• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

A Tale of Two Sentences

Innocent until proven guilty, right? So sure, I have no problem with proving the person had a gun.

Quite frankly, THINKING my life is in danger and finding out after the fact that it wasn't is completely different than actually being in danger the whole time in my eyes.

JMO of course.

In this specific case, it sounds like the guy even admitted all he wanted was 100 bucks because he is homeless and the victim should have realized directly after the fact that he/she was in no danger at all.
 
karandpr said:
One used brawn ,was poor and hungry and was penalized for using a crude method of acquiring money.
The former used sophisticated of acquiring money and he escaped crime by using loopholes .
Click to expand...

But the guy that used the gun scared someone really bad, so in the eyes of the law it is worse.
 
DoAndroidDream? said:
I agree with Bob. There is a difference when you use a weapon and the threat of violence. He belongs in prison. The other guy should have got a lot more time than he did though to be certain.
Click to expand...

Suppose a CEO of a company commits a large corporate fraud .His company has 1000 employees and due to his fraudulent nature the company is closed and the 1000 employees are jobless.
If 1 employee commits suicide due to helplessness ,
Then can the CEO be convicted of indirect murder ?
No he cant, cos physically he didn't hurt .
That is not defined in law .
The weapon used to create a situation of helplessness is ethereal so ,he cant be convicted.No definition, No conviction.
 
lordofthereef said:
Innocent until proven guilty, right? So sure, I have no problem with proving the person had a gun.

Quite frankly, THINKING my life is in danger and finding out after the fact that it wasn't is completely different than actually being in danger the whole time in my eyes.

JMO of course.

In this specific case, it sounds like the guy even admitted all he wanted was 100 bucks because he is homeless and the victim should have realized directly after the fact that he/she was in no danger at all.
Click to expand...

"After the fact" is the operable phrase.

Just out of curiosity, if you confront a burglar in your house who claims to have a gun so you won't call the police without realizing you do have a gun and you shoot him. Later you find out that he didn't actually have a weapon, are you guilty of manslaughter? Murder? Are you even a criminal?
 
lunatic59 said:
"After the fact" is the operable phrase.

Just out of curiosity, if you confront a burglar in your house who claims to have a gun so you won't call the police without realizing you do have a gun and you shoot him. Later you find out that he didn't actually have a weapon, are you guilty of manslaughter? Murder? Are you even a criminal?
Click to expand...

He broke into your house. Pretty sure he doesn't actually need a weapon to give you the right to shoot at him. I could be wrong here though.
 
lordofthereef said:
He broke into your house. Pretty sure he doesn't actually need a weapon to give you the right to shoot at him. I could be wrong here though.
Click to expand...

Okay, then how about, met in a dark alley? Mugger says "gimme your cash, i have a gun." Even if it's a toy gun.
 
If I have a permit to carry a gun, and I shoot him, yes, that is fair too.

If the teller had clocked him over the head with a bat (something closer to what actually may have happened) that would be ok to. Neutralizing a perceived threat.

Look, all I am saying is there should be a middle ground. Something like stealing $100 off the counter and running with it on the "low" end, using a weapon that turns out to be fake to coerce someone into giving you the money being the middle ground, and then using a real weapon to do the deed on the "high" end.
 
lunatic59 said:
"After the fact" is the operable phrase.

Just out of curiosity, if you confront a burglar in your house who claims to have a gun so you won't call the police without realizing you do have a gun and you shoot him. Later you find out that he didn't actually have a weapon, are you guilty of manslaughter? Murder? Are you even a criminal?
Click to expand...


In the state I live in even if he has a gun you are guilty. :(
 
lunatic59 said:
"After the fact" is the operable phrase.

Just out of curiosity, if you confront a burglar in your house who claims to have a gun so you won't call the police without realizing you do have a gun and you shoot him. Later you find out that he didn't actually have a weapon, are you guilty of manslaughter? Murder? Are you even a criminal?
Click to expand...

Actually if you have a sign outside your House claiming that Trepassers will be prosecuted severely ,the offense will be diluted.
Things in your favour:
You have warned trespasser about the consequences of entering.
You have been issued a gun and license for self defense.
He broke in your house despite of your warning.
He was about to commit a level offense .
You believed he was in possession of firearm .
You also believed he was going to use a firearm.
In desperation you reached for gun as an act of self defense.
Till you fired the shot you believed that the robber was in possession of firearm with which he could attack you any moment

Any other detail will actually depend on how good lawyer you hire and the circumstantial evidence collected .:D
 
Extenuating circumstances are a factor in sentencing. Or, at least they should be. Motive, remourse, length of criminal activities... The homeless guy, was desperate to be able to eat, sleep (motive), so he made a bad decision that lasted all of 20 minutes (length of criminal activities), and decided to turn himself in (remourse). Yet, he got sentenced pretty harshly. The bankers motive was greed, plain and simple. His crime was over an extended period of time. And, he showed no remourse, yet all he got was a slap on the wrist. Kinda sad really...
 
