http://royaloak.patch.com/articles/royal-oak-store-owner-charged-with-ripping-off-famous-movie-director

This is really just disheartning as I know the place and love it. I understand the pull sometimes to do anything to save your business but stealing in general is wrong let alone from Peter Jackson.

Bad, bad judgment there. Guess the possibility of losing your livelihood makes people do incredibly stupid and shortsighted things. He deserves whatever punishment is meted out to him, but it is said to see another piece of the hobby fall away.

I've been there several times, its a damn cool store, not very 40k centric they sell some stuff but no play area to speak of. But man the stuff they have, its random and awesome alot of historical miniature stuff as well .

Any chance of a C&P for those of us who can't see the site directly?

SilverMK2 wrote:Any chance of a C&P for those of us who can't see the site directly?

Toy Soldier Co. Owner Charged with Ripping off Movie Director Peter Jackson

A Royal Oak businessman is facing federal charges for racking up about $200,000 in purchases on the credit card of an Academy Award-winning movie mogul.

Detroit attorney David Steingold said Wednesday that his client, Rick Berry, who owns Michigan Toy Soldier Co., is fully cooperating with federal investigators after he used the credit card of writer/director/producer Peter Jackson to purchase merchandise for his 11 Mile Road business. Jackson is best known for directing the Lord of The Rings film trilogy.

Steingold said his client is charged with credit card fraud at the federal level. Berry is to be sentenced Feb. 7 in a Detroit federal courtroom and he faces a minimum of one year in prison based on sentencing guidelines, his lawyer said.

The store owner obtained Jackson's credit card information after he made an online purchase. The attorney said since Jackson became aware of the charges in 2007, Berry has repaid about $100,000, putting him halfway to paying the credit card charges in full. Berry is paying about $2,500 a month, Steingold said.

Berry has fully cooperated with investigators, Steingold said, and is a well-respected community contributor, which he hopes will make a favorable impression on the judge when he is sentenced. Steingold said he hopes for house arrest. Berry has two children and cares for his 90-year-old ailing father on a daily basis, he said.

Berry's store on 11 Mile Road west of Campbell carries specialized collectibles, war memorabilia, historically accurate figures and model equipment.

The economy and the pressures to keep his business afloat led Berry to the bad decision to use Jackson's credit card, his lawyer said. “The idea was, he was going to pay it back right away,” Steingold said.

Employees at the store refused to talk on the record Wednesday. Berry was not in the store Wednesday and the store was quiet following a TV report that aired Tuesday night.

Berry is going through a difficult time now that everyone knows, his lawyer said. “He made a wrong choice, but he’s doing everything right,” Steingold said.

Berry's business neighbor Linda Stucky said she was surprised to hear the news.

“He’s a nice guy,” she said, adding he is a good neighbor. “It’s a fun store to go into.”

He made a stupid decision, but has been actively seeking to provide reparations since he did it--and without the court stepping in prior to that.

*shrug* I see no real problems there.

The court doesn't "step in"- it has to be brought before the court. In this case, federal prosecutors felt that it should be filed. It is somewhat odd, though, if they pressed charges after the victim had already worked out a repayment agreement. Oh well, conviction rates are how prosecutors build their resume.

jmurph wrote:The court doesn't "step in"- it has to be brought before the court. In this case, federal prosecutors felt that it should be filed. It is somewhat odd, though, if they pressed charges after the victim had already worked out a repayment agreement. Oh well, conviction rates are how prosecutors build their resume.

I'm aware of how the court system works, thanks.
The point was that, at the timeframe when it suggests an agreement was worked out, charges hadn't even been filed(or at least that's the way the article presents it).

Kanluwen wrote:He made a stupid decision, but has been actively seeking to provide reparations since he did it--and without the court stepping in prior to that.

*shrug* I see no real problems there.

I agree.

The man had already realised his error, felt remorse, and was well on the way to making restitution.

I understand that justice must be seen to be done, so it cannot be ignored by the Law.

In the circumstances though, a custodial sentence surely would be excessive, and also would prevent repayment of the rest of the debt.

So, if he charged all that money but was paying it back... why couldn't he just get a real loan?

Probably because if the store was doing bad enough that he would consider credit card fraud, a bank wouldn't give him one without charging absurd rates?

Wow, wish I was the kind of person they would give an unlimited cap credit card to (although seemingly without checking for fraudulent purchases )

You can't trust those miniatures hobbyists

Does make one wonder though.... just what did Jackson buy online from that store?

Exactly, how did this guy get Peter Jackson's credit card number?

Kilkrazy wrote:In the circumstances though, a custodial sentence surely would be excessive, and also would prevent repayment of the rest of the debt.

While there are equities to consider in criminal law, there are also more rigid factors -- like the sentencing guidelines mentioned in the article. Once matters go to court, a lot of the humanity gets stripped out of these kind of situations.

Ailaros wrote:Exactly, how did this guy get Peter Jackson's credit card number?

...Really?

Jackson placed an order through the store.

Ailaros wrote:Exactly, how did this guy get Peter Jackson's credit card number?

Jakson made a purchase from his online store. Jackson is an avid wargamer.

Exactly, how did this guy get Peter Jackson's credit card number?

Reading the article at the link provided in the original post would have answered that question. As is often the case on this forum, some people only know how to use the Internet to go to this forum and appear incapable of ever looking at another site. Look how many times people ask for information here on GW products when that information is already showing on the GW website. It's ridiculous.

I also have to question the title of this topic. It's not like no gamer or hobby store owner was ever revealed to be dishonest before. It's just another sad day for the gaming community.

Manchu wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Exactly, how did this guy get Peter Jackson's credit card number?

Jakson made a purchase from his online store. Jackson is an avid wargamer.

Yes, Peter is one of the 5 regular players of GW's LOTR game

Manchu wrote:Jackson is an avid wargamer.

I had no idea, but he does have the physique for it.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Manchu wrote:Jackson is an avid wargamer.

I had no idea, but he does have the physique for it.

That comments is way, way, waaaay out of date assuming it was meant to point out his being overweight. Have you seen how Peter Jackson looks lately? He lost a ton of weight a few years ago. He got smart and decided he wanted to live to enjoy all that money he made off LotR movies.

For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

You're overreaching Emp. Noone's saying "Awwww, well he's paying it back it's totally okay!". If anything, it's just pointing out that fact should be taken into account for sentencing.

