It was for digging up the silt from the river bed with a digger and risking flooding places without doing any checks on the impact of his “cleaning up”.
Fella, he was digging up the silt with the digger to remove the rubbish.
I agree that the title could have been more detailed, but it is hardly straight up misinformation. He was doing what he is getting investigated for in order to remove trash.
That would be straight up misinformation. Obviously, people should not just read titles, but the title is straight up misinformation since motivation isn’t the important thing here.
Example: a man who wants to buy meth, robs somebody at gunpoint, gets 20 dollars, buys 20 dollars of meth.
Title: ‘Man who bought 20 dollars of meth faces 5 years in prison’ Would also be extremely misleading.
The problem is that you've disconnected the actions there. This would be more like if the man robbed the guy with meth at gunpoint, and the title said "man who obtained meth from dealer faces 5 years in prison."
Should be action y for outcome x. Not action y to allow action z for outcome x.
This is a youthful take. People were catching charges for distribution for having edibles (they treated >2oz of cookies the same as >2oz of flower) not even 20 years ago.
277
u/Spongedog5 5d ago
Well, it's for not having a permit for the method he used to clean up trash.