I still can't stop thinking about the length of the bankers sentence. A month for every $75 MILLION. Was the money recuperated.
This is why people are angry are at austerity (which i support [the austerity measures]). They are having their healthcare, their services, and their income cut, and the cost of services increased, because of these people. And they get feck all punishment. The suicide rate has increased a lot here. These people hold a lot of the blame. Health services cut. People die. Again they hold a lot of the blame.
This is why i think the financial industry is a joke.
 
If I were emperor, these white collar criminals who bilk investors out of billions would be locked in a room for an hour with those who lost their life savings. Of course this would be after introducing their genitalia to jumper cables ... which is probably one reason I am not emperor.
 
shadowninty said:
I still can't stop thinking about the length of the bankers sentence. A month for every $75 MILLION. Was the money recuperated.
This is why people are angry are at austerity (which i support [the austerity measures]). They are having their healthcare, their services, and their income cut, and the cost of services increased, because of these people. And they get feck all punishment. The suicide rate has increased a lot here. These people hold a lot of the blame. Health services cut. People die. Again they hold a lot of the blame.
This is why i think the financial industry is a joke.
Click to expand...

There are lot of jurisdiction and issues involved.
Suppose a CEO commits a fraud
He diverts the money to country in which he know that there is no extradition treaty and the privacy laws are strong or just the red tape is good enuf to last longer than the sentence he has to serve.
he serves the sentence goes to the country .He still has money ,he is in country with no extradition treaty and he can go out of sight in no time.
If however suppose 1 person commits suicide due to CEO's fraud, the CEO should be made accountable for the person's suicide.
A guy mentioned above that a person with gun is scary thats why.Yes it is scary for full One minute. Either you die at his hands or live to tale the tale and you dont think about it.Normal life begins again after a day or two
However if you lose a job ,you lose a livelihood.
Your job may affect directly you and/or indirectly your spouse and kids.
That kind of effect is much worse than a guy poining a gun at you.
But in the (Blind) eyes of law ,CEO is not responsible for the life of an employee.
 
karandpr said:
If however suppose 1 person commits suicide due to CEO's fraud, the CEO should be made accountable for the person's suicide.
A guy mentioned above that a person with gun is scary thats why.Yes it is scary for full One minute. Either you die at his hands or live to tale the tale and you dont think about it.Normal life begins again after a day or two
However if you lose a job ,you lose a livelihood.
Your job may affect directly you and/or indirectly your spouse and kids.
That kind of effect is much worse than a guy poining a gun at you.
But in the (Blind) eyes of law ,CEO is not responsible for the life of an employee.
Click to expand...

Do you really want a law that makes a CEO liable for another person's suicide? Think about that for a moment. Once the law is passed to punish those evil CEOs, it could apply to you.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Do you really want a law that makes a CEO liable for another person's suicide? Think about that for a moment. Once the law is passed to punish those evil CEOs, it could apply to you.
Click to expand...
I want CEO liable to suicide of an employee of his company.
CEO should also re-imburse the amount of money he fraudulently earned.
If he cant or uses underhanded tricks like using offshore account then he must pay back to the community.
Since the power of the economic fraudster lies in his knowledge of finance ,he should use the knowledge to help the law catch others like him. That woule be equal reimbursement.
Every law can be used against me or you,thats why it should be law.
Well as a matter of fact a gun can be used against you. Why dont they ban it altogether?
Cos we are aware of the existence of gun as a weapon which takes lives.
Economic fraudsters use wile and smartness which affects livelihoods .
They use methods and techniques of which only a fraction can be proved .
The consequence of an economic fraud is measured in dollars.
However indirect consequences like effect to livelihoods of employees is not taken in account.
 
nlsme said:
Extenuating circumstances are a factor in sentencing. Or, at least they should be. Motive, remourse, length of criminal activities... The homeless guy, was desperate to be able to eat, sleep (motive), so he made a bad decision that lasted all of 20 minutes (length of criminal activities), and decided to turn himself in (remourse). Yet, he got sentenced pretty harshly. The bankers motive was greed, plain and simple. His crime was over an extended period of time. And, he showed no remourse, yet all he got was a slap on the wrist. Kinda sad really...
Click to expand...

If the courts take pity on this man, it sends a signal that the law is soft and robbing someone at gunpoint is a great solution because the penalties are not all that bad. So the law must be tough on everyone. For the most part, things work out quite well and bad people go away.

And before (some of you) you say he only pretended to have a gun and he did not really have a gun, too bad for him. He had a gun as far as that poor teller was concerned.

I recall the story about a man that went to prison for stealing a few items from a convenience store or some such. He would be able to watch rapists and murderers arrive, serve their sentences, and leave before him, because this petty thief got (I think) 50 years in jail.