But it sure as hell isn't "a sad day for the gaming community", excepting that it happened to an influential mainstream figure in the gaming community.

BrassScorpion wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Manchu wrote:Jackson is an avid wargamer.

I had no idea, but he does have the physique for it.

That comments is way, way, waaaay out of date assuming it was meant to point out his being overweight. Have you seen how Peter Jackson looks lately? He lost a ton of weight a few years ago. He got smart and decided he wanted to live to enjoy all that money he made off LotR movies.

To be honest I don't spend a lot of time following what Peter Jackson is doing with his life. But good for him, he looks a lot better.

I thought someone had died from the title.

Why should we be sad, he didn't nick anything off of us?

This is a happy story - Scrot got nicked after rich bloke didn't notice someone taking huge sums of money off of him + Celeb angle.

Kanluwen wrote:You're overreaching Emp. Noone's saying "Awwww, well he's paying it back it's totally okay!". If anything, it's just pointing out that fact should be taken into account for sentencing.

But it sure as hell isn't "a sad day for the gaming community", excepting that it happened to an influential mainstream figure in the gaming community.

Ok thank you as I thought you meant he should be off scott free, but in the effect it is a sad day because yes the man is very influencial but on a private forum ,where a friend posted this, a lot of us small business owners are upset as this actually reflects poorly on webstores. Though you may not see it believe it or not something like this will hurt webstore sales as it begins to put little trust into the clients security for ordering. In a hard economic era where we are all struggling to make the sales things like this can really set the overall back. Few stores in general now a days don't have some form of web presense, and you want your clients to feel just as secure shoping online with you as well as in your physical store.

Why is this in News and Rumours and not Off Topic?

Why is this in News and Rumours and not Off Topic?

It certainly is off topic. Some of the conversation is even off the off-topic topic.

Of course he should go to jail. He stole a lot of money. He should also never own a store again. He betrayed his customers by stealing from one of them. When you buy something from a business using your credit card, you naturally assume they aren't going to take your credit card information and use it to buy things for themselves. That's illegal and should be punished.

MODS, please close this thread before we're treated to more opinions, arguments and rants either way on what constitutes fitting punishment. Those are hardly gaming news or rumors and clearly some people have issues to work out.

Looks like its not the first time according to the Detroit News.

Guess I'm glad I've always used cash for my Hobbies..

No paper trail for the Wifey to follow =)

Ok, so the guy stole the money, got in trouble, is paying it back, everything is good, justice is served. move on.

BrassScorpion wrote:MODS, please close this thread before we're treated to more opinions...

Hang on a second, you've posted SIX times in this thread, are the rest of us not supposed to participate?

Unsubscribe the thread if you don't want to continue to follow it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The man had already realised his error, felt remorse, and was well on the way to making restitution.

Seems just as likely to me that Peter Jackson or someone at the CC company worked out what was going on and the guy was trying to pay back the money before the Feds had their case ready.

I do feel bad for someone that got desperate enough to do this, but you really have to think that the guy got greedy.

And, who knows? Maybe Peter Jackson lost all that weight because he can't afford to buy food anymore. Or not.

@ketera, how is this not newes. This is no real differnce from another company accussed of stealing vs a well respected and known company dtealing.

@brass, people state theikr opinons all of the time on here And though I see your point that is no reason to just lock this thread. This is a big deaL for many people who should know about this as his /company was one of the more rezspected ones out there.

Regardless of whether or not Mr. Berry agreed to pay back Peter Jackson the point is this

HE STOLE A CUSTOMER'S CC INFO & THEN COMMITED FRAUD WITH THAT INFO.

Luckily, I've never ordered from Mich. Toy Soldier and I thank my lucky stars I didn't. Who knows how many customers he defrauded in this scheme.

If you ordered from them with a CC, go back and check your statements and make sure there are no fraudelant charges!

Scary stuff...

There is almost no security with many companies when you order with a CC. I used to work for a company that took orders...while going through the database looking for a customer's account one day, I actually found an ex-girlfriend's name and her CC info. I could have gotten away with alot! But seriously....all you had to do was open up the ordering program, and their info was right there.

Nice to see they moved this too off topic, but it's ok to talk about a legal action with another company.

Albino Squirrel wrote:When you buy something from a business using your credit card, you naturally assume they aren't going to take your credit card information and use it to buy things for themselves. That's illegal and should be punished.

Absolutely agreed.

Albino Squirrel wrote:Of course he should go to jail. He stole a lot of money. He should also never own a store again. He betrayed his customers by stealing from one of them.

Absolutely disagree. He's making restitution. He should get probation, and only go to jail if there's a second offense. Putting him in jail hurts society more, by probably causing his business to close and making someone else have to take care of his sick father.

Hrmmm interesting thought mannheim, by him going to jail you are thinking it would only increase the punishment overall and in sense drive him to possibly do it again. The question is though how does one handle this with a firm hand but not soo weakly as to allow for others to follow. To strong of a punishment would mean further damages, but to weak would tell the rest of us that it is ok to do grand larsony (total misspell I know) as we will only get a slap on the wrist. Interesting as I didn't look at it in this way.

A prison sentence would serve no purpose at this point, and would in fact be a very stupid course of action as it would drastically interfere with paying off the rest of the money. Since all involved parties are satisfied with the current terms of restitution, anything beyond probation would be excessive.

I have to come down on the side that the guy should go to jail. Not forever but enough to make it hurt. The guy stole $200k. The fact that he tried to pay it back is irrelevant, he SHOULD pay it back, and he still should be punished for the very large theft. And the article wasn't really specific but I would imagine he only started paying it back after he was caught.

Maybe he was desperate, but if everyone who was desperate started stealing we would fall into anarchy. You have to punish behavior like this to deter others who might think "If I don't get away with it I'll just pay it off over a long time and get probation"

Empchild wrote:Hrmmm interesting thought mannheim, by him going to jail you are thinking it would only increase the punishment overall and in sense drive him to possibly do it again. The question is though how does one handle this with a firm hand but not soo weakly as to allow for others to follow. To strong of a punishment would mean further damages, but to weak would tell the rest of us that it is ok to do grand larsony (total misspell I know) as we will only get a slap on the wrist. Interesting as I didn't look at it in this way.

Yeah, I didn't mention, but a punitive fine as well as probation would make sense. He could pay the fine in installments as soon as he's done paying Jackson back, and in the exact same manner.

