> I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone.
I think in the absence of actual injuries, the obstruction charge is actually the more serious criminal charge applicable. Which is not an indirect charge; obstruction is a distinct crime with its own harms.
It really irks me when authorities go after someone, can't prove something then because they don't want to look bad and want to get a promotion will instead get people for nonsense like they did Mrs Stewart. She should have been able to sure the government and get punitive damages for malicious prosecution.
I think in the absence of actual injuries, the obstruction charge is actually the more serious criminal charge applicable. Which is not an indirect charge; obstruction is a distinct crime with its own harms.