Let's take this bizarre worldview to its logical conclusion, is the amount of damage that a school shooter causes equivalent to the sum of funeral costs and school repair costs?

Should they also get to walk away if they just pay 3 times the cost of "cleaning up the mess"? That's a pretty big profit margin, no?

▲

charcircuit 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, they should be able to walk away from the damages of destruction of property and funerals. They would not be able to walkway from the murder charges.

In this scenario disposing of the waste = dealing with the bodies and property damage and digging a tunnel = shooting people within a school. I don't the scenario is a good analog since it was legal to dig the tunnel.

▲

dns_snek 14 hours ago | parent [-]

They dumped toxic waste that causes chemical burns into the system which runs to the natural waterways.

> Our largest treatment facility, the Flamingo Water Resource Center, ensures wastewater is treated to the highest standard allowing the reclaimed water to be discharged back into Lake Mead. Lake Mead is the drinking water source for more than 95% of the population and businesses in Clark County.

https://www.cleanwaterteam.com/about-us/who-we-are

They keep walking away from attempted murder charges by just paying a fine.

▲

charcircuit 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I would assume treating to the highest standard would mean they remove things such as chemicals that cause chemical burns from the water which would mean it doesn't reach the natural waterways.

▲

dns_snek 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do you assume that society would subsidize your chemical waste processing? Why do you feel entitled to break laws without consequence?

The system is clearly designed to transport and treat typical sewer water and not arbitrary toxic, corrosive, volatile, or otherwise undesirable chemicals from commercial operations, for pretty obvious reasons.

	▲	charcircuit 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>society would subsidize If doing something makes a profit, you don't need to subsidize it. >Why do you feel entitled to break laws without consequence? I have never stated that. I am actually for the opposite that with AI we should scale law enforcement to almost always be able to catch people violating laws. My initial comment in this thread is providing a contrasting view point about how the fine is a fair punishment when viewed in relation to how much damage is being caused. I wanted to provide contrast on how the fine's amount could make sense.