I had to strongly object to the idea of his store being closed and him being prevented from running one again; what the heck good would that do? Just ruin a business, make more people unemployed, and prevent the guy from gainfully contributing to society.

Probation should be more than enough to make sure he doesn't pull this again. It's not like this is a difficult crime to catch.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:He made a stupid decision, but has been actively seeking to provide reparations since he did it--and without the court stepping in prior to that.

*shrug* I see no real problems there.

I agree.

The man had already realised his error, felt remorse, and was well on the way to making restitution.

I understand that justice must be seen to be done, so it cannot be ignored by the Law.

In the circumstances though, a custodial sentence surely would be excessive, and also would prevent repayment of the rest of the debt.

I disagree. He committed theft of value more than the homes of many people. He should be jailed for 1 year for every thousand dollars he took, and thats only if he acts nice. If not he should go to the Bad Place...(FKA Detroit).

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:He made a stupid decision, but has been actively seeking to provide reparations since he did it--and without the court stepping in prior to that.

*shrug* I see no real problems there.

I agree.

The man had already realised his error, felt remorse, and was well on the way to making restitution.

I understand that justice must be seen to be done, so it cannot be ignored by the Law.

In the circumstances though, a custodial sentence surely would be excessive, and also would prevent repayment of the rest of the debt.

I disagree. He committed theft of value more than the homes of many people. He should be jailed for 1 year for every thousand dollars he took, and thats only if he acts nice. If not he should go to the Bad Place...(FKA Detroit).

He should be put in prison for 200 years for stealing $200,000, half of which he's already paid back?

Empchild wrote:For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

Indeed. A petty criminal can get sent to jail for lfe for robbing three people, but this loser gets sympathy? No I say! Give him...THE SHRUBBERY!

rubiksnoob wrote:He should be put in prison for 200 years for stealing $200,000, half of which he's already paid back?

Look, don't encourage it.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:He made a stupid decision, but has been actively seeking to provide reparations since he did it--and without the court stepping in prior to that.

*shrug* I see no real problems there.

I agree.

The man had already realised his error, felt remorse, and was well on the way to making restitution.

I understand that justice must be seen to be done, so it cannot be ignored by the Law.

In the circumstances though, a custodial sentence surely would be excessive, and also would prevent repayment of the rest of the debt.

I disagree. He committed theft of value more than the homes of many people. He should be jailed for 1 year for every thousand dollars he took, and thats only if he acts nice. If not he should go to the Bad Place...(FKA Detroit).

He should be put in prison for 200 years for stealing $200,000, half of which he's already paid back?

Exactly. he really should be sentenced to Transportation... but we have posters from that place and it turns out that place is now pretty cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:He should be put in prison for 200 years for stealing $200,000, half of which he's already paid back?

Look, don't encourage it.

You're just jealous because all the voices talk to me and not you.

Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

A poor man KK, he feels it more...


Still makes it inexcusable though.

People who run reputable Online Stores like Battlroad games arer rightly pissed.

"Tarring them all with the same brush" is a societical perception thing.

No Jail time, but SERIOUS fines and/or restrictions.

Crazy, I've been there a few times and met the guy. The FoW Waffen-SS troops I'm painting now I bought from there. Luckily with cash :S

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

If you can't do the crime don't do the time.

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

Indeed. A petty criminal can get sent to jail for life for robbing three people, but this loser gets sympathy? No I say! Give him...THE SHRUBBERY!

Bull. Very rarely do "petty criminals get sent to jail for life" just because they robbed three people. There's more to the circumstances than that, usually a gun involved and a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses.

But let's not let that get in the way of Knee-Jerk Reaction Time!

Lol chapterhouse threads get to go on forever, and this gets booted to off topic?

I'm glad someone posted this in news, for this is IMPORTANT news to those of us in Michigan.

There's some very strange ideas about law and order floating around in this thread.

He committed a serious crime, because $200,000 is a lot of money. But it appears to be an isolated incident, and he is making considerable efforts to repay the money. This means a significantly reduced sentence, possibly even house arrest, is probably the best way to go, but really knowing the best circumstance would require actually being in the court room.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I disagree. He committed theft of value more than the homes of many people.

You can get a house for less than $200K? Outside of Detroit?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

I know it doesn't apply to this guy (who will get the punishment as the law deems fit), but what about people who steal because there's no other way for them to survive?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:You can get a house for less than $200K? Outside of Detroit?

Houses in Texas are very cheap, mostly because land in Texas is cheap as well.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

I know it doesn't apply to this guy (who will get the punishment as the law deems fit), but what about people who steal because there's no other way for them to survive?

Interestingly Islamic Law allows this. So I'd imagine US law would take it into account as well.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Interestingly Islamic Law allows this. So I'd imagine US law would take it into account as well.

Most legal systems do, mostly through common law and the discretion of judges, so mandatory sentencing can and often does screw with it.

That said, 'stealing to survive' does not include 'stealing $200,000 to keep my business afloat'. They're really not the same thing.

I think, taking into account that the guy was really desperate was the motive, that making the guy pay it back is punishment enough.

I think making him pay interest on the stolen money is fair too.


Jail time, no. work your arse off for the next 20 years to pay it back, Hell yeah.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Interestingly Islamic Law allows this. So I'd imagine US law would take it into account as well.

Most legal systems do, mostly through common law and the discretion of judges, so mandatory sentencing can and often does screw with it.

That said, 'stealing to survive' does not include 'stealing $200,000 to keep my business afloat'. They're really not the same thing.

Yes, Mellissia said as much. I was addressing the second half of the post.

R3con wrote:Lol chapterhouse threads get to go on forever, and this gets booted to off topic?

I'm glad someone posted this in news, for this is IMPORTANT news to those of us in Michigan.

THANK YOU I MADE THAT POINT TOO, OP right here. This is a hard one as all of us world wide have felt this economic sting. Times are tough everywhere, and believe me I went from making just shy of $100K a year last July to now less then $30k. Believe me I have only gotten one unemployment payment since, and my company isn't at the point yet where I can draw a monthly salary (Almost thought just not yet). I have not once though ever considered stealing from one of my clients to pay my bills as that is a slippery slope down hill as not even the immoral side of it, but also the misstrust people would have for me from then on. Heck my minpin needs a surgery so what am I doing, selling one of my cars as I don't need two in my house hold, and I can pay off so many debts with that money and get him what he needs to keep him alive (I love my doggies ). I have in the past sold off all of my models and even my Pre-Heresy army built by dave taylor, why because that was what needed to be done.

