You know what's funny? If I poured used oil in my yard I could be arrested! But BP goes free!

[AnArmyVeteran]

I could get arrested and fined if I poured used oil down the drain in front of my house. I would have every government agency filing charges against me. And the fine I received would be a lot greater percentage of my wealth, compared to any financial liability BP, Halliburton and Transocean will have to face.

Why do we allow corporations to have rights we don't have? If they want to have the same rights as a human being, then they should suffer the same consequences as a human being. Corporate law almost completely insulates their leaders from any personal liability. But I can be thrown in jail for pouring for quarts of oil down the drain. But I don't have billions of dollars to buy off corrupt officeholders to write loopholes in laws to allow me to legally hurt others or the environment.

We need to get rid of anyone who is a whore to a corporation. They are only in office to serve their corporate masters, or better put, 'pimps'. If I can be fined and jailed for pouring oil in a drain, BP executives should all be facing prison time by now. And they should have all of their personal assets seized to pay for all the damages they caused to human beings and the environment.

[CrispyQ]

1. You make an excellent point.

Please consider writing a LTTE to share this insight with your community.

My fifth grade civics class was decades ago, but I'm sure we didn't cover corporate personhood. It was only in the past 15 years, when I read a LTTE in my local paper, that I learned what CP is. At first I didn't believe it. But I went online & was stunned to find out that the writer was correct.

[kdmorris]

2. What BP did is a NEGLIGENT act and

as harmful as it is to everyone and everything around that leak - it was an accident.

You are talking about WILLFULLY dumping USED oil down a drain where it could get into the drinking water supply (and you would never get arrested for that).

And I'm really irritated with you that you made me defend this monstrosity in any way. If you want to scream and shout, at least use FACTS.

[Karenina]

4. It was an "accident" waiting to happen.

Caused by a "corporate person" who has a history of WILLFUL, reckless disregard for those put in harm's way.
Not sure why you feel the need to defend this monstrosity in ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM. :shrug:

[kdmorris]

6. Hence "negligent"

You don't get arrested for dumping used oil in a drain. You get fined (if you are caught).

If the OP wants to make a case for fining BP out of existence, that's fine. But using half truths isn't going to get us anywhere.

[AnArmyVeteran]

19. No half truth from me. I said a person "could" get arrested.

And unless you know every law in every town in the US then I think it is unfair for you to say what I wrote was 'untrue'.

All the best...

[kdmorris]

38. I didn't say it was "untrue"

I said it was a half truth.

I love the "unless you know every law in every town"... Seriously?

If you just get fined in 99.999% of the US and can get arrested .001% of the time, you figure that makes what you said "completely true"?

You do not get arrested for dumping oil down a storm drain. I've never heard of a case of that happening. EVER. In any town in the US. It's an analogy without merit.

You can get fined, yes, but not arrested.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unapatriciated]

54. You can, especially if you are an immigrant :)

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal/highlights/2010/roman-guadalupe-10-28-09.pdf

This is an interesting article. To get all the stats for states click on the next page at top of the article.

Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record
The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state. The survey found that in many states, more than 50 percent of regulated facilities violated the Clean Water Act, but enforcement actions against polluters were infrequent.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/09/13/us/0913-water.html

[rhett o rick]

83. If "half truths isn't going to get us anywhere." what do you suggest we do? nm

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Sounds kind of like a DUI.

BP willfully, recklessly, got drunk, hopped in it's big pick-up and plowed under the entire Gulf Coast.

[newtothegame]

86. And yet most here on DU would argue that a drunk-driver that kills an entire family didn't WILLFULLY

kill anybody, and thus involuntary manslaughter is the appropriate charge. Part of what makes DU such an interesting place...

[Karenina]

87. When that driver has an arrest record as long as your arm

of license suspensions for DUI and is the wayward son of the local sheriff, I'd file it under "Things that make ya go hmmmm...

[rrneck]

9. Interesting.

I had to trot off and look this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation (note that in the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness). The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).

[mitchum]

15. What if the OP poured the oil into a tissue paper receptacle in his backyard?

"It was an accident! I didn't know it would leak!"

Would that be analogous to BP's negligence?

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. Simple Question: What do you define as 'willful' or 'intent'?

