Also, one person was in VA and the other in LA.
Also, what bone_naga said.
The other one was a "role." It doesn't really specify the role he played, or if he was complicit in turning in others or testafying against others to reduce his sentence.
I am not saying the justice system isn't out of whack, just that there isn't enough information here to prove that point.
When you directly involve people in a crime where there is the threat of bodily harm things tend to get a lot worse.
The good criminals know you can get away with billions if you trick people into giving you their money.
Like churches?
Nope.
Churches only get millions. For real billions you need to go deeper.
Also there's the other stuff already mentioned to consider: different locations, no clear role mentioned, threat of serious bodily harm, etc.
Also there's the other stuff already mentioned to consider: different locations, no clear role mentioned, threat of serious bodily harm, etc.
...The fact that he was a black man in the Deep South...
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Which just adds to the perception that the legal system is broken. You don't actually have to commit armed robbery to be charged with armed robbery.
...The fact that he was a black man in the Deep South...
While I certainly see how that's possible, we really have no idea, do we? There's nowhere near enough provided in the articles to make that sort of assumption and doing so, IMO, is dangerously close to racist in itself. Assuming he was hammered because of his skin color assumes something very negative about people of a different skin color. That's racism. More people need to think about that before they start in on 'they did it cuz' sort of stuff.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
He implied he had a weapon. That's often enough to make it the same as actually having one. You don't need to show the gun to be charged with having it. Basically, the victim is going to react as though the weapon was actually there so it may as well have been.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Which just adds to the perception that the legal system is broken. You don't actually have to commit armed robbery to be charged with armed robbery.
That's not a problem with the legal system, that's a problem with a dumb ass that robs a bank.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Which just adds to the perception that the legal system is broken. You don't actually have to commit armed robbery to be charged with armed robbery.
But making people believe you are commiting an armed robbery brings the same penalty as actually doing so. I agree with that.
It stops people from faking it and then saying "see? I have no weapon. I was only kidding"... well, too late. The victims believed you were armed.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Which just adds to the perception that the legal system is broken. You don't actually have to commit armed robbery to be charged with armed robbery.
That's not a problem with the legal system, that's a problem with a dumb ass that robs a bank.
No, that would be a problem with the legal system. If you use a weapon to rob a bank, you should be charged with (and hopefully convicted of) armed robbery. However, you shouldn't be charged with something that yo didn't do.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Which just adds to the perception that the legal system is broken. You don't actually have to commit armed robbery to be charged with armed robbery.
But making people believe you are commiting an armed robbery brings the same penalty as actually doing so. I agree with that.
It stops people from faking it and then saying "see? I have no weapon. I was only kidding"... well, too late. The victims believed you were armed.
The victims could also believe you were going to **** them. That doesn't mean you should be charged with attempted ****.
The homeless man didn't use a weapon.
www.digitaljournal.com/article/265402
I am pretty sure that faking like it's an armed robbery is still considered an armed robbery. It goes more to the state of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Which just adds to the perception that the legal system is broken. You don't actually have to commit armed robbery to be charged with armed robbery.
That's not a problem with the legal system, that's a problem with a dumb ass that robs a bank.
No, that would be a problem with the legal system. If you use a weapon to rob a bank, you should be charged with (and hopefully convicted of) armed robbery. However, you shouldn't be charged with something that yo didn't do.
I disagree. She believed he had a gun. If it was a plastic gun, it would be no different.
Like was said before, it isn't about the criminal, it's about the victims.
I was positive you would understand that, but I guess I was wrong..
The victims could also believe you were going to **** them. That doesn't mean you should be charged with attempted ****.
Sure they should, if they threatened/attempted to **** the victim.
If I act like I have a gun to rob somebody, then I have put a fear into those people that they wouldn't have, even though I didn't have a gun. The victims believed I was armed, and would make good on the threat, so why shouldn't I be charged with armed robbery?
Like was said before, it isn't about the criminal, it's about the victims.
I was positive you would understand that, but I guess I was wrong..
The legal system isn't about the criminal or the victim. It is about the crime... or at least it should be.
The victims could also believe you were going to **** them. That doesn't mean you should be charged with attempted ****.
Sure they should, if they threatened/attempted to **** the victim.
That would different. A person believing that you are going to **** them because you are robbing them, and a person believing you are going to **** them because you tell them and try to **** them are two different things.
If I act like I have a gun to rob somebody, then I have put a fear into those people that they wouldn't have, even though I didn't have a gun. The victims believed I was armed, and would make good on the threat, so why shouldn't I be charged with armed robbery?
Like was said before, it isn't about the criminal, it's about the victims.
I was positive you would understand that, but I guess I was wrong..
The legal system isn't about the criminal or the victim. It is about the crime... or at least it should be.
Exactly. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. He walked and talked like it's an armed robbery. It's an armed robbery.