I understand where people are comming from on this but I feel I must in the end stand firm that the law is the law and to let somone slide even though they have acknowledged fault, is still a bad idea. He has started restitutions, and needs to keep going so I would say once his debt is paid off 2 years in a federal pen minimum, or do 2 years of community service. I read an artile in Time or something , can't remember, years ago a judge instead of sending a man to jail for vehiclular manslaughter, sentinced him to write an apology letter daily to the family of the victim. After two years the guy killed himself BUT STILL!

While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

Kanluwen wrote:While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

Totally disagree with you there, because their is little difference then between this and when chapterhouse went for 17 pages. Their company is small and overall if they "hypathetically" went out of business would not effect the hobby as a whole. In general the short of a mass ban on miniatures gamming really nothing effects the hobby as a whole. I think many of you seem to feel the hobby is all things GW when in fact GW is still an Infant compared to how this all started around historicals.

Well if i didn't know it was my credit card i would not have done that - best way to get out of anything

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

If you can't do the crime don't do the time.

You've been overdoing the Haggis again, haven't you.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

Indeed. A petty criminal can get sent to jail for life for robbing three people, but this loser gets sympathy? No I say! Give him...THE SHRUBBERY!

Bull. Very rarely do "petty criminals get sent to jail for life" just because they robbed three people. There's more to the circumstances than that, usually a gun involved and a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses.

But let's not let that get in the way of Knee-Jerk Reaction Time!

Three Strikes and life. Its not just a job, its a way of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:There's some very strange ideas about law and order floating around in this thread.

He committed a serious crime, because $200,000 is a lot of money. But it appears to be an isolated incident, and he is making considerable efforts to repay the money. This means a significantly reduced sentence, possibly even house arrest, is probably the best way to go, but really knowing the best circumstance would require actually being in the court room.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I disagree. He committed theft of value more than the homes of many people.

You can get a house for less than $200K? Outside of Detroit?

Yep. not all of us live in the hell of Los Angeles.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Empchild wrote:For those saying that "well he messed up but that's ok because he's paying it back" you are just wrong on so many level. 200k is Grand Larson and I am a firm believer if you break the law no matter what you deserve to be punished to the extent. That is almost as good as saying the former founder of the crips is a good person because even though he killed people he felt remorse and wrote childrens books. A man accepts the punishment he is dealt for his crimes, but to write it off sets a very bad presidence. Honestly that reviles me that you even think it's ok and says a lot because this man still broke the law. Not all business owners break the law, I report all of my taxes I collect to the state monthly like they like. I tell my tax attorney every dime I make for the simple fact that sooner or later if you break the law you will get caught and then the punishment is far worse. The easiest way to not get in trouble is to simply not do anything wrong. Too many people say that's impossible but it's not. Heck I was one of a few soldiers in my platoon during my career who didn't get brought up on judicial punishment for the simple fact that the few times I did mess up I owned up to it right away, and though I may have had a strong coat of sweat on me after a few hours on punishment I never had my rank, or money taken away or most importantly my honor and dignitiy.

Indeed. A petty criminal can get sent to jail for life for robbing three people, but this loser gets sympathy? No I say! Give him...THE SHRUBBERY!

Bull. Very rarely do "petty criminals get sent to jail for life" just because they robbed three people. There's more to the circumstances than that, usually a gun involved and a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses.

But let's not let that get in the way of Knee-Jerk Reaction Time!

Three Strikes and life. Its not just a job, its a way of life.

So you mean exactly what I said about "more to the circumstances" and "a prior record or jailtime for more serious offenses"?

Glorious!

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it worse to steal from a rich man or a poor man?

Who cares? You stole. You're vermin and have abrogated your right to exist. To the fleshpits with you!

If you can't do the crime don't do the time.

You've been overdoing the Haggis again, haven't you.

No haggis can hold me!
basically its social equity and the same legal arguyment between crime laws about the criminalization of crack vs. powder cocaine. For many years powder cocaine crimes garnered substantially less jail time than crack despite being the same thing. The argument was that crack addicts were more dangerous and prone to do more violent crimes. The fact that rich whites typically were busted while poor minorities were busted for crack had nothing to do with it...
All you blleeding hearts should actually be on my side here (fairness in sentencing).

If you do a crime it should be equivalent. The rest is pussy bs nonsense. As the immortal bard: Free Huey!

Actually, you're not talking about "fairness in sentencing" for this case.

What you're talking about is just "tarring with the same brush".

No one is disputing that he committed a crime. Nor are they disputing that he should be punished for committing said crime.

But, there are mitigating circumstances here; namely that he's been actively providing recompense.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, you're not talking about "fairness in sentencing" for this case.

What you're talking about is just "tarring with the same brush".

No one is disputing that he committed a crime. Nor are they disputing that he should be punished for committing said crime.

But, there are mitigating circumstances here; namely that he's been actively providing recompense.

bs there are no mitigating circumstances here. He's not poor stealing bread for his kid. He did the crime. He got caught. feth him just like you would feth any other petty criminal. Anything else is an injustice towards the poor you incarcerate who really do have miitgating circimstances. As the immortal bard once said: "And yet if I were to have that man killed, I would be the bad guy?"

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, you're not talking about "fairness in sentencing" for this case.

What you're talking about is just "tarring with the same brush".

No one is disputing that he committed a crime. Nor are they disputing that he should be punished for committing said crime.

But, there are mitigating circumstances here; namely that he's been actively providing recompense.

bs there are no mitigating circumstances here. He's not poor stealing bread for his kid. He did the crime. He got caught. feth him just like you would feth any other petty criminal. Anything else is an injustice towards the poor you incarcerate who really do have mitigating circumstances.

Did I say he's "poor stealing bread for his kid"?
No, I really didn't.

And that's a ridiculous comparison anyways, because most of the "poor you incarcerate" don't have anywhere near the circumstances we've got here(upstanding member of the community, white collar crime, owns a well-known business, etc).

Or are you saying that a junky who knocks over a liquor store for cash to get his next fix deserves the same kind of mitigating circumstances as this guy?

