The person who set the fires said they wanted to be arrested, and it wasn’t politically motivated. Unless they give evidence to the contrary, there’s no reason to not believe them, especially since they had a prior arrest warrant outstanding for something unrelated.
Edit: Wow, lot of astroturfing going on here, or people who didn’t read the article.
No reason not to believe the person who “wants to be arrested” and is lighting fires in public spaces?
Who are you trying to convince?
He was saying there’s reason to believe they thought this would be a high profile, non-violent action that would get them attention as well as arrested. I.e., that the arrest and attention were the primary motivations moreso than a political one. It was just a standard, blue USPS post box, not a specific county ballot box (those actually have fire suppression for this reason), so it seems reasonable that this person is just an unstable idiot, not a politically motivated unstable idiot.
He was previously arrested for just showing up to a work site, assumed homeless, and sitting there, and then trying to take an officers gun “because he ‘wanted it’ and ‘because it’s cool.’” He was then restrained with duct tape. Lol
Who knows, it’s dumb and he was arrested though, which is good.
If he has a warrant out and wanted to be arrested… Why wouldn’t he just walk into a police station?
People who want to be arrested aren’t necessarily the sharpest tool in the shed…
That would make sense. Unfortunately, I’ve known enough contrarian weirdos to see how that type of logic might make more sense (to them).
“Why are you stressing about this? Can’t you just take those old clothes to Goodwill or throw them away?”
“Well, first I need to buy 30 cases of Coke and then - to make room in the car - I need to visit the park back in Indiana to scatter our dog’s ashes.”
Knowing that it’s probably just illogical all the way down, I could believe either scenario.