The victims could also believe you were going to **** them. That doesn't mean you should be charged with attempted ****.
Sure they should, if they threatened/attempted to **** the victim.
That would different. A person believing that you are going to **** them because you are robbing them, and a person believing you are going to **** them because you tell them and try to **** them are two different things.
You brought it up.
If I act like I have a gun to rob somebody, then I have put a fear into those people that they wouldn't have, even though I didn't have a gun. The victims believed I was armed, and would make good on the threat, so why shouldn't I be charged with armed robbery?
Like was said before, it isn't about the criminal, it's about the victims.
I was positive you would understand that, but I guess I was wrong..
The legal system isn't about the criminal or the victim. It is about the crime... or at least it should be.
Exactly. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. He walked and talked like it's an armed robbery. It's an armed robbery.
+1
I'm sorry H_S, you just aren't getting it, and I can't help you.
It appears you don't get it. You have this fairy tale perception of the U.S. legal system. It's obviously flawed.
If I act like I have a gun to rob somebody, then I have put a fear into those people that they wouldn't have, even though I didn't have a gun. The victims believed I was armed, and would make good on the threat, so why shouldn't I be charged with armed robbery?
Like was said before, it isn't about the criminal, it's about the victims.
I was positive you would understand that, but I guess I was wrong..
The legal system isn't about the criminal or the victim. It is about the crime... or at least it should be.
Exactly. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. He walked and talked like it's an armed robbery. It's an armed robbery.
+1
In that case, here is your duck
I'm sorry H_S, you just aren't getting it, and I can't help you.
It appears you don't get it. You have this fairy tale perception of the U.S. legal system. It's obviously flawed.
It's obvious you don't get it.
See Jhariis post.
I'm sorry H_S, you just aren't getting it, and I can't help you.
It appears you don't get it. You have this fairy tale perception of the U.S. legal system. It's obviously flawed.
It's obvious you don't get it.
See Jhariis post.
See my reply.
If I act like I have a gun and rob somebody, WHO BELIEVES I HAVE A GUN, how does that get me less time than somebody that actually did have a gun?
The threat is still there..
I don't understand how you are not getting this....
You, of all people, I would have thought would have understood this, and I am surprised that you don't.
If I act like I have a gun and rob somebody, WHO BELIEVES I HAVE A GUN, how does that get me less time than somebody that actually did have a gun?
The threat is still there..
I don't understand how you are not getting this....
Situation 1: I'm walking down the street and you stop me. You pretend that you have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Situation 2: I'm walking own the street and you stop my. You have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Are you saying that I have the same chance to get shot in both situations?
You, of all people, I would have thought would have understood this, and I am surprised that you don't.
If I act like I have a gun and rob somebody, WHO BELIEVES I HAVE A GUN, how does that get me less time than somebody that actually did have a gun?
The threat is still there..
I don't understand how you are not getting this....
Situation 1: I'm walking down the street and you stop me. You pretend that you have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Situation 2: I'm walking own the street and you stop my. You have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Are you saying that I have the same chance to get shot in both situations?
No, but YOU believe you do.
And that's what matters.
You, of all people, I would have thought would have understood this, and I am surprised that you don't.
If I act like I have a gun and rob somebody, WHO BELIEVES I HAVE A GUN, how does that get me less time than somebody that actually did have a gun?
The threat is still there..
I don't understand how you are not getting this....
Situation 1: I'm walking down the street and you stop me. You pretend that you have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Situation 2: I'm walking own the street and you stop my. You have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Are you saying that I have the same chance to get shot in both situations?
Irrelevant.
Actual Situation: I am walking down the street and you stop me. You extend your hand in your jacket, demanding my money or you will shoot me.
No, but YOU believe you do.
And that's what matters.
I thought our legal system wasn't based on feelings and beliefs?
You, of all people, I would have thought would have understood this, and I am surprised that you don't.
If I act like I have a gun and rob somebody, WHO BELIEVES I HAVE A GUN, how does that get me less time than somebody that actually did have a gun?
The threat is still there..
I don't understand how you are not getting this....
Situation 1: I'm walking down the street and you stop me. You pretend that you have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Situation 2: I'm walking own the street and you stop my. You have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Are you saying that I have the same chance to get shot in both situations?
Irrelevant.
Actual Situation: I am walking down the street and you stop me. You extend your hand in your jacket, demanding my money or you will shoot me.
How is the threat the same? My hand can't shoot you, although I'm sure that would be a cool super power to have.
No, but YOU believe you do.
And that's what matters.
I thought our legal system wasn't based on feelings and beliefs?
It is based on the intent, the event, and the victim in the case of crimes with victims.
You, of all people, I would have thought would have understood this, and I am surprised that you don't.
If I act like I have a gun and rob somebody, WHO BELIEVES I HAVE A GUN, how does that get me less time than somebody that actually did have a gun?