Kanluwen wrote:While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

How about the ties that some of us shop in the area? And would like to know that the hobby store owner is a repeat offender when it comes to stealing money from peoples credit cards?

Ya kinda a big story for those of us who buy minitures/gaming supplies.

R3con wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While it's an interesting news story, it's got basically nothing to do with the miniatures/gaming hobby as a whole.

The only thing that ties the story to this site is simply that it was a gaming store.

How about the ties that some of us shop in the area? And would like to know that the hobby store owner is a repeat offender when it comes to stealing money from peoples credit cards?

Ya kinda a big story for those of us who buy miniatures/gaming supplies.

Except it's not for the rest of us.

Sorry, guess you'll have to follow your local news?

Except Kanluwen for me, who lives on the other side of the world but shops there from time to time and is one of the owners of this site. It's exactly the kind of thing I want to see, especially as it affects me personally as well as thousands of other gamers.

@Kan: I am guessing that you are a pure fantasy gammer and am probably right. This company is a big one and despite your narrow minded view on this it is actually news as this is a big deal for many owners and hit's close to home. If a notable mainstream retail company will steal from it's clients what's to keep people from thinking that the rest of us will. Your point has been made that you don't think it is news but please stop trolling as that is what you are doing. We are discussing the validity of this persons actions, and somone has already moved this to OT even though it is news so all you are doing is trolling a mute point.

HERE HERE LEGO!!! MOVE US BACK!!!!MOVE US BACK!!!!

***Strawman, you're saying there are mitigating circumstances. There isn't in this case. He got caught and was forced to repay the proceeds from his nefarious dealings. Big fething whup.

And that's a ridiculous comparison anyways, because most of the "poor you incarcerate" don't have anywhere near the circumstances we've got here(upstanding member of the community, white collar crime, owns a well-known business, etc).

***Yes these are the typical excuses to get white collar criminals off. I've heard them over and over again. Some investment banker plunders a company and he goals to jail for 2 years. The local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years. Its an excuse to cover and I call bs.

I thought that the whole point of law was that it should be applied fairly and even-handedly? yes, you may feel sorry for the circumstances of this guy and yes, he might be a little more photogenic than a crack-head bag thief but the crimes are the same and should be judged as such. Once you start judging criminal cases based on subjective feelings about someone rather than the facts of the case then its a pretty slippery slope.

legoburner wrote:Except Kanluwen for me, who lives on the other side of the world but shops there from time to time and is one of the owners of this site. It's exactly the kind of thing I want to see, especially as it affects me personally as well as thousands of other gamers.

Then maybe it should have been moved to Dakka Discussions rather than here?

It's, personally, where I would have moved it to and where I would keep those fething Chapterhouse "legality" threads at rather than having them clog up News & Rumours.

The whole thing about it being "news & rumours" is we see things get kicked out of N&R all the time for being remotely like this, because they directly don't concern news or rumours related to miniatures themselves. All this really has to do with miniatures is it's a webstore that sells them and the owner used Peter Jackson's credit card information.

Empchild wrote:@Kan: I am guessing that you are a pure fantasy gamer and am probably right.

What does this have to do with anything?

This company is a big one and despite your narrow minded view on this it is actually news as this is a big deal for many owners and hits close to home.

"A big deal for many owners and hits close to home" for who? Webstore owners?
Then maybe you should have actually presented it like that, rather than just posting a link to the news article and giving it a wishywashy, overly dramatic title.

If a notable mainstream retail company will steal from its clients, what's to keep people from thinking that the rest of us will.

Bwuh? So you know he's stolen from multiple clients? Where's that at in the article?

Your point has been made that you don't think it is news but please stop trolling as that is what you are doing.

I've said once or bloody twice that I don't "think it is news"(which is NOT what I actually said. I said that it doesn't have enough tying it really to the wargaming hobby as a whole to justify it being in news & rumours. It's just like the Chapterhouse legal threads or anything of that nature. They really have no bloody business being in N&R, because it's a tenuous connection at best.)

We are discussing the validity of this persons actions, and someone has already moved this to OT even though it is news so all you are doing is trolling a moot point.

No, we're really not "discussing the validity of this person's actions".
It, quite frankly, seems to me that you're using this as a chance to smear a competitor.

Frazzled wrote:***Strawman, you're saying there are mitigating circumstances. There isn't in this case. He got caught and was forced to repay the proceeds from his nefarious dealings. Big fething whup.

He was repaying prior to "being caught", according to the article. That's a mitigating circumstance to me.

Frazzled wrote:
***Yes these are the typical excuses to get white collar criminals off. I've heard them over and over again. Some investment banker plunders a company and he goals to jail for 2 years. The local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years. Its an excuse to cover and I call bs.

That is a way different situation and you damned well know it. This guy didn't "plunder a company". He didn't set up a Cayman Islands tax shelter and funnel away his employees' retirement or healthcare funds.

Also: I don't know of any cases where a "local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years" that have happened since the 70s. Cite some. At most, they have to repay the damages or you'll have cases where they've been stealing a crapton of stuff and they get the jailtime based upon the fact that they committed the same crime repeatedly.

Filbert wrote:I thought that the whole point of law was that it should be applied fairly and even-handedly? yes, you may feel sorry for the circumstances of this guy and yes, he might be a little more photogenic than a crack-head bag thief but the crimes are the same and should be judged as such. Once you start judging criminal cases based on subjective feelings about someone rather than the facts of the case then its a pretty slippery slope.

There's no way to have laws applied "fairly and even-handedly" without going absurdly over the top in some cases.
That's why we do things like, y'know, look at the facts of the case when determining sentencing.

If a guy has no prior record of drunk driving, but was stopped going to the hospital for his wife giving birth to their first child and he had a few drinks prior--it's likely he won't even be given a ticket, the officer will just take him to the hospital themselves.

That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

Kanluwen wrote:

That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I don't live in a country like yours Kan. I stand to be corrected but AFAIK, in the UK, the judge is not allowed to disclose past convictions or court appearances to a jury until after they have returned a verdict. The traditional statue of justice is oft depicted wearing a blindfold, because the law is supposed to be applied the same regardless of a persons financial or societal standing.

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

Sorry, you know of how many cases where an upstanding citizen has committed murder and actually gotten away with it?
I can really only think of OJ Simpson.

And by the by: You have no clue what the feth you're talking about. "Discretionary punishment" is alive and well here in the US. You know how every single potsmoking or underage drinking teenager isn't in prison?