When you have no contingency plans for any accidents that displays a premeditated position of neglect.

If you skirt safety requirements, and not even have a new battery in a safety device, that shows neglect.

ALL any of the companies involved cared about was making massive profits and they didn't give a damn about the consequences of their actions.


They had no experience drilling at that depth that I know of and they had no reliable way to stop any leaks, showing premeditation.

I know the definition of 'willful' intent you are talking about, but when people driven only by greed with no thought of human beings (or their lives) or the environment, that is gross negligence and because they failed to even consider the consequences of their actions that shows willful intent.

If I was on a jury I would find them guilty. And if it took jury nullification to get around the slick, corrupt corporate attorneys defending corporate criminals then I would do that as well. Sometimes the only way to get around laws that were written mainly by and for corporations using political prostitutes is to get justice by ignoring THEIR law and rely on the law that is deep inside of every good person and rule against corporate criminals.

I find it puzzling how you an display irritation at me, while you never once mentioned irritation at three bumbling corporations which are responsible for killing 11 human beings and perhaps the entire Gulf of Mexico. And it seems you missed my obvious point that a regular person pours four quarts of oil into a sewer or on his property can be jailed, while a big corporation can kill people and destroy entire seas and not suffer the same consequences. The person who pours oil down a sewer might not have known about any laws or the environmental impacts of such an act, but he would still be fined and maybe thrown in jail. He wouldn't have willful intent, but he would have violated the environment just the same. Does that make him innocent? No, and I didn't say it would. But it's troubling how you seem to imply corporate ignorance is okay, but not okay for individuals. I don't believe you are aware of every law in every town in America so you have no idea whether a person would be arrested or not. I've seen stories of people arrested for littering or other 'small crimes'.

Perhaps you could clarify your position, rather than just vent irritation at me. I believe any irritation should be towards those who killed 11 people, are destroying the Gulf of Mexico, and ending the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people who rely on the Gulf.

Here is a link for you to ponder: http://www.truthout.org/slick-operator-the-bp-ive-known-too-well59178

All the best...

[kdmorris]

37. "While you never once mentioned irritation at three bumbling corporations"

I am way more "irritated" at them. I would say that the feelings I have toward BP and their cronies right now is something closer to rage. In fact, I agree with you that, if BP was a "normal" citizen, they would be treated MUCH more harshly than BP is being treated.

The ONLY issue I had with your statement was that you said that you could get arrested if you pour oil down a sewer and your analogy kind of sucked.

Willful, to me, means that they knew that their actions would result in the death of the people on that rig and they knew that the rig would explode and cause the oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico. Knowing that, they took no steps to stop it.

Intent, to me, means that they intended to have that thing explode and fill the Gulf with oil.

I said that they were negligent. And I might even say that they were negligent to the point of "negligent homicide". As in, they never intended to kill those 11 people and fill the Gulf of Mexico with oil, kill the ecology and the environment, not to mention countless birds and an unknown number of sea animals. But they were negligent to not take safety precautions that would stop that from happening. Since 11 humans died, that's negligent homicide. That's not the same thing as pouring oil down the sewer drain.


They didn't. They just didn't give a fuck about whether it would explode or fill the Gulf with oil. To me, it's not a matter of whether they knew it was illegal, but what they intended the outcome to be.

We're just playing semantics now. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently or not posted at all. I just think that, if we are to succeed in getting someone to pay for this, we need to not use inaccuracies. When you start doing that, people are going to stop listening.

[cheapdate]

53. There is no punishment to harsh for the criminal oil company execs

who caused this disaster, IMHO. But the awful truth is that they will never be made to pay for their crimes or the destruction they brought to this beautiful part of the world. Not with the way our courts and laws work now, they won't. It's just like you say, all of these companies (BP, Transocean, Haliburton) will hire hordes of the best lawyers money can buy and haggle over words like "intent" and "willful" and it's just a bunch of bullshit. We as a people don't have the means or the power to just tell these assholes, 'You caused this disaster to our beautiful Gulf and you are going to pay, and pay dearly!'

For what it's worth, I don't think very many government agencies would get involved with an individual homeowner who poured oil down a drain. Our city has a stormwater manager and he might call on such a homeowner, but then again he probably wouldn't. You certainly wouldn't go to jail...not around here anyway.