The threat is still there..
I don't understand how you are not getting this....
Situation 1: I'm walking down the street and you stop me. You pretend that you have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Situation 2: I'm walking own the street and you stop my. You have a gun and demand my money or you will shoot me.
Are you saying that I have the same chance to get shot in both situations?
Irrelevant.
Actual Situation: I am walking down the street and you stop me. You extend your hand in your jacket, demanding my money or you will shoot me.
How is the threat the same? My hand can't shoot you, although I'm sure that would be a cool super power to have.
Because the threat of a gun is the same as an actual gun when dealing with armed robbery. If the gun was not loaded, it's still armed robbery.
No, but YOU believe you do.
And that's what matters.
I thought our legal system wasn't based on feelings and beliefs?
It is based on the intent, the event, and the victim in the case of crimes with victims.
Really? Cause I'm sure the billions stolen by the other guy victimized many more people in a much worse way than the guy who pretended to have something in his pocket.
Really? Cause I'm sure the billions stolen by the other guy victimized many more people in a much worse way than the guy who pretended to have something in his pocket.
And again, the details of that case are not there. There could be tons of reasons why he got 60 months. If he buried a dozen other guys that were in on it, and they got 30 years, then I'd say his 60 years is just.
Really? Cause I'm sure the billions stolen by the other guy victimized many more people in a much worse way than the guy who pretended to have something in his pocket.
And again, the details of that case are not there. There could be tons of reasons why he got 60 months. If he buried a dozen other guys that were in on it, and they got 30 years, then I'd say his 60 years is just.
Here you go.
www.mycentraloregon.com/news/national/86...
He, and five others, cooperated with prosecutors on one... 1... other guy's trial. How many people do you think were victimized by this guy and his buddies? How many people probably lost their homes because of this guy? You really think that pretending to have a gun and rob a bank for $100 dollars deserves a 15 year prison sentence while D-bag over here wrecks the financial system and gets 40 months? Really?
Here you go.
www.mycentraloregon.com/news/national/86...
He, and five others, cooperated with prosecutors on one... 1... other guy's trial. How many people do you think were victimized by this guy and his buddies? How many people probably lost their homes because of this guy? You really think that pretending to have a gun and rob a bank for $100 dollars deserves a 15 year prison sentence while D-bag over here wrecks the financial system and gets 40 months? Really?
Dude receiving 15 years for armed robbery has nothing to do with these guys being undersentenced. Yeah, poor guy, robs a bank, thrusting what appeared to be a gun at the teller, and gets 15 years of 3 squares a day, more than he was getting on the street.
His crime fits. Allen? Well, based on that, I would agree that he's undersentenced.
Here you go.
www.mycentraloregon.com/news/national/86...
He, and five others, cooperated with prosecutors on one... 1... other guy's trial. How many people do you think were victimized by this guy and his buddies? How many people probably lost their homes because of this guy? You really think that pretending to have a gun and rob a bank for $100 dollars deserves a 15 year prison sentence while D-bag over here wrecks the financial system and gets 40 months? Really?
Dude receiving 15 years for armed robbery has nothing to do with these guys being undersentenced.
No, receiving 15 years for pretending to have a weapon is one thing. The other guy
ing over everyone else has nothing to do with the first case, but it exemplifies the trash legal system that is in place in the U.S. Here you go.
www.mycentraloregon.com/news/national/86...
He, and five others, cooperated with prosecutors on one... 1... other guy's trial. How many people do you think were victimized by this guy and his buddies? How many people probably lost their homes because of this guy? You really think that pretending to have a gun and rob a bank for $100 dollars deserves a 15 year prison sentence while D-bag over here wrecks the financial system and gets 40 months? Really?
Dude receiving 15 years for armed robbery has nothing to do with these guys being undersentenced.
No, receiving 15 years for pretending to have a weapon is one thing. The other guy
And I agree that he was undersentenced based upon what you presented. Other dude still should have gotte 15 years. I agree that there is problems with the legal system, but the cases presented shows me one spot on and one way off.
And I agree that he was undersentenced based upon what you presented. Other dude still should have gotte 15 years. I agree that there is problems with the legal system, but the cases presented shows me one spot on and one way off.
Really? Luisiana's minimum sentence for a case where you pretend to have a weapon and take something of value is 3 years. Giving this guy 15 years isn't way off? For $100? Really?
thomasvalonzo.com/blog/2011/01/prison-se...
And I agree that he was undersentenced based upon what you presented. Other dude still should have gotte 15 years. I agree that there is problems with the legal system, but the cases presented shows me one spot on and one way off.
Really? Luisiana's minimum sentence for a case where you pretend to have a weapon and take something of value is 3 years. Giving this guy 15 years isn't way off? For $100? Really?
thomasvalonzo.com/blog/2011/01/prison-se...
