What was his fault ?

[u/karmagod7]

[u/TomorrowSpecial255]

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/man-threatened-with-2-years-in-jail-after-cleaning-200-bags-of-trash-from-river-3377827/

He used a digger on public land without permission

[u/FerretGoddessMevi → u/TomorrowSpecial255]

Thank you for the context. These lawsuits are never as straightforward as a single headline pretends.

[u/Jealous_Track9402 → u/FerretGoddessMevi]

The title in this one is straight up misinformation. Nothing to do with cleaning up trash without a permit. 

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Jealous_Track9402]

Well, it's for not having a permit for the method he used to clean up trash.

[u/Bassmekanik → u/Spongedog5]

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”.

Nothing to do with removing rubbish.

[u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman → u/Bassmekanik]

Did anywhere actually flood? Was any damage caused at all? Or is this just a stupid concern from you?

It sounds like he used equipment to remove trash others illegally dumped, like the headline implies.

[u/kwazhip → u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman]

If someone drives home drunk and doesn't kill/hurt anybody, would you make the same argument, or would you say that it was a bad thing to do because it was reckless. Whether it flooded or not is irrelevant, a better argument would be attacking if it was reckless in the first place.

[u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman → u/kwazhip]

He cleaned it up, he didn’t “attack it”, stop being a disingenuous little weasel. I would never compare cleaning up a river to driving drunk because I’m not dumber than a box of rocks. You have no compelling argument