Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's pretty black and white. You rob a bank with a gun and your in the gak. The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.

Its merely a story designed to promote outrage and im surprised that someone as bright as shuma is arguing the toss frankly.

True story.. I have a mate who got three years for robbing fags from an off license with a bananna! He stuck it up his jumper, and ran in drunk for a bet and said "gimme all the fags!"

5 years on, he sees the funny side. ;-)

Albatross wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:This is partially because of Racism... yes racism. The other reason why is because Americas justice system is crap.

Luckily, there's no racism in New Zealand.

Just killer sheep. LOTS of sheep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
But it's more than a little ridiculous to consider scaring someone worthy of a 15 year sentence. People regularly get less for manslaughter.

And you're an expert on US criminal sentencing...how? The argument is nonsense. You know nothing about the crime. You know nothing about his previous history.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I don't really know what to say... Seems that money talks my man..

Incorrect, or more precisely only indriectly correct.

Money buys excellent lawyers. Lawyers talk.

So we should kill the lawyers instead?

If its good enough for Shalespeare...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:However, other, weaker individuals might consider it a traumatic experience.

Ever met anyone who had their life ripped from them? Their retirement wiped out, their kids college fund deleted, their mortgage is now up for debate. Being robbed at gunpoint is traumatic, but so is having your life stolen from you, and it is arguable about which will has more long term effects psychologically and emotionally. Watch the interviews with the Enron people or the non-celebrities that Maddof swindled.

Yes. My parents. This is being presented like its an either/or. Its not. Put the bank robber in jail for fifteen. Put the super swindler away for life*

*Life meaning Frazzled would prefer putting them in a match with some of their victims Roman style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

dajobe wrote:It is threads like this that make Frazzled my hero, i dont recall claiming the US justice system was perfect, but I believe it is a heck of a lot better than many others that are out there.

I'm glad you're so willing to settle. It must be easy when you throw up your hands and take whats in the box. Also, what was unique about frazzleds response that would make him your illustrious hero (other then the superpowers)?

My ability to scream like a girl whenever I see a scorpion of course.

mattyrm wrote:The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.

Not according to most judges. The only reason he received such a harsh sentence was the just decided he wanted to "make an example", whereas a more intelligent and less politically minded judge would have used all of those facts, along with him turning himself in and returning all stolen goods willingly, to lessen his sentence and prefer rehabilitation over punishment.

But he didn't get a sane judge.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.

Not according to most judges. The only reason he received such a harsh sentence was the just decided he wanted to "make an example", whereas a more intelligent and less politically minded judge would have used all of those facts, along with him turning himself in and returning all stolen goods willingly, to lessen his sentence and prefer rehabilitation over punishment.

But he didn't get a sane judge.

Again, you have no clue what actually occured. You have no clue what the guy's crimes were previously. The sort of stories are just stupid.

A guy who turns himself in over a $100 theft... that's the kind of guy who sounds to you like he's a repeat offender? One bad enough to get 15 years for stealing and then returning $100?

Really?

Frazzled wrote:And you're an expert on US criminal sentencing...how? The argument is nonsense. You know nothing about the crime. You know nothing about his previous history.

You need to be an expert in US criminal law to know that people regularly get less for manslaughter? Wow, that's a mighty arcane legal system you have over there.

How do you know what the punishments for manslaughter are in that jurisidction? Again, you also have absolutely no history on what his previous record is. Thats the stupidity of these types of threads.

You can argue the other crime should have recieved more time, and I am in agreement with your argument. But the two are not related.

With regards to the cases, depending on how the $100 is stolen it can indeed reach a higher sentence, 15 years for that is steep but not excessively so for armed robbery, though unfair if it was a simple burglary.

The fraudster has been severely undersentenced though.

Orlanth wrote:
With regards to the cases, depending on how the $100 is stolen it can indeed reach a higher sentence, 15 years for that is steep but not excessively so for armed robbery, though unfair if it was a simple burglary.

The fraudster has been severely undersentenced though.

Indeed.
1. Robbing a bank is serious, federal crime GMan stuff and highly frowned upon.
2. We don't know what his priors were.

mattyrm wrote: In the interests of fairness and equality, I think that money should be removed from the equation completely. Thus, homeless man and billionaire are given broom shanks with Boxing gloves taped to the end and some leather underpants. They then duel in a pit of death and pummel each other until one relents, the loser must do the longer sentence.