Yeah. That's "discretionary punishment".

Also: I love that you're really comparing murder to credit card fraud. Overreaction much?

Filbert wrote:I don't live in a country like yours Kan. I stand to be corrected but AFAIK, in the UK, the judge is not allowed to disclose past convictions or court appearances to a jury until after they have returned a verdict. The traditional statue of justice is oft depicted wearing a blindfold, because the law is supposed to be applied the same regardless of a persons financial or societal standing.

You're misunderstanding the definition of discretionary punishment, Filbert.
Choosing whether or not to even enforce and/or punish certain crimes(such as the potsmoking example I used above) is the "discretionary" part of "discretionary punishment".

Kanluwen wrote:

Filbert wrote:I don't live in a country like yours Kan. I stand to be corrected but AFAIK, in the UK, the judge is not allowed to disclose past convictions or court appearances to a jury until after they have returned a verdict. The traditional statue of justice is oft depicted wearing a blindfold, because the law is supposed to be applied the same regardless of a persons financial or societal standing.

You're misunderstanding the definition of discretionary punishment, Filbert.
Choosing whether or not to even enforce and/or punish certain crimes(such as the potsmoking example I used above) is the "discretionary" part of "discretionary punishment".

Errr, no it isn't. Again, going by what happens here in the UK, cannabis is classed as lower category of drug and can therefore be dealt with a caution unless the person has had 3 such cautions. There is nothing discretionary about it; it isn't the copper being a good bloke and letting you off with a warning - it's the law that advises him to do so. Likewise if I get charged with carrying heroin with intent to supply - I should expect a custodial sentence regardless of whether it is my first ever conviction or I am a career drug smuggler.

See, we don't have "cautions" here.
You're either given a summons for a court appearance for sentencing(which will rarely happen with cannabis, excepting circumstances like reckless driving or if you're so visibly stoned and in public that the cops can't ignore it) or you're not.

If a notable mainstream retail company will steal from its clients, what's to keep people from thinking that the rest of us will
Bwuh? So you know he's stolen from multiple clients? Where's that at in the article?

Nice try on this Kan but that is missreading what I said. I have not stated he has stolen from multiple clients but I am refering to the clients as a whole instead of singular. Since I am saying that this puts misstrust with all of the retailer/ clients out there in that a client may not have faith that I or any other retailer would not steal from them. I am saying my CLIENTS (damn english dictionary) as a whole may now have less faith. Again please STOP TROLLING because honestly you do it in almost every thread you are in.

We are discussing the validity of this persons actions, and someone has already moved this to OT even though it is news so all you are doing is trolling a moot point
No, we're really not "discussing the validity of this person's actions".
It, quite frankly, seems to me that you're using this as a chance to smear a competitor.

Frankly, that is an offensive statement that you can only make over the internet as you would never claim that to my face. I am a straight forward business man with all of my competitors and clients (theirs that english dictionary again). I stay honest because that actually brings people back. My clients (whoops again) know that I would not lie to them or miss abuse them and their money. All of my prices are below retail, and if their is ever a problem they know I will fix it fast, and if need be apologize personally, and when it mandates it throw in some free goodies. My competitors know that I have not now nor will I ever participate in a smear campaign, ESPECIALLY at a store I love. I grew up in that part of the country, and thanks to my uncle know personally many of the past and present store owners. I have shopped with them even when I didn't need too just out of curitousy and respect for their businesses. I am actually pissed that a little troll such as yourself would even concieve a statement like that.


BTW since you are sooooooo familiar with all of the nations local laws hrmmm how many ounces is someone allowed here in mass to have on them before it is no longer a missdermeaner hmmmmm?

Oooh, this thread got fun quickly.

I'm going to get popcorn, be right back.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

Sorry, you know of how many cases where an upstanding citizen has committed murder and actually gotten away with it?
I can really only think of OJ Simpson.

And by the by: You have no clue what the feth you're talking about. "Discretionary punishment" is alive and well here in the US. You know how every single potsmoking or underage drinking teenager isn't in prison?

Yeah. That's "discretionary punishment".

Also: I love that you're really comparing murder to credit card fraud. Overreaction much?

Whoa, calm down now.

So if you like discretionary punishment are you advocating more verdicts like OJ Simpson? Are you saying its ok that a white kid in college gets a slap on the wrist for drug possession while a minority gets slammed with intent to distribute? I never said that stuff doesn't happen, but it shouldn't happen. And it happens a lot less here than a lot of other places in the world.

A murder is like theft in the sense that they are both crimes, and they both deserve punishment regardless of someone’s overall circumstance. He should he charged with theft, not theft - being a good citizen. He stopped being a good citizen when he decided to steal.

I spent all afternoon yesterday and awhile this morning searching everywhere I knew to get the actual court documentation and I can't find anything!

Until we see the actual documents, we only have the media reports to go on, so who knows what "really" happened.

Sorry, I was worked up? Huh. Must be an unconscious Internet thing.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:So if you like discretionary punishment are you advocating more verdicts like OJ Simpson?

That's not discretionary punishment. That's the result of a jury trial. He had an absurdly good lawyer and the police mishandled the case. It happens far more than you're led to believe.

Are you saying its ok that a white kid in college gets a slap on the wrist for drug possession while a minority gets slammed with intent to distribute?

Find me a case where a white kid in college got a "slap on the wrist for drug possession" while a minority got slammed with intent to distribute when both carried the same amount of drugs on their persons.
That's what affects intent to distribute v. simple possession.
Hrmh. What does that fit under...
I think it fits under some umbrella...don't they call things like that "the facts of the case"?

A murder is like theft in the sense that they are both crimes, and they both deserve punishment regardless of someone’s overall circumstance. He should he charged with theft, not theft - being a good citizen. He stopped being a good citizen when he decided to steal.

Except this wasn't technically "theft".

It was credit card fraud, which is a relatively new form of "theft" and in some people's eyes(including some law enforcement agencies, at least in my personal experience of having to have dealt with actually being the victim of credit card fraud) considered to be a victimless crime due to the credit card company/banks being the one taking the hit and not the individual whose information you used to make the purchases.

Kanluwen wrote:Except this wasn't technically "theft".