Peace.

[sulphurdunn]

51. Try reckless endangerment.

Also, consider fraud, bribery, negligent homicide and terrorism just for starters.

[fascisthunter]

81. puhlease... they knew of the dangers and instead ignored safety measures for the sake of money

what they did may as well have been intentional. Reckless endangerment...

[grahamhgreen]

84. Negligence my @ss! The willfully drilled in the Gulf AND skirted regulations.

[Jakes Progress]

3. That is true, but not funny.

You could sell yourself on a corner in Hollywood and get arrested. But if you sell your soul in Washington, you get more money.

[gimama]

5. I KNOW! a horrible piece of a HUGE pattern

of injustice & immorality..
where banksters get bailed OUT~rewarded!~
for lousy decisions,deception,greed..
while real People lose Homes, jobs..HOPE.
Just 1 example.
I know it's been going on for a long time..
but I still believe NO ONE is above the law.
And I KNOW what goes around, comes around.

[Vinca]

8. It's not just the oil companies. Offshore drilling - without environmental

impact studies - was just given the green light by our government. It's mind boggling when I think of the nightmare we went through to install a new septic system - charts and graphs and permits and inspections and a final bill that nearly knocked me over. It's probably easier to set up an oil rig.

[AnArmyVeteran]

62. You can make money off an oil rig (usually), but not off a septic tank. Sorry :)

[Rex]

10. The difference is intent, you meant to but BP didn't.

No way anyone can argue they wanted to spill oil into the ocean - those are profits being lost by the second! I still say they should go out of business over this AND Halliburton can follow right behind them.

[Adsos Letter]

20. Agreed on all points. Time will tell what legal repercussions await BP....

I don't believe thay will get away from this one, and I certainly am keeping my fingers crossed that I am proven correct.

[Rex]

23. Check this out!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8340018

Just saw this posted, if true it will be a mindblowing hit against BP.

[Adsos Letter]

32. You got that right.

[BeFree]

21. Oh? Here's an argument

The accident happened, now they are going to milk it by letting oil go.

After all, the spewing oil is free. Later, the cleanup may cost them a few days profit, but for now costs are covered by insurance.

It's now a big experiment. They want to see how far they can go. Sure, they hate that the rig went down. But now they are experimenting how far they can take this.

Later, they can say: "Look, the gulf took millions of gallons of oil and we kept the beaches clean. Now, can you idiots just leave us alone and let us provide your gas?"

[Adsos Letter]

34. The response to the original OP was centered on intent.

[Greyhound]

35. Gross negligence (which caused this disaster) includes intent. They specifically knew

what would happen if, and they did it anyway. That is intent.

[notesdev]

11. Silly citizen

laws only apply to the little people

[laughingliberal]

63. +1 nt

[pscot]

12. If we got rid of all the corporate whores

you could fire off a cannon on the floor of the Senate and not hit anybody.

[earth mom]

24. So damn true it ain't funny!

:argh:

[mrdmk]

13. You probaly meant, 'you know what's strange?'

The companies are facing a public relations disaster, untold billions in clean-up, and being yelled at in public by the Congress and the Senate. The people who run these companies and put the policies in place that have lead to this environmental insult face very few consequences, if any. This is why corporations having the same rights as persons is a joke. The limited liability corporation is a shield, not a representative of a person, nor should it even be considered to be equal to a living person. With the 'I got mine, you did not get yours because you did not try hard enough' mindset, and the powerful kissing-up to the powerful to stay in power, is at best, a total lack of civil characteristics and honor.

[AnArmyVeteran]

31. Exactly Mrdmk... Corporations have no borders and no allegiances to country, only profits...

Well said. What a person produces or how hard they work has little to do with monetary success. Honest people can't even comprehend the way corrupt people use others or manipulate the law to get wealthy. I had a business professor tell me "anyone can get extremely rich if they sold themselves, or others out". The reason he was teaching at a university instead of at a corporation was because he was ethical, honest and a good man. I'm not saying all corporations are bad and all corporate leaders are bad, but I wonder how many truly honest ones there are? What honest, ethical person would put profit over people, or the environment?

[kentuck]

14. There is a clear distinction...

between the laws that apply to individuals and those that apply to corporations.