I like the cut of your jib. As we've discussed before, televise this. As an add-on, use the money from the sponsors to fund detox shelters and other rehab centers.

mattyrm wrote: It's pretty black and white. You rob a bank with a gun and your in the gak. The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.

Its merely a story designed to promote outrage and im surprised that someone as bright as shuma is arguing the toss frankly.

True story.. I have a mate who got three years for robbing fags from an off license with a bananna! He stuck it up his jumper, and ran in drunk for a bet and said "gimme all the fags!"

5 years on, he sees the funny side. ;-)

Put him in a full on prison (if he were kept in a jail or whatever the UK equivalent is) and keep him in there for 12 more years. Lets see how he's seeing that funny side. I dislike this sentence because it's truly overblown, regardless of his history. Its not designed to promote anything, it's just outrageous.

MrDwhitey wrote:He kept a hand under his jacket to imply he was armed, he never produced or had a firearm.

Actual reporting on this story is annoying to come by, as search engines are full of silly blogs full of crying, either from one side screaming greatest injustice since ... something very unjust... or that the guy clearly had a 20 page rap sheet and the news isn't reporting that "fact".

The amount of posts saying "Do a little research and you'll see he's a repeat offender who has spent his entire life in jail" whilst providing no sourcing or backup is infuriating.

The correct response to that is to do a little research and present the evidence that he wasn't a repeat offender, etc. (If it's correct, of course.)

However this would not often do much good because most people choose an opinion based on their personality type and facts are remarkably ineffective at changing that opinion. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote: It's pretty black and white. You rob a bank with a gun and your in the gak. The fact that the gun wasn't real, your remorse and the sum you escaped with are irrelevant.

Its merely a story designed to promote outrage and im surprised that someone as bright as shuma is arguing the toss frankly.

True story.. I have a mate who got three years for robbing fags from an off license with a bananna! He stuck it up his jumper, and ran in drunk for a bet and said "gimme all the fags!"

5 years on, he sees the funny side. ;-)

Put him in a full on prison (if he were kept in a jail or whatever the UK equivalent is) and keep him in there for 12 more years. Lets see how he's seeing that funny side. I dislike this sentence because it's truly overblown, regardless of his history. Its not designed to promote anything, it's just outrageous.

Yeah, It IS overblown. I didn't say the rich guy wasn't a douche bag, or that 15 years was mega sensible and the judge deserves a hearty back slap.

The point was merely that it still counts as armed robbery if you make out that have a firearm, and it was a BANK!

I mean.. feth me. Armed robbery on a bank, that's pretty serious. 3 years was a tad harsh for my mate in my eyes, but he cant whinge that much cos he was a stupid bastard and he has said the same thing himself. The fact remains, that when you do what this guy did, you pretty much have to give the bloke proper jail time. And it very much is a story designed to illicit an emotional response from people by making comparison to the "evil guys of the moment" namely, fat rich fethers who commit fraud and sting us all!

Yeah, It IS overblown. I didn't say the rich guy wasn't a douche bag, or that 15 years was mega sensible and the judge deserves a hearty back slap.

The point was merely that it still counts as armed robbery if you make out that have a firearm, and it was a BANK!

Does it make a difference that it was a bank? Is he a cartoon villain now?

I mean.. feth me. Armed robbery on a bank, that's pretty serious. 3 years was a tad harsh for my mate in my eyes, but he cant whinge that much cos he was a stupid bastard and he has said the same thing himself. The fact remains, that when you do what this guy did, you pretty much have to give the bloke proper jail time. And it very much is a story designed to illicit an emotional response from people by making comparison to the "evil guys of the moment" namely, fat rich fethers who commit fraud and sting us all!

This story isn't new. The guy was sentenced weeks ago. It was utterly outrageous and pathetic then, the comparison to another financial criminal doesn't change the barest fact that a mans life is essentially being destroyed, not because he tried to get away with a crime, but because he tried to make things right. feth that judge, he is a cruel, compassionless and disgusting soul and the people here carrying on like he deserved it are the same.

Poor guy. If he had just thought to mention he was an illegal alien and not a citizen he would have been given accommodating welfare checks. The more you know.

Lt. Coldfire wrote:Poor guy. If he had just thought to mention he was an illegal alien and not a citizen he would have been given accommodating welfare checks. The more you know.

ShumaGorath wrote:
This story isn't new. The guy was sentenced weeks ago.