It was credit card fraud, which is a relatively new form of "theft" and in some people's eyes(including some law enforcement agencies, at least in my personal experience of having to have dealt with actually being the victim of credit card fraud) considered to be a victimless crime due to the credit card company/banks being the one taking the hit and not the individual whose information you used to make the purchases.

So is robbing a bank also victimless?

Discretionary punishment in the sense that “this person does this in their normal life so we are going to ease up the punishment” is wrong. It punishes other people for not doing those same things with their life. If not being a prominent business owner is wrong then make it a crime. If it isn’t wrong then don’t penalize me relative to a prominent business when we commit the same crime.

Kanluwen wrote:See, we don't have "cautions" here.
You're either given a summons for a court appearance for sentencing(which will rarely happen with cannabis, excepting circumstances like reckless driving or if you're so visibly stoned and in public that the cops can't ignore it) or you're not.

For some crimes we do have Warnings, though, which are similar idea to Cautions. I can't think of any states or municipalities which have them for drug offenses, but they're certainly an option some places for some motor vehicle violations. Yes, sometimes the cop just gives you a verbal warning and there's no consequence; but some departments have written warnings which go on your record and which another officer will see and take into account if you get stopped again for the same thing. I got one of these once for a brake light being out- the terms were (IIRC, it was over ten years ago) that I had 48hrs to get it fixed; if I got pulled over again in my town for the same thing after that, I'd get a fine.

I'd really really like to know what he needed 200k for. Like, was it all in one shot, or did he slowly siphon bits and pieces out. Not particularly relevant I know, but I'm very curious...

It's, personally, where I would have moved it to and where I would keep those fething Chapterhouse "legality" threads at rather than having them clog up News & Rumours.
***Where you want it is not relevant. Its an OT topic.

Frazzled wrote:
***Yes these are the typical excuses to get white collar criminals off. I've heard them over and over again. Some investment banker plunders a company and he goals to jail for 2 years. The local hooligan steals a radio and gets five years. Its an excuse to cover and I call bs.

That is a way different situation and you damned well know it. This guy didn't "plunder a company". He didn't set up a Cayman Islands tax shelter and funnel away his employees' retirement or healthcare funds.
***No its not. You believe your way and I believe mine. You are utterly wrong in this circumstance. Justice must be blind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the joy of living in countries like ours, Filbert. Discretionary punishment.

I do not mean to flame but this is an absurd statement. If you like discretionary punishment you should move to a country like China or North Korea or any other totalitarian crap hole where the wealthy and well connected really do get away with anything. The joy of living in a nation like ours is that we DON’T have discretionary punishment. All men are equal before the law in our country. If an otherwise upstanding citizen murders he should be put away just the same as someone who has done nothing with their life. The punishment is for murder, not murder + being a lazy human being or murder – being well known in the community. It’s the same with theft in my opinion.

They get away here too though.

People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
Discretionary punishment in the sense that “this person does this in their normal life so we are going to ease up the punishment” is wrong. It punishes other people for not doing those same things with their life. If not being a prominent business owner is wrong then make it a crime. If it isn’t wrong then don’t penalize me relative to a prominent business when we commit the same crime.

Except that's not how discretionary punishment (at least the way it's supposed to) work.
The idea isn't "Well, Dave is a prominent doctor and is loved by everyone whereas ArtfcllyFlvrd is a steelworker who is hated by everyone. They both stole a signpost when they were drunk, but Dave gets a free pass while we're prosecuting Art to the fullest extent of the law!"

The idea is "Well Dave and Art are both gainfully employed, have no prior offenses, and committed the same crime. We'll sentence them to X hours of community service and rehabilitation for alcoholism."

You'll notice I removed your "robbing a bank also victimless?" statement. I did that because you don't seem to understand that there's a difference, conceptually at least, between robbery and theft.

"Theft" is what you'll see referring to a situation where an item was removed(usually without force or threats of violence) whilst the victim was unaware. I hesitate to put credit card fraud under that simply because it's such a "new age" crime. There's more to it than simple theft, but I can't think of a single case where it's gotten up to someone holding someone up for their credit cards.
"Robbery" is the opposite. It's brazen, and usually involves forcefully removing or threatening force against the victim if they don't comply.

But yeah. Your example was flawed anyways. "Robbing a bank" is always a victimizing crime. Banks have employees and customers who are usually in the banks and are the real targets of the robbery, not the bank itself.

Mannahnin wrote:For some crimes we do have Warnings, though, which are similar idea to Cautions. I can't think of any states or municipalities which have them for drug offenses, but they're certainly an option some places for some motor vehicle violations. Yes, sometimes the cop just gives you a verbal warning and there's no consequence; but some departments have written warnings which go on your record and which another officer will see and take into account if you get stopped again for the same thing. I got one of these once for a brake light being out- the terms were (IIRC, it was over ten years ago) that I had 48hrs to get it fixed; if I got pulled over again in my town for the same thing after that, I'd get a fine.

Yep, we definitely have warnings!
I can't think of any crimes(or even misdemeanors) outside of motor vehicle violations where they give warnings though.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
Discretionary punishment in the sense that “this person does this in their normal life so we are going to ease up the punishment” is wrong. It punishes other people for not doing those same things with their life. If not being a prominent business owner is wrong then make it a crime. If it isn’t wrong then don’t penalize me relative to a prominent business when we commit the same crime.

Except that's not how discretionary punishment (at least the way it's supposed to) work.
The idea isn't "Well, Dave is a prominent doctor and is loved by everyone whereas ArtfcllyFlvrd is a steelworker who is hated by everyone. They both stole a signpost when they were drunk, but Dave gets a free pass while we're prosecuting Art to the fullest extent of the law!"

The idea is "Well Dave and Art are both gainfully employed, have no prior offenses, and committed the same crime. We'll sentence them to X hours of community service and rehabilitation for alcoholism."

You'll notice I removed your "robbing a bank also victimless?" statement. I did that because you don't seem to understand that there's a difference, conceptually at least, between robbery and theft.

"Theft" is what you'll see referring to a situation where an item was removed(usually without force or threats of violence) whilst the victim was unaware. I hesitate to put credit card fraud under that simply because it's such a "new age" crime. There's more to it than simple theft, but I can't think of a single case where it's gotten up to someone holding someone up for their credit cards.
"Robbery" is the opposite. It's brazen, and usually involves forcefully removing or threatening force against the victim if they don't comply.

