“He really wasn't a criminal," said Mezrich. "He didn't think through the after-effects. I asked him dozens of times over the year, 'How did you think you were going to get away with this?' And he...
“He really wasn't a criminal," said Mezrich. "He didn't think through the after-effects. I asked him dozens of times over the year, 'How did you think you were going to get away with this?' And he said it just wasn't part of the thought process. ... He only thought of it as a college prank; he thought, 'Even if I do get caught, what's the worst they'll do to me?"
What "they" did to him was send him to a federal prison for seven and a half years.“
20 bucks this will be a comedy mini-series by the end of the decade.
I think you should include the preceding sentence, where it explains that he got caught because he tried to sell the moon rocks on the internet, lmao... Legit stole priceless scientific specimens...
I think you should include the preceding sentence, where it explains that he got caught because he tried to sell the moon rocks on the internet, lmao... Legit stole priceless scientific specimens and then tried to hawk them on the internet and this guy says “He really wasn’t a criminal”?? How do I get this level of the benefit of the doubt??
That is some very important context. If he took them with the intention of giving them back, I could buy the ill-advised prank angle. Trying to sell them makes it clear the act was malicious.
That is some very important context. If he took them with the intention of giving them back, I could buy the ill-advised prank angle. Trying to sell them makes it clear the act was malicious.
Not only was there multiple accomplices, but the wikipedia article also mentions: Prank defence holds no water with me. Sounds like they'd been disappearing curiosities from colleges for a while.
Not only was there multiple accomplices, but the wikipedia article also mentions:
Roberts was also charged with stealing dinosaur bones and other fossils from his school, the University of Utah.
Prank defence holds no water with me. Sounds like they'd been disappearing curiosities from colleges for a while.
Wikipedia's article on the book this view comes from is surprisingly critical for a Wikipedia article, describing the book as being critically lambasted as lacking credibility and uncritically...
Wikipedia's article on the book this view comes from is surprisingly critical for a Wikipedia article, describing the book as being critically lambasted as lacking credibility and uncritically taking a sympathetic view toward the perpetrator's story that the theft was just about sex. Wikipedia's own description of the theft doesn't mention that story, and instead describes a relatively straightforward theft, by a group, of the rocks with an intention to sell them.
I very well might be misremembering this, or mixing it up with another story, but I swear this was featured on one of those weird sex shows that was on Spike TV back when that was a thing
20 bucks this will be a comedy mini-series by the end of the decade.
I very well might be misremembering this, or mixing it up with another story, but I swear this was featured on one of those weird sex shows that was on Spike TV back when that was a thing
If an article isn't new (and the scraper is able to figure out the date), the publication date is always shown just below the title, next to the group.
If an article isn't new (and the scraper is able to figure out the date), the publication date is always shown just below the title, next to the group.
“He really wasn't a criminal," said Mezrich. "He didn't think through the after-effects. I asked him dozens of times over the year, 'How did you think you were going to get away with this?' And he said it just wasn't part of the thought process. ... He only thought of it as a college prank; he thought, 'Even if I do get caught, what's the worst they'll do to me?"
What "they" did to him was send him to a federal prison for seven and a half years.“
20 bucks this will be a comedy mini-series by the end of the decade.
I think you should include the preceding sentence, where it explains that he got caught because he tried to sell the moon rocks on the internet, lmao... Legit stole priceless scientific specimens and then tried to hawk them on the internet and this guy says “He really wasn’t a criminal”?? How do I get this level of the benefit of the doubt??
That is some very important context. If he took them with the intention of giving them back, I could buy the ill-advised prank angle. Trying to sell them makes it clear the act was malicious.
Not only was there multiple accomplices, but the wikipedia article also mentions:
Prank defence holds no water with me. Sounds like they'd been disappearing curiosities from colleges for a while.
I'm stuck on the level of entitlement that gets you to "What's the worst they'll do to me?"
Wikipedia's article on the book this view comes from is surprisingly critical for a Wikipedia article, describing the book as being critically lambasted as lacking credibility and uncritically taking a sympathetic view toward the perpetrator's story that the theft was just about sex. Wikipedia's own description of the theft doesn't mention that story, and instead describes a relatively straightforward theft, by a group, of the rocks with an intention to sell them.
I very well might be misremembering this, or mixing it up with another story, but I swear this was featured on one of those weird sex shows that was on Spike TV back when that was a thing
If an article isn't new (and the scraper is able to figure out the date), the publication date is always shown just below the title, next to the group.
It's in the link information.