[Bluebear]

16. If you were a Central Falls HS teacher, the President would call for your blanket firing.

The bigwigs at Transocean, BP, etc? Not so much.

[Daphne08]

33. +100

[laughingliberal]

64. Excellent Point! nt

[Enthusiast]

68. Good point. And something to be remembered. nt

[havocmom]

17. ya ol crank...

ya make a good case!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:yourock:

[earth mom]

22. Totally hear you and totally agree!!!

:grr:

[madrchsod]

25. so did my dad and i...

had a carriage barn for a garage and we used to pour the used oil around the foundation. i hate to think how many gallons over twenty some years of oil changes. gasoline? that went in the gravel driveway. the barn and house is in a nice neighborhood in town...

[Duer 157099]

26. That could be a very effective (albeit shitty) campaign

Just imagine if John Q. Publics all around the country started pouring oil down the sewers in protest.

Think it'd get some attention? Perhaps highlight the incredible hypocrisy?

Problem is most of us don't have the lack of a soul that it would take to do this.

[AnArmyVeteran]

28. You're right, people with souls wouldn't do that. But corporate leaders would.

Watching corporate leaders testify before congress is almost always the same. They either have no idea what was going on in their company (Enron), or they are incapable of accepting responsibility. If someone isn't responsible and doesn't know what's going on, then why are they paid millions a year in salary, bonuses, perks, stock, etc???????

It was obvious by looking at the CEOs of those three companies testify that they have zero regard for others and are incapable of accepting responsibility. I willing to bet, given their performance and their positions, that they are in all likelihood, sociopaths.

[AnArmyVeteran]

27. NOTE TO NAYSAYERS: I said "could" be arrested. I also didn't I acted willfully.

There seems to be some confusion. In my attempt at brevity in my OP I guess I could have made it clearer that a person unknowingly could pour oil on their property or in a sewer, who was totally unaware of any laws or the environmental impacts of his act. But regardless of whether he was aware of the law or not he would have damaged the environment. I specifically said 'could' and not 'would' because in the tens of thousands of police departments each one would handle the situation differently. People get arrested for all sorts of reasons, often when no crime was committed, so saying he 'would not' get arrested would be a false position to have.

It seems like there are a lot of corporate leaning posters who would rather go over my post with a fine tooth comb rather than understand the overall intent of what I wrote. And the intent of my OP is obvious. The laws are different between people and corporations. The reason: Corporations can buy officeholders, while people usually can't.

[Rex]

29. Your intent was not obvious, otherwise I wouldn't have written what I did.

Now that I understand your true intent, I agree with you wholeheartedly and will add - as long as ONE family is above the law, there is no law.

[gravity]

30. Well who are you going to arrest?

The politicians, regulators, corporate officers, shareholders or engineers?

The only person you will probably pin this on specifically is an engineer for a mistake they made or a mid level manager went against regulations.

[kdmorris]

39. Well, that makes a little more sense.

And I agree with the part you put in bold.

But, I am not a corporate leaning poster, btw (if you knew me, you would find that laughable). If you want people to understand what you are saying, be more clear. Don't just assume that, because we don't really understand what you are saying that we think that BP and their cronies are just great people who never did anything wrong... sheesh.

[Nothing Without Hope]

36. Your "problem" is that you don't own any politicians n/t

[Old Troop]

40. Wow. I never thought of it that way

[Blue_Tires]

41. well said...

[matt819]

42. That's pretty funny

I had a coolant leak and ended up with coolant in a five-gallon container. My town doesn't accept hazmat, and I was too lazy and forgetful to check on hazmat days at the dump in the nearby town that does accept it. In the meantime, I think, what the hell, I'll just toss it into the dumpster in town and leave it at that. Talk about feeling guilty even thinking about this. So a couple of years go by and I finally check the schedule and drop the coolant off.

So you make a good point. Here I am, John Q. Public, good citizen, worried about 5 gallons of coolant, while millions of gallons of crude pour into the ocean. There's something quite seriously fucked up about this.

[AnArmyVeteran]

92. You expressed my point beautifully. We're criminals, but the rich get richer...

You can bet every executive in the 3 oil companies will get their usual huge bonuses.

