Harsh?

A  22 year old man was convicted a few weeks ago of setting a fire in the Coronado Tower building.  He was sentenced to five years in a federal prison followed by three years of supervised release.

He evidently confessed so  he is now guilty and should be punished.

What caught my eye first is that he was prosecuted in the federal system instead of ours here in Texas.

Why?

Interstate commerce

The fed’s position was that the Coronado Tower is involved in interstate or international commerce.  By that rationale almost every building in El Paso would qualify.

Why did the feds prosecute the crime instead of the state?  Could it be that they are interested in keeping their volume up to justify their size?  Is Texas incapable of administering justice in a toilet paper fire case?  Don’t the feds have enough to do without handling cases that can be handled by the state?

Five years

Another thing that caught my attention is the severity of the punishment.  I can’t help but wonder what kind of a citizen he will be at 27 years old having spent five years in prison.

Have we lost our bearings here?

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Responses to Harsh?

  1. Unknown's avatar Reality Checker says:

    Yes, we’ve lost our bearings. This is just one example.

    Then there are those who start fires and later try put out those fires in an effort to look like a hero.

    Take the case of Cortney Niland’s decision to move back to her old seat in council meetings. She vacated her original seat with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop. That was a petulant, irresponsible, immature move. Now she tries to make it appear that she is a martyr, trying to do the right thing to save taxpayer money. She couldn’t even “do the right thing” however without first calling a meeting with the El Paso Times to make the announcement to which the Times gives major coverage with a pro-Niland spin. (I guess the next election cycle has begun.)

    Ann Morgan Lilly says she never knew that her own request to move would result in a $7,000 expenditure.

    Niland says she herself is being “proactive about protecting the taxpayers”.

    If only we could lock some of these people away for five years.

    Like

  2. David K's avatar David K says:

    The lesson here is not to burn the building owned by a certain group of local golden boys.

    Like

  3. Actually, I seem to recall that this fire was a lot more than a toilet paper fire, and involved – at taxpayer expense – a very large emergency response. At least, the media coverage made is seem as if it took a lot of fire equipment to bring it under control, and I believe there was also considerable damage as well. As for the Feds, I would guess that maybe there is still a bank in the building? If so, and if it was either targeted or damaged, then it became a Federal crime.

    Like

Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.