And the rest of this story is so tragic.
Usually, when you have a pretext to do something, at least the pretextual reason is, you know, true.
Besides that, the larger legit business provided a great cover for the smaller illegal business. He didn't need to run the grow op to run the cherry factory, but he did need the cherry factory to run the grow op more easily. There's no way he could have run it undetected for at least six years in the heart of NYC without the cherries on top.
I suspect that the cops had access to illegally obtained evidence, and the bee thing was the only way they had to legitimize what they already knew.
It's a bonus that we got this menace to society to commit suicide when confronted, too. He might have tried to fool us with his having a family, and working with the beekeepers to resolve the problem preventing them from producing honey, but the man even did cocaine. The streets are safer with him off of them.
edit: yes, satire.
Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a
clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme
views will, to some readers, be indistinguishable from
sincere expressions of the parodied views.~It's so very difficult to use.~
Fortunately, the previous post is written such that a Poe's Law check would probably confirm my suspicion of satire.
For example, watch Dr. Who with subtitles on. You'll see (!) used a lot. :)
The Japanese do use it for sarcasm though I'm not sure how common this is, I've never encountered it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilde#Japanese
It's more common to see "へ～～～" as opposed to "へーーー” (read: "heeeee" in a surprised manner with rising intonation on the e's)
The holding and rising tone makes it also used for happiness and excitement. It's "cutesy" (childlike) because of the held sound.
So ありがとう can become ありがとう～～ (the う is held at the end) which in English would be similar to saying "thank youuuuuuuu!!!"
Instead of "youuuuuuuu" it's been borrowed by some English speakers to replace repeating consonants: "Thank you~"
"I loved the present! Thank you~~"
1. Bees start to turn red, causing people to think of the maraschino cherry factory. They're tested and found to be carrying red die #40.
2. The cherry grower looks for help with all the bees coming into his factory.
3. The New York Times runs an article implying that the bees are red because they're harvesting factory runoff.
4. The bees are found to be harvesting from vats of cherries in transit within the factory. Those vats are sealed, and the red bee problem is no more.
5. The Brooklyn DA's Office notices the Times coverage. They've investigated the factory owner for marijuana production already, but failed to find anything they could stick him with. They suggest to the Department of Environmental Conservation that this merits an official check of the factory for illegal syrup runoff.
6. The DEC checks for illegal runoff, and also for marijuana. They find neither.
7. A new DA is elected and decides to drop unresolved cases. This prompts the Office to try one last time to get the cherry factory guy.
8. Although it is now definitively established that there was no illegal runoff and the bees were feeding on in-production vats (which they're not doing any more), the DA's Office gets the DEC to investigate the factory once again for, you guessed it, illegal syrup runoff. They justify this based on the old news coverage.
9. The DEC finds no illegal runoff. They do find marijuana this time, though.
Truly, a high point in good governance. How exactly can the DEC investigate this guy for a problem that (a) it's already investigated and found no evidence of, and (b) is supported only by a theory that is already known to be false? :/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/...
Of course the anti-gun Daily Beast couldn't go an entire article without blaming a gun for something a person decided to do.
Of course if he was really determined and it wasn't just a passing feeling he would've found another way, so I agree with you that you can't blame gun ownership on this.
edit: never mind. judging by the downvotes, I guess people really enjoy their endless gun debates!
"Cote went on, “Beekeepers (particularly the hipster versions) in Brooklyn sometimes (often?) lead a myopic sort of existence wherein only their world view, or their set of needs, is valid or important.”"
while it may seem only hipster related, one can see how DA/LE behavior in this story pretty much lends itself to the same "myopic" description. And in general it is among the main characteristics of our species.
"One investigator said Mondella’s employees were likely unaware of the doings in that stealth basement. These employees include parolees that Mondella was known to hire from the nearby housing project, giving them a chance to not let a crime define their lives."
Here's an article from 2008. http://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-reform/2008/11/cannabis-...
And another from 2015. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LU00P20150226
http://nypost.com/2014/07/07/ny-becomes-23rd-state-to-allow-...
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I found this interesting, therefore it is on topic.
If the plants were the reason the bees were coming to the factory, that would be more interesting.