[NorthCarolina]

43. You are not a corporation, therefore you are not above the law. n/t

[MadBadger]

45. Well, you need to "Accidentally" pour used oil down the drain

[Hubert Flottz]

46. I you would just...

donate millions to politicians in Washington, you could dump your used oil in Lincoln's bedroom.

It's not who you know, it's who you can afford to bribe.

[stillwaiting]

47. We are at a point where focusing on electing individual candidates is just not worth it anymore.

When the system is as inherently corrupt as ours, I'm really beginning to feel that we have to start a movement that focuses ONLY on taking corporate money out of our government.

Lobbying IS legalized bribery (I don't care what any elected Democrat has to say in support of lobbyists).

Public funding for elections. Period. NO outside lobbying allowed per law.

Reduce the campaign season dramatically so that "our representatives" can start to represent our interests.

Paper Ballots. Throughout the entire nation.

Term limits.

These things might actually change this country. I'm having massive doubts that "better Democrats" are going to have much of an impact with the way our government is currently run.

The conservatives in this country think that if the above were implemented that they would win our elections. If liberals and conservatives could ever join together to fundamentally reshape the way this country works THEN we'll see change. And it would be in a direction that the majority of this nation truly does want.

[AnArmyVeteran]

57. +10,000

Perfect Post. It should be read by everyone... awesome!!!

[Enthusiast]

70. Well said! nt

[Swamp Rat]

48. k&r

[Tsiyu]

55. Wow

bold

bright

fresh

same as you.... :)

[Grinchie]

49. The law only applies to the little people anyway.

Incorporate and go off scot free

[AnArmyVeteran]

58. I like that! in other words: "If I Incorporate, can I go on a legal killing spree?"

I am big business.
I own government.
Government writes laws for me.
As an Incorporated Human I can do whatever I want. I could legally go on a murder spree (Because my slick lawyers will find a way to find me temporarily insane I can't show willful intent or other drivel)

(OBVIOUS SARCASM, I HOPE)

[Hubert Flottz]

69. Blackwater did just that in Iraq

and it looks like they will get away with it.

[Enthusiast]

71. And they continue to

do as they wish in Afghanistan.

[KT2000]

50. Regulation resentment

comes from the very fact you have described only people do not usually recognize this.
The small business person, individuals caught breaking laws, such as environmental ones, are treated harshly. That makes them resentful of regulations and they vent their anger and vote Republican.

Meanwhile the huge polluters and workplace law breakers get away with murder. The little guy does all the voting and yelling to turn the population against the government and its rules. They believe the Republicans will free them from having to follow "silly" rules not really figuring that the Masseys and BP's could care less about their lives.

[AnArmyVeteran]

59. Thank you for that! Perfectly stated! I'm gonna copy that if it's alright...

[KT2000]

60. Sure!

:hi:

[AnArmyVeteran]

61. You just gave the best reason for people being a conservative..

They are overburdened locally, but politicians never reduce laws locally, but laws are purchased by the big guys nationally. Two complete set of laws. One for the poor and the other for the rich...

[laughingliberal]

65. Exactly! +100. nt

[Enthusiast]

72. You make a good point.

The small business person feels persecuted. And the Repukes always promote themselves as the party of less intrusive regulation.

[lonestarnot]

52. Not sa fucking funny if you're ask'n me.

[donheld]

56. so true

[laughingliberal]

66. K & R nt

[Enthusiast]

67. This is like one of those

points that is like not seeing the forest for the trees. It illustrates just how far we go to protect the wealthy and powerful in this country. Corporate person-hood is an absurd idea but just try to change it.

[pokercat999]

73. "We need to get rid of anyone who is a whore to a corporation"

Say goodbye to anyone elected to office! If you don't understand that ALL have to kneel at the feet of corporations to earn their daily bread you understand nothing about American federal elected office.

Their is no single answer to this problem, public finance of elections, holding corporate officers liable for the actions of their companies and elimination of paid professional lobbyists would be a start. The odds of that happening with out a violent revolution are about the same as you winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

[Raine]

90. Yup that's right

there is the corporations and their elected whores and then there is all the rest of us that aren't either of those things. I feel like we're doomed.

[AnArmyVeteran]

91. Love your JFK quote in your tagline! Thanks...

[TheCowsCameHome]

74. Spill a quart of oil on a road in Massachusetts and they go nuts.

Fill the Gulf of Mexico with crude and, well, you can see no one is held responsible.