And what does it say about bank robbery?
And I agree that he was undersentenced based upon what you presented. Other dude still should have gotte 15 years. I agree that there is problems with the legal system, but the cases presented shows me one spot on and one way off.
Really? Luisiana's minimum sentence for a case where you pretend to have a weapon and take something of value is 3 years. Giving this guy 15 years isn't way off? For $100? Really?
thomasvalonzo.com/blog/2011/01/prison-se...
And what does it say about bank robbery?
I've been looking, but I can't find anything specific to banks. Armed robbery, it appears, is a catch all charge for any time you ob someone with a weapon (or pretending to have a weapon).
And I agree that he was undersentenced based upon what you presented. Other dude still should have gotte 15 years. I agree that there is problems with the legal system, but the cases presented shows me one spot on and one way off.
Really? Luisiana's minimum sentence for a case where you pretend to have a weapon and take something of value is 3 years. Giving this guy 15 years isn't way off? For $100? Really?
thomasvalonzo.com/blog/2011/01/prison-se...
And what does it say about bank robbery?
I've been looking, but I can't find anything specific to banks. Armed robbery, it appears, is a catch all charge for any time you ob someone with a weapon (or pretending to have a weapon).
I know that in most states, bank robbery is a much more punishable offense.
I know that in most states, bank robbery is a much more punishable offense.
That's what I thought, but I don't think states actually differentiate between armed robbery and armed robbery in a bank. The sentencing for armed robbery is usually dependent on the outcome of the armed robbery. You are going to get a higher sentence if you shoot someone than if you don't. You are also going to get a higher sentence if a person dies. There are states where the age of the victim is taken into consideration. The minimum goes up. So far, all the states 've looked at have a maximum of life imprisonment for armed robbery.
I know that in most states, bank robbery is a much more punishable offense.
Of course.
You might steal money from a rich person.
I know that in most states, bank robbery is a much more punishable offense.
Of course.
You might steal money from a rich person.
Or from a struggling middle class person that keeps their money in a bank.
I know that in most states, bank robbery is a much more punishable offense.
Of course.
You might steal money from a rich person.
Or from a struggling middle class person that keeps their money in a bank.
That is apparently a preferable crime. The homeless guy would have only gotten 40 months in jail.
I know that in most states, bank robbery is a much more punishable offense.
Of course.
You might steal money from a rich person.
Or from a struggling middle class person that keeps their money in a bank.
That is apparently a preferable crime. The homeless guy would have only gotten 40 months in jail.
Not if he would have done it with a hand in a jacket threatening to shoot if he didn't get the money.
Not if he would have done it with a hand in a jacket threatening to shoot if he didn't get the money.
Probably. Rob as many people as you want. Destroy a few banks. take people's homes away. Just don't have your hand in your pocket when you do it.
What if I have my hand in my pants and say: "Careful, I might shoot"?
Life in prison with daily ****.
What if I have my hand in my pants and say: "Careful, I might shoot"?
Life in prison with daily ****.
Don't encourage him!
What if I have my hand in my pants and say: "Careful, I might shoot"?
Sentenced to sensitivity training for sexual harassment.
What if I have my hand in my pants and say: "Careful, I might shoot"?
I'd tell you that Dave Chappelle beat you to this particular idea in one of his skits. And then I'd crack some joke at your expense based off what you just said.
But that's just me.
I thought our legal system wasn't based on feelings and beliefs?
We have a legal system that draws a vague and fuzzy line between murder and manslaughter, has wide possible sentences so judges can use their judgement to give tough or lenient sentences, and allows people off on parole or work release if you can convince a board that you're not feeling like committing a crime.
So I'd say you're quite wrong in your thinking. If feelings and beliefs had no impact, we'd have no need for a judge to determine a sentence. A simple Babbage machine could tell you the sentence.
Or from a struggling middle class person that keeps their money in a bank.
Middle class people (struggling or otherwise) have enough money to keep in a bank? I think [insert choice of deity and/or pantheon here] just killed a multi-national CEO for you suggesting that.
Edit: eh... that metaphor doesn't work too well. Ah well. Don't feel like fixing it. But I think I got my intent accross.
Personal opinion on the matter, I would rather see the man who committed the fraud go to jail longer then the homeless man.
Wow. No wonder everybody keeps denying they did anything for the rest of their life... pleading guilty is actually worse then lying to the courts?
It changes from area to area and judge to judge. Some look favorably on a guilty plea and believe that the minimum sentance should be where sentancing starts, scaling upwards for various factors like violence, contrition (or lack thereof), and so on. Others look at a guilty plea as easy-mode max sentance, and see the max as where things should start, only scaling down for extreme circumstances.
The CEO DEFINITIVELY should have gotten more time. I don't understand how the judge could possibly be that lenient. That slimball deserves more time in prison.