It might be like that; the accused is apparently a male junior sailor, who denies everything. He is currently out working on shore duty, rather than confined, so apparently they don't think he's a continuing threat. Yet the charge is 'aggravated arson,' so they're definitely charging him with an intentional act and not an accident.
Going to be an interesting trial. At some point they'll have to put at least some of this stuff on the public record.
"At some point they'll have to," is IMO no longer operative when it comes to the USG. It seem to me that nobody in the bureaucracy can be made to do anything they don't want to do.
At some point, will we learn who shot Ashley Babbitt?
5 comments:
At first, I thought it was a bit late to press charges for a fire on John Paul Jones's flagship.
Perhaps the navy heads recall the Iowa turret explosion fustercluck, and want to avoid a repeat.
Or maybe they're just scrambling to CIA (Cover Important Ass).
Cousin Eddie
It might be like that; the accused is apparently a male junior sailor, who denies everything. He is currently out working on shore duty, rather than confined, so apparently they don't think he's a continuing threat. Yet the charge is 'aggravated arson,' so they're definitely charging him with an intentional act and not an accident.
Going to be an interesting trial. At some point they'll have to put at least some of this stuff on the public record.
"At some point they'll have to," is IMO no longer operative when it comes to the USG. It seem to me that nobody in the bureaucracy can be made to do anything they don't want to do.
At some point, will we learn who shot Ashley Babbitt?
Cousin Eddie
Not through official channels.
Post a Comment