[AnArmyVeteran]

76. Thanks for that. That's basically all I was trying to say in my OP...

Isn't it against the law to 'top off' your gas tank when filling it in some places, lest a couple of drops overflows? That would make you subject to legal jeopardy, but If I was a corporation and allowed millions of barrels of oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico there is zero accountability and no personal liability to the executives running the companies. Shameful...

[soryang]

75. Why hasn't Obama fired Salazar?

See the Democracy Now show on Salazar's continuation of the "outhouse exemption" for minimally invasive environmental impact status for BP and hundreds of other offshore drillers.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/7/government_exempted_bp_from_environmental_review

[azul]

77. Regime change sounds like what you are saying.

People are fed-up with the corporate corruption of their government and are looking for an avenue to real change.

I think the establishment of corporations and wealthy realize this movement is gathering and are astro-turfing their own bogus tea party to derail and crash it.

This 2 party system is fatally flawed when the majority of real people can be deceived and shut out of the process.

Time for something like a Democratic Populist 3rd party with a basic platform: corporations out of government? Past time?

[AnArmyVeteran]

82. But we must have strict campaign finance laws first...

How about these proposals:

- No one can donate to a candidate unless they can vote for that candidate.

- No money from outside a district or a state should be allowed.

- Eliminate political advertising and only have public debates which OUR airwaves are REQUIRED to cover.

- Scrap the current candidate-auction system we have and have publicly financed elections.

These laws would circumvent the disastrous Supreme Court decision that says even foreign corporations can pollute your local elections.

Money is NOT FREE SPEECH. Free speech is everyone having an equal voice, independent on the amount of money they have. Unless we stop the 'whoredom' (aka: Washington DC) our country is doomed. No candidate can run for office unless they first sell themselves to the rich or corrupt corporations. Qualified, competent and honest candidates have no chance of running for office. If you're not a political whore you cannot compete.

[Javaman]

78. A simple protest sign.

"I get arrested for a quart of oil down the drain! What do they get?"

[azul]

79. They get the upside with no downside, obviously.

Justice, where the hell is justice when big money and legalized killing are turned-loose on the world?

Maybe the spill is an attempt to recruit eco-terrorists to justify the Motherlode Security Armies, coming to your hamlet and pond securing loot.

[AnArmyVeteran]

88. They get richer!

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. How about, 'tasered' and thrown in a cell?

[newtothegame]

85. I realize that our point sounds much more convincing if we use extreme exaggerations but cmon...

I'd detail the issues with your argument, but they were already made within 5 minutes of you posting this...

[AnArmyVeteran]

89. I have a lot of ammo (facts) to back up my OP story but here is just one...

There are tens of thousand of cities and multiple levels of law enforcement. Laws are different between different cities, states and national governments. In just a few minutes I found one instance of a person arrested for dumping sewage. While my OP mentions oil, I believe the same law would apply regardless of the toxic substance. And while the circumstances might be different the intent is the same. I have many other examples that might be even more explicitly related to the example in my OP but I will post them later. It is late tonight so I'm calling it a night.

If you would like, you can see one story of a person who was arrested for dumping toxic material into the environment. As I stated, in the eyes of the government toxic materials of any kind can subject the abuser to both fine and/or arrest.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2009/07/0717_01.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 17, 2009
CONTACT: Marguerite Jordan, [phone] or [phone] (cell)
 
DEP Agent Arrests Roto-Rooter Employee for Illegally Dumping Raw Sewage
- Estimated five to ten gallons of sewage dumped on the grounds

In the above example the offender was an employee of a company. I have others that specifically deal with an individual offender.

I have many, many more examples to follow. It is against the law for individuals to dump toxic materials onto the environment. The severity of the punishment can vary depending upon many factors. Stay tuned...

My example was not 'extreme' and the overall intent of my OP was obvious, there ARE differences in how the law is applied between the average American and a wealthy corporate executive.

I hope this helps you understand the inequities between the personal liabilities of an average American and the personal liabilities of a corporate executive. (the obvious intent of my OP was to highlight this difference) BTW, cops can find any reason to arrest people all the time, whether they commit a crime or not...

All the best...