Some people thought that was absolutely unfair and wrong to jail this poor sot for fifty years for stealing something like thirty dollars worth of crap. What actually happened, is the robber learned first hand about mandatory minimum sentences and the Three Strikes Rule. So yes, he deserved fifty years for stealing a handfull of junk.

As for what should be done with the other fella, what does the law say? Was he sentenced in accordance with the guidelines? Forget the comparisons and look at what happened and if his sentence or punishment was in-line with current rules.

Personally, I think such financial crimes deserve long prison sentences. These days, money is tight and if we are robbed, it hurts.

I think we need to bring back the chain gang and make all financial crimes punishable by X number of years deep in the swamps of Georgia or Florida, where they break rocks six days a week, in the 99% humidity.
 
karandpr said:
I want CEO liable to suicide of an employee of his company.
CEO should also re-imburse the amount of money he fraudulently earned.
If he cant or uses underhanded tricks like using offshore account then he must pay back to the community.
Since the power of the economic fraudster lies in his knowledge of finance ,he should use the knowledge to help the law catch others like him. That woule be equal reimbursement.
Every law can be used against me or you,thats why it should be law.
Well as a matter of fact a gun can be used against you. Why dont they ban it altogether?
Cos we are aware of the existence of gun as a weapon which takes lives.
Economic fraudsters use wile and smartness which affects livelihoods .
They use methods and techniques of which only a fraction can be proved .
The consequence of an economic fraud is measured in dollars.
However indirect consequences like effect to livelihoods of employees is not taken in account.
Click to expand...

You might want it, but there are far reaching implications to such a law. You think the law will be applied to a bad CEO but it could very easily be applied to you at some point.

The family members can sue and demand restitution for the victims, but a law is a terrible and ill-considered idea.

Yes, they should reimburse the victims. This has always been the way if it. Sadly, much of the cash disappears.
 
Bob Maxey said:
If the courts take pity on this man, it sends a signal that the law is soft and robbing someone at gunpoint is a great solution because the penalties are not all that bad. So the law must be tough on everyone. For the most part, things work out quite well and bad people go away.

And before (some of you) you say he only pretended to have a gun and he did not really have a gun, too bad for him. He had a gun as far as that poor teller was concerned.
Click to expand...

Robbing a place without a weapon, in the eyes of the law, already it the better solution because there is a lesser maximum sentance. All we (or at least I) are suggestion is to have "pretending" to brandish a weapon be somewhere in the middle. I am sure maximum sentences are different but for ease of explanation, allow me to use an example.

Robbing a place without a weapon is a maximum of five years
Robbing a place WITH a weapon is a maximum of 15 years
I am suggesting we have something in the middle, of a maximum of ten years, for pretending to have a weapon. After all, mimicking a weapon is somewhere in between not having one at all, and then having one.

Let me use an example.

When I was in Chicago a few months ago with some friends we were stopped by a "shoe shine guy" on the bridge. Long story short, he squirted some shoe polish on my friend's shoes and then started demanding $7 a shoe for the "service" he provided. After some swearing, he started reaching in his pockets, for what turned out to be a cell phone, though he fondled it for a good two minutes. He was clearly drugged out, looking to score, which made us even more nervous

So, while he was fondling it, I thought "wow, this guy is going to pull a weapon on us over $14! This is insane!" Turns out it wasn't a weapon, but in my mindset I was scared that it was. I was just like "the poor teller" in that situation.

Should the guy have been thrown in jail for threatening me with what I perceived to be a weapon? In the heat of the moment I sure perceived my life to be in danger.

I think not. Why? Well, I can perceive anything any way I want, and so can the teller. But if our lives were, in fact, in no danger at the time, there should certainly be a lesser charge.
 
I bet the bank robber if you look in to his past that he has past convictions in there. I dont get it where some of you are saying he really didnt have a guy so no harm no foul. So if I walked up to someone and say I have a gun and I am going to blow your brains out if you dont give me your money. Nothing should be done to me because I never had a gun in the first place. So it has no reason being in the case?

No matter if you really have a gun or not. If you say you have one or use a toy gun. The person on the other end of it dont know its fake or you dont really have one. For all they know is the person has one and is in fear of their life. So thats why guy number 2 got 15 years. He did a violent crime and I bet he had past dealings with the court system.
 
Jedi,
I am a little confused. Who is saying "no harm no foul". AFAIK everyone "defending" this man is simply saying that making the statement, "I have a gun", should not be the same thing as actually having a gun. What he did was still wrong, we just think he got too harsh a sentence.

We are aware with what the law says. It is armed robbery weather you have a weapon or are pretending to have a weapon. I get that. I disagree with that law because I don't find it to be the same thing. For one thing, with a fake weapon, you don't end up shooting someone to death in the heat of the moment if they decide not to comply with your demands. That is fact. You actually need the real gun to shoot the teller who isn't doing what you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom