It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals heading for jail

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
He is going to jail for posting nonsense online much like you guys are doing. The grip of tyranny closes around your neck and all you can do is undulate with glee.




posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

This guy did basically everything he could to go to prison. I actually wonder if he's suffering from mental illness.

He disregarded all legal advice, he antagonized the public at every turn, and when found guilty of a crime and was out on bond, he basically offered to pay someone to assault another person.

That's not normal behavior.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
If only they would go after some of the other CEOs doing the same thing. But no, they bust a small guy and make us believe they are watching out for us. Look at the other big increases in Pharmaceuticals and record bonuses for top officials in these companies. Nobody is going to go after the big dogs, their price gouging is a lot more overall, because a real lot of people are paying way more for their meds when they doubled in price.

Look at the epi-pen increase, that effects a lot of people yet those top dogs did not get charged with anything at all and they got bonuses for their overcharges, the stock holders didn't even get hardly anything from that increase.


He didn't go to jail for the cost increase, that wasn't even a legal issue. He was found guilty of securities fraud.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Did anyone see the reason he was actually jailed...

For offering a $5,000 reward for some of Hillary Clinton's hair on Twitter.

Weird AF...


That's not technically why he was jailed. He was found guilty of securities fraud. He was going to go to prison, he was out on bond while waiting an appeal. While free, he offered to pay people to assault Hillary Clinton (and whoever he offered money to assault doesn't matter). This was a violation of his bond, so it was revoked and he's in prison for the original charge.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
If only they would go after some of the other CEOs doing the same thing. But no, they bust a small guy and make us believe they are watching out for us. Look at the other big increases in Pharmaceuticals and record bonuses for top officials in these companies. Nobody is going to go after the big dogs, their price gouging is a lot more overall, because a real lot of people are paying way more for their meds when they doubled in price.

Look at the epi-pen increase, that effects a lot of people yet those top dogs did not get charged with anything at all and they got bonuses for their overcharges, the stock holders didn't even get hardly anything from that increase.


He didn't go to jail for the cost increase, that wasn't even a legal issue. He was found guilty of securities fraud.


I am sure that his raising the prices brought the police down on him and they found something they could charge him with. He pissed off someone pretty bad.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I am sure that his raising the prices brought the police down on him and they found something they could charge him with. He pissed off someone pretty bad.


That didn't generate any good will for him, but it wasn't illegal either. Companies can charge whatever they want for their products.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
I am sure that his raising the prices brought the police down on him and they found something they could charge him with. He pissed off someone pretty bad.


That didn't generate any good will for him, but it wasn't illegal either. Companies can charge whatever they want for their products.


There are a lot of people in prison because law enforcement knew they were doing something very wrong but couldn't do anything about it because a law did not say exactly what they were doing was illegal. Conning someone is not actually illegal many times, let the buyer beware governs many things. So if the practice continues, they will find something to charge the person with to get them off the street.

If conning someone was illegal, look how many people would be in jail, half of our legislature would be in prison.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

OJ comes to mind. Also Al Capone.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Obtaining a lock of hair does not REQUIRE assault. What if Hillary's hairdresser saved some of the cutoffs and sold it? No assault there, just a regular hairdo and opportunity to sell what was once trash.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
There are a lot of people in prison because law enforcement knew they were doing something very wrong but couldn't do anything about it because a law did not say exactly what they were doing was illegal. Conning someone is not actually illegal many times, let the buyer beware governs many things. So if the practice continues, they will find something to charge the person with to get them off the street.

If conning someone was illegal, look how many people would be in jail, half of our legislature would be in prison.


This brings up several ethical points. I actually had this exact conversation in a philosophy/ethics class a week or two ago. Is it ethical for a court system to convict a person for a crime they didn't commit, if we know they're bad, and they've escaped legal consequences so far?

I'm on the side that it's not ethical, and we shouldn't do it. But I understand how the legal system simply wanted to nail Shikreli for something. In the end though, he did go down for a crime he actually committed, so I feel that the system worked in his case... though I still think there's possibly some mitigating circumstances in his case and that he's mentally ill rather than malevolent (which isn't to say that I think he should be on the street, he shouldn't)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Aazadan

Obtaining a lock of hair does not REQUIRE assault. What if Hillary's hairdresser saved some of the cutoffs and sold it? No assault there, just a regular hairdo and opportunity to sell what was once trash.



Sure, that's one route someone could have gone. But that's not what the intent of his offer was for.




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join