Gonzaga Kairos Vandalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think the offenders are not black? Why do you think they’re white? What about the property owners? What assumptions are you making about them?
You should stop.

Would you bet your life savings on the offenders and property owners being black or white?

I don’t understand the code you’re trying to speak.
I wouldn’t make assumptions one way or the other. You shouldn’t either.

Stop dodging the question. I'm not asking you to make an assumption, but to make educated inferences given the circumstances and any known facts. We make probabilistic choices in our daily lives all the time without perfect information, but somehow you're allergic to that here.

What is "the question"? Are you the one asking if I'd bet my life savings on something? Of course not.

This thread was started by someone asking "Was it racist?" I still don't understand the racism charge. Do we know the race of anyone involved?

[Anonymous]

This thread has obviously jumped the shark.

It's not complicated.

A bunch of Gonzaga boys, mostly white, a large amount crew... throw in a lax player destroyed somebody's private property (2 houses and a car) for the fun of it. Many just watched. Not even 1 had the balls to tell them to stop.
Rich boys can't imagine a dumpy house could actually be lived in (which is odd since Bethesda is full of $hit shacks)

No surprise... happens all the time... Catholic university, Soccer Plex to name a few.

Administration paid off the owners of the property. aka settled out of court.

Oddly... WaPo wrote a story... since WaPo bends over backward to write nice stories about Gonzaga.

People are pretty sick of the white all male school mentality so ... the article was written.

Gonzaga people are playing it down... "it was abandoned" "where were the chaperone" "boys will be boys" "you don't know it but they really did get expelled"

Nobody believes them.

Gonzaga people call non-believers jealous.

Nobody really cares, letters are in the mail, they will attend GZ even if they blew up the house with people in it.
There is nothing more to see here.

[Anonymous]

Admitting that the justice system doesn't treat people equally due to differences in economic status, ethnicity, or connections isn't conceding anything about whether what happened here was "racist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point exactly. If kids without any ties to the school committed the exact same acts, what are the likely consequences for them?

And if the Queen had two balls, she'd be King...

Joke all you want, but thinking that the justice system is blind and treats everyone equally is delusional.

THIS WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY - no justice system was involved here because the OWNER chose to keep matters private...as is his/her right.

Say it as many times as you want. They crossed the line of private dealings when they threw the fridge in the river. Somehow you are blind to that- does it not fit your desired narrative?

You act as if the fridge was of commercial size and contained chemicals and hazardous waste. It was a mini-fridge (not that that makes it more acceptable....) that has since been removed from the river. I'm not "blind to it" nor does it "fit my narrative" - but I imagine if it's as big a deal as you're making it out to be, it will be addressed.

I didn’t say a thing about the size. This wasn’t an icebox of olden days; even mini fridges contain environmentally hazardous coolants. If by “as big a deal” you mean the fact that it was a pubic offense, then we’ll just have to wait and see whether or not it is addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admitting that the justice system doesn't treat people equally due to differences in economic status, ethnicity, or connections isn't conceding anything about whether what happened here was "racist."

I have no idea what you are saying. English please.

[Anonymous]

Do you understand that a refrigerator of any size in a body of water for less than 48 hours is not leaching hazardous materials or otherswise harmful to the environment? I don’t know what the criminal charge would be, if any. Fridge tossing may only violate solid waste disposal guidelines. If only we knew where we could find a knowledgeable Maryland lawyer. . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you understand that a refrigerator of any size in a body of water for less than 48 hours is not leaching hazardous materials or otherswise harmful to the environment? I don’t know what the criminal charge would be, if any. Fridge tossing may only violate solid waste disposal guidelines. If only we knew where we could find a knowledgeable Maryland lawyer. . . .

A person who disposes of litter in violation of this section in an amount not exceeding 100 pounds or 27 cubic feet and not for commercial gain is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 30 days or a fine not exceeding $1,500 or both.

[Anonymous]

Vandalism law...

A person may not willfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or deface the real or personal property of another.

(b)?A person who, in violation of this section, causes damage of at least $1,000 to the property is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vandalism law...

A person may not willfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or deface the real or personal property of another.

(b)?A person who, in violation of this section, causes damage of at least $1,000 to the property is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.

If the owner chose to press charges...which he/she didn't...are you new to the forum? Take a lap!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vandalism law...

A person may not willfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or deface the real or personal property of another.

(b)?A person who, in violation of this section, causes damage of at least $1,000 to the property is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.

If the owner chose to press charges...which he/she didn't...are you new to the forum? Take a lap!

Hi Brendan O'Leary.... somebody asked for the law. I provided it.

It's a little early on a Friday to be drunk posting.

[Anonymous]

Does the law apply to minors?

Who can press charges? Can the state sue on behalf of the river/public or must the property owners press charges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the law apply to minors?

Who can press charges? Can the state sue on behalf of the river/public or must the property owners press charges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does the law apply to minors?

Who can press charges? Can the state sue on behalf of the river/public or must the property owners press charges?

it would be lesser jail time.... but these are juniors at GZ so most likely 18.

[Anonymous]

If they removed it, there is no basis for charges. If you drop something off of your boat, for example, then pick it up, leaving nothing behind (no spill), you aren't "dumping" which is the term for littering in a waterway.

Anyway, the Potomac Conservancy and the Rock Creek Conservancy are sponsoring their annual Extreme Stream Clean Up on April 13. You all might want to look into volunteering.

https://www.rockcreekconservancy.org/who-we-are/highlights/378-rock-creek-extreme-cleanup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admitting that the justice system doesn't treat people equally due to differences in economic status, ethnicity, or connections isn't conceding anything about whether what happened here was "racist."

I have no idea what you are saying. English please.

The justice system didn't come into play with this incident likely because of who committed the acts and the money/connections they or their families had. It likely would have come into play if the perpetrators were less well-off/connected. You don't need to agree that racism played any role here, in order to say that the prior two sentences are true.

But if you don't think either of the first two sentences are true, many of us would love to hear why.