(March 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm)Shell B Wrote:(March 1, 2012 at 12:11 pm)Chuck Wrote: She is guilty of arson, however, and also the tree was probably property.
Clearly. She should certainly be charged with her crimes. However, beyond it being arson and destruction of public property (it's a national park, I believe), she really did nothing more than what our species does all the time. She ruined a tree. It sucks that it was an old tree, but you don't get extra murder charges for killing an old person.
In all seriousness, further charges should apply. I'm fairly certain destroying landmarks or exceptionally rare items has some law on the books.
Sure, she burned down a "tree", however, the rarity of that singular tree and what it meant for the community should entail no less outrage than taking a public shit in your cities #1 fountain.
I would be for a VERY, VERY expensive plaque commemorating her extreme stupidity if she is forced to pay for it.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