...way before the hatred of evil fatcats entered the zeitgeist. Absolutely correct. I think I might use a macro:

It was utterly outrageous and pathetic then, the comparison to another financial criminal doesn't change the barest fact that a mans life is essentially being destroyed, not because he tried to get away with a crime, but because he tried to make things right. feth that judge, he is a cruel, compassionless and disgusting soul and the people here carrying on like he deserved it are the same.

Ok, consider this: If he HAD had a gun, and subsequently given the money back, would you feel the same?

SilverMK2 wrote:I'm surprised that he wasn't gunned down by the other bank patrons to be honest - I thought all those guns made America safer damn it!

you give people guns and they waste them shooting animals...

All I have to say is some people need to look up what manslaughter is, and the difference between burglary and armed robbery is.

Guy should have taken a plea bargain if he didn't want 15 years. You have no idea about prior criminal history or mandatory sentencing in the jurisdiction.

Homeless man robs bank to pay for rehab, turns himself in, gets 15 years....

Um... win?! The man was stable enough to know he needed help with an addiction, does something to get arrested. Now he's getting a warm-ish place to sleep, 3 meals a day, exercise, and "free" medical attention? Dude sounds like a smarter man than I

Y'know, I never thought of that! He's not homeless anymore!

At least this story has a happy ending.

Alfndrate wrote:Homeless man robs bank to pay for rehab, turns himself in, gets 15 years....

Um... win?! The man was stable enough to know he needed help with an addiction, does something to get arrested. Now he's getting a warm-ish place to sleep, 3 meals a day, exercise, and "free" medical attention? Dude sounds like a smarter man than I

Does indeed sound like a hell of a deal. Can't blame him for wanting a better life and getting a 15 year ticket into one.
I don't even get 3 meals a day or free medical. Must be nice.

It warms my heart that y'all can laugh and make jokes about something like this.

Quite pathetic.

Karon wrote:It warms my heart that y'all can laugh and make jokes about something like this.

Quite pathetic.

I was being completely serious. That image says the man was stealing the money for rehab. They didn't throw him in a maximum security prison, they probably put him in like the same prison they put people who bounce too many checks.

It's quite pathetic that people on dakka can't see beyond the words on the page to that little bright lining behind his actions.

I'm all for fixing our justice system, but maybe the guy was relying on being sent to prison for several years. He's old as it is, think of it as a free retirement policy...

Albatross wrote:Y'know, I never thought of that! He's not homeless anymore!

At least this story has a happy ending.

I'd totally be up for having some kind of interface with the female singer in that video.

Another Happy realisation... even if she is 40...

*cough*

On another tangent, all we need to do to solve crime is make every criminal fight Charlie Bronson for their freedom...

Frazzled wrote:How do you know what the punishments for manslaughter are in that jurisidction?

Because I have the magical power of competence.

The crime was committed in Louisiana. In Louisiana the crime of manslaughter carries a minimum 10 years, so right there and then we know that people convicted of manslaughter can receive less jail time than a guy who robbed a bank, declined taking all the money offered, and instead took just $100, which he returned the next when he turned himself in.

But then in Louisiana manslaughter is actually murder carried out in the heat of the moment, under provocation. THe crime that is commonly intended by the phrase 'manslaughter' is called negligent homicide in Louisiana, and that carries a maximum sentence of five years.

So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.

Ok, consider this: If he HAD had a gun, and subsequently given the money back, would you feel the same?

Absolutely.

sebster wrote:So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.

In all fairness the guy was black, so you have to take that into consideration.

sebster wrote:So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.

Negligent homicide is different from murder because there was no intent to kill the person.

The guy walked into a bank with the intent to rob the bank, with what appeared to be a weapon (even if not visible). Just cause he turned himself in doesn't mean that he should be let off any easier.

sparkywtf wrote:

sebster wrote:So at this point we know that being so utterly reckless, and driving your car so fast that you run over and kill a man, will get you at worst a sentence one third as severe as robbing a bank, taking only $100 despite being offered more, and then returning it the next day when you turn yourself in.

Negligent homicide is different from murder because there was no intent to kill the person.

The guy walked into a bank with the intent to rob the bank, with what appeared to be a weapon (even if not visible). Just cause he turned himself in doesn't mean that he should be let off any easier.

Yes. Yes it does. It means exactly that. That is the thing that it means.