rate on trees in the market then they could be appraised for value.
Trees are common and can easily be replaced, and therefore are inexpensive. Century old trees at that specific location can't be easily replaced (at least outside of waiting another hundred years), and therefore are extremely valuable.
Same way you pick out your christmas tree. You want the 20 footer over there, that'll cost you an arm and a leg more than the readily available 5 foot tree. It's all about size and age that gives a tree it's value.
Yeah, it's not like they grow on... trees?
Everybody in the area has ties to Auburn and are going to be biased towards such. I believe the 40 year number just comes from adding the max penalties of every count that he's being charged with which its rare even if found guilty on all counts he would get the max penalty for each.
They were having a hell of a time finding a public defender for him too IIRC. Basically every lawyer in the state of Alabama can claim conflict of interest somehow.
That's one of the big questions I've been trying to figure out since I started reading it. I feel like this could be a long drawn out process. I imagine it will go to a civil suit after the criminal proceedings as well.
Signature photos are frowned upon here.
Taken care of sir. Thanks for the heads up.
quickly conform.
Conflict of interest due to familial relations?
No one ever faces the maximum unless they have previously been convicted of a felony, serious misdemeanor, etc. Having said that, this was a dispicable crime. Hate is what fuels rivalries, but not ACTUAL hate. Those trees were part of the essence and tradition of not just Auburn football but college football in general. Spewing obscenities is one thing--tearing down the school is another.
Q: is this literally the worst possible thing a single fan could do to a rival fanbase? I think so. I can't think of another tradition that's so treasured and so vulnerable. You could cut off Bear Bryant's head* and they'd just put a new one on. It's metal. You could kill Uga, but Uga dies every year and they just keep making new ones. The trees are unique: iconic symbols of the university that can expire but don't do it on the regular.
I think that's the fundamental difference between poisoning the grass at the Big House v. poisoning those trees. The trees are more or less irreplaceable, while most things a rival fanbase would vandalize are not. That said, I agree that 40 years would be excessive, but others have already pointed out that he probably won't get that much.
Yah, I don't expect him to get that much. I just put up to 40 because that's what he is actually looking at if he gets the max. My guess is he will still get around 10 years and get out after 5 or 6. But still, it's a very intriguing case that I guess I put on the back burner until today when I read that article.
Curious as to how that post was flamebait...
Now that it's gone, I'd bet they'll get bumped back up again.
On another note, I've been out of the loop for a few months. How does the scoring work now? When i started this post I could vote on what I thought about each post. I cannot do that anymore...is there a scoring system in tact or is it just a point per post?
You're in luck! There was a post a few days ago that outlined how the new system works. You can find it here.
(That maybe sounds like I'm being a bit of a dick, which I'm not. Honestly just wanted to pass along the link.)
Once you find it can you add it to the post? Much appreciated Mr. Vaughn.
EDIT: Nvm, I found it. Interesting system should be fun!
I think that's the fundamental difference between poisoning the grass at the Big House v. poisoning those trees.
Well, there's also the fact that the grass at the Big House, isn't real grass, so poisoning it probably wouldn't have nearly as big an impact as poisoning actual trees.
Scroll down, this was covered.
What's the difference between "hate" and "ACTUAL hate?"
They were century-old oak trees that were beloved by a community. Try ruining a century-old painting and then saying, "I just messed up an old canvas. What's the big deal?"
Why would anyone object to (what is essentially) a life-long imprisonment for someone so consumed by hate over something so trivial? Yeah, I love football too. But it's not real. It's a game. The rivalries between schools are FICTION. They serve as a proxy so we don't actually have to have Hatfield-McCoy type rivalries.
Yes, it's fun to tease hairless nuts and vice versa. But if you're actually motivated to commit an act of violence or some other sort of crime over this thing -- I think you ought to be irradiated lest you find an equally-insane member of the opposite sex and reproduce.
Frankly, I wouldn't put this guy in jail. I'd ban him from football for life. On Saturdays, he has to rake leaves in Auburn, Alabama for free. On Sundays, he has to pick up trash along the side of the road. He's not allowed to watch football or attend a game ever again. He's lost that privilege.
I don't think that punishment is on the books though...
let him play football, for alabama and go to one of auburn's practices.
Why would anyone object to (what is essentially) a life-long imprisonment for someone so consumed by hate over something so trivial?
Because poisoning trees shouldn't warrant a 40-year prison sentence? You seem to agree, given your comment later in this same post ("I wouldn't put this guy in jail"). It's sad what happened to Auburn, but let's not go nuts. They're trees. Not human beings.
While the guy deserves to be punished, this is one of those things that people will laugh their asses off about 20 years from now.
It's not really about the trees.
What is it about then?
He might be referring to intrinsic value, but to me it's all dollars and cents. He caused a huge amount of monetary damage on top of whatever other value you can place on a tradition.
What is the "huge" monetary cost to Auburn University? I doubt it's that signifcant to an institution worth in the nine-figure range.
The blow to tradition is the main issue here. I agree that it's significant, but not the kind of thing that warrants having the state lock the guy up for decades. This is carrying "tough on crime" reasoning to its extreme. Put him on probation and make him serve several hundred hours of community service.