But yeah. Your example was flawed anyways. "Robbing a bank" is always a victimizing crime. Banks have employees and customers who are usually in the banks and are the real targets of the robbery, not the bank itself.

Condescend much?

Dave and Art getting the exact same punishment for the exact same crime is not discretionary, it’s just punishment. I suppose there is judgment involved in what that punishment should be, but if you are going to say that someone who takes $200k that isn’t theirs and does not go to jail falls within the bounds of reasonable discretion than remind me never to let you watch my kids, drive my car, feed my pets, or do anything else that requires the exercise of reasonable judgment.

My point with robbing the bank it that it’s stupid to say a crime is victimless because a big faceless bank is the target. The bank and its insurers, which are owned by real people, which employ real people, which get their money from people, and which do business with real people are legitimate victims. If you really have the “they’re so big they won’t miss it” mentality I don’t know what can be done for you.

When I have to explain something as relatively simple to you as "discretionary punishment" or why using robbing a bank as an example of a victimless crime is flawed...

Then yeah, I will have to be condescending.

Your notion that judges or law enforcement personnel should be able to circumvent the law at their discretion because of extenuating circumstances is frankly un-American and unconstitutional.

In your original example, don’t get drunk if your wife is expecting. You could kill yourself, your wife, your child and other people. If anything you should be punished more. If you are drunk and your wife is injured call an ambulance, or get someone you are with to drive you, or accept the punishment for drunk driving.

Giving people that kind of power is a slippery slope to favoritism and special treatment of the well known and well connected. Of course a police man is going to listen to the extenuating circumstances of the mayor, or the local sports star. But the same extenuating circumstance from Joe Nobody doesn’t mean squat to him. Of course a judge is going to listen to the extenuating circumstances of a Senator or congressman, but the same excuse from a former convict means nothing.

I know it happens but it shouldn’t, and far from making our country great it weakens it. Your original comment that this is one of the joys of living in our country remains absurd.

Modquisition on. Posters need to mellow out and avoid personal statements. Attack the positions not the persons thank you.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

I think your comments here don't really resemble what I'm talking about, although I understand that my points may have been obscured under some of the more sensationalist and extreme rhetoric being slung around in this thread.

My original statements were based on a combination of the details in the article and the comments of members here who are familiar with the shop and the owner. That he's a good and normally honest person, that it's a first offense, that he felt remorse and began restitution before any charges were filed, that he owns a business which employs other people, and that his incapacitated elderly father depends on him for daily care. In that context, jail time does more harm than good for the community. A punitive fine and extended probation (with jail time kicking in if he ever does it again) seems to make more sense from the perspective of what benefits us as a society. If any of the aforementioned contextual data is inaccurate and/or other relevant info comes to light, my opinion may change.

Bear in mind that there's a larger picture with more details that the judge is going to be working with than what we have here. Sweeping generalizations and adamant judgments seem inappropriate and premature.

Mannahnin wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

I think your comments here don't really resemble what I'm talking about, although I understand that my points may have been obscured under some of the more sensationalist and extreme rhetoric being slung around in this thread.

My original statements were based on a combination of the details in the article and the comments of members here who are familiar with the shop and the owner. That he's a good and normally honest person, that it's a first offense, that he felt remorse and began restitution before any charges were filed, that he owns a business which employs other people, and that his incapacitated elderly father depends on him for daily care. In that context, jail time does more harm than good for the community. A punitive fine and extended probation (with jail time kicking in if he ever does it again) seems to make more sense from the perspective of what benefits us as a society. If any of the aforementioned contextual data is inaccurate and/or other relevant info comes to light, my opinion may change.

Bear in mind that there's a larger picture with more details that the judge is going to be working with than what we have here. Sweeping generalizations and adamant judgments seem inappropriate and premature.

That's the stuff I thought you were talking about. I just disagree. To me the bottom line to me is the guy stole a lot of money and needs to be punished. And the law says he's going to jail for at least a year. I feel terrible for his father and bad for his workers, but that's the way of the world. Some criminals have nothing to lose, some have a lot. Unfortunately this guy had a lot, but you can't let him off the hook because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He knew he had a lot to lose when he stole.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are oversimplying, as often happens.

In point of fact sentencing laws traditionally DO have flexibility in them to account for the larger context and circumstances of the crime. There are exceptions like the Three Strikes rules.

And then there's also stuff like plea-bargaining where the prosecution agrees to pursue a lesser charge. That can result in a reduced punishment too.

Absolutely right, but I think saying that someone who takes 200k is really a good person and shouldn't do any jail time is taking that flexibility way too far. It starts to become a totally different set a rules based on whether you are well know, wealthy, respected etc which is exactly what the constitution does not allow.

I think your comments here don't really resemble what I'm talking about, although I understand that my points may have been obscured under some of the more sensationalist and extreme rhetoric being slung around in this thread.

My original statements were based on a combination of the details in the article and the comments of members here who are familiar with the shop and the owner. That he's a good and normally honest person, that it's a first offense, that he felt remorse and began restitution before any charges were filed, that he owns a business which employs other people, and that his incapacitated elderly father depends on him for daily care. In that context, jail time does more harm than good for the community. A punitive fine and extended probation (with jail time kicking in if he ever does it again) seems to make more sense from the perspective of what benefits us as a society. If any of the aforementioned contextual data is inaccurate and/or other relevant info comes to light, my opinion may change.

Bear in mind that there's a larger picture with more details that the judge is going to be working with than what we have here. Sweeping generalizations and adamant judgments seem inappropriate and premature.

That's the stuff I thought you were talking about. I just disagree. To me the bottom line to me is the guy stole a lot of money and needs to be punished. And the law says he's going to jail for at least a year. I feel terrible for his father and bad for his workers, but that's the way of the world. Some criminals have nothing to lose, some have a lot. Unfortunately this guy had a lot, but you can't let him off the hook because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He knew he had a lot to lose when he stole.

Agreed on all counts. We can agree to disagree here with the loyal opposition.

Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

And especially not infamous ones.

Frazzled wrote:

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

And especially not infamous ones.

Sorry I took so long, but I went to Conneticut to buy a new car . I am now caught up and as always Frazz you da man.

Empchild wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melkhiordarkblade wrote:Well in fairness,you shouldn't steal from famous people.

And especially not infamous ones.

Sorry I took so long, but I went to Conneticut to buy a new car . I am now caught up and as always Frazz you da man.

wha tkind?