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

A Tale of Two Sentences

lordofthereef said:
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.
Click to expand...

The victim does not know if you have a gun or not. Yes, the victim will not die by gun if the robber does not have a gun, but the victim does not know.

What about the victim that thinks you have a gun and he shoots you? Are you saying that perhaps the victim should be tried for murder because he shot an unarmed person? That is not what you said, but should it work one way or both ways if you change the law to make a threat somehow different than the reality?

Or does it/should it only work one way, where the robber is given more consideration than the victim?

What about kidnapping? You do not know if your kid will die. Or bombers that have no bomb, but threaten a city?

I am not sure how you can say there is a difference (as far as the victim is concerned) between a threat and reality.
 
so then by your reckoning:

without a gun 5 yrs
pretending to have gun but not 10 yrs
having a gun 15 years

sounds reasonable......... but lets take it further

having a gun but not loaded 12.5 years (still no chance of shooting someone... you actually need bullets in your gun)

having a gun but it has a broken firing pin 11.7 years (still no chance of shooting someone... you need a firing pin to make the gun fire)

having a stick of dynamite in your hand but no fuse 13.2 years ( no chance of blowing anything up without a fuse)

parking a tank at the front door with the barrel pointed toward the teller but having no shells....... 14.3 years (without shells its just a well armored truck)

we could go on forever........ I guess this is probably the reason why having a gun or INDICATING that you have a gun are viewed the same under the law

as far as this specific case goes...... for those so quick to spout out the injustice blah blah...... bare in mind that a little research would show you Roy Brown does indeed have a lengthy criminal background........ IMO the injustice is that his sentence is far too short

but it does make a good story to sell papers right?
 
copestag said:
as far as this specific case goes...... for those so quick to spout out the injustice blah blah...... bare in mind that a little research would show you Roy Brown does indeed have a lengthy criminal background........ IMO the injustice is that his sentence is far too short

but it does make a good story to sell papers right?
Click to expand...

It make a great story for the paper because it seems so unreasonable. I dimly recall the article and I can't remember reading about a prior record or records. If true, it shows something. Not saying you are incorrect, just something I wondered about.

How many years if I use a Barrett .50?
 
lordofthereef said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the person doesnt know you dont have a real gun. All the teller has to go by is what the bank robber tells them. So for all they know the robber has a real gun and will fear for their life. Thats why we have that law to protect the teller and not to just add more time to the robber just to pick on him. He is a criminal but yet you think he should get special treatment because he is homeless.
 
To sum it up, sure, if the weapon was not loaded, there should be less of a sentence. Regardless of the weapon, at point blank range (the range of a robbery, generally speaking, and especially in this case), it is going to be equally fatal if the robber decides to use it.

And again, I am not defending this guy. I have no idea what is prior records indicate and it doesn't matter. Under current law he was brought to justice, I get that. I am simply pointing out my disagreement with how an armed robbery is defined. I could literally walk into a bank, pick up a stapler, start swinging it around and brandishing it as a weapon, demand money, and I am now an armed robber in the eyes of the law. IMO, that is ludicrous.
 
lordofthereef said:
To sum it up, sure, if the weapon was not loaded, there should be less of a sentence. Regardless of the weapon, at point blank range (the range of a robbery, generally speaking, and especially in this case), it is going to be equally fatal if the robber decides to use it.

And again, I am not defending this guy. I have no idea what is prior records indicate and it doesn't matter. Under current law he was brought to justice, I get that. I am simply pointing out my disagreement with how an armed robbery is defined. I could literally walk into a bank, pick up a stapler, start swinging it around and brandishing it as a weapon, demand money, and I am now an armed robber in the eyes of the law. IMO, that is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Again the person its pointed at does not know its not loaded. If I had a .45 pointed to your head and say I will pull the trigger if you dont give me what I want. How can you tell its not loaded? THats why the law was changed. As many robbers was getting lighter sentences because they was using unoloaded weapons, toy guns, or just a hand in a coat pocket. So they was getting hardly no jail time and back doing the same thing.


Beg to differ but his priors do matter and are taken in to consideration on his current sentencing. Guess you never heard of the three strike rule?
 
Dark Jedi said:
Again the person its pointed at does not know its not loaded. If I had a .45 pointed to your head and say I will pull the trigger if you dont give me what I want. How can you tell its not loaded? THats why the law was changed. As many robbers was getting lighter sentences because they was using unoloaded weapons, toy guns, or just a hand in a coat pocket. So they was getting hardly no jail time and back doing the same thing.


Beg to differ but his priors do matter and are taken in to consideration on his current sentencing. Guess you never heard of the three strike rule?
Click to expand...

Please read my entire statement. I am not implying that in this particular case priors don't matter. I am saying that they make little difference in terms of the concepts I am discussing. I did say he got what was coming, in terms of the law, after all. I also mentioned that I am not defending the guy, but that I am in disagreement with the legal definition of armed robbery.

And again, I don't think it matters what I think when the gun is to my head. Fact is, if it wasn't loaded, I clearly had no intention to hurt/kill you with it. Somehow, when the victim of the robbery perceives his life to be in danger, it is as bad as his life actually being in danger. That is all I disagree with.
 
lordofthereef said:
Please read my entire statement. I am not implying that in this particular case priors don't matter. I am saying that they make little difference in terms of the concepts I am discussing. I did say he got what was coming, in terms of the law, after all. I also mentioned that I am not defending the guy, but that I am in disagreement with the legal definition of armed robbery.

And again, I don't think it matters what I think when the gun is to my head. Fact is, if it wasn't loaded, I clearly had no intention to hurt/kill you with it. Somehow, when the victim of the robbery perceives his life to be in danger, it is as bad as his life actually being in danger. That is all I disagree with.
Click to expand...
But that what it comes down to is what the victim perceives.

Look at it this way if the victim lets say has a heart condition and our man walks in with a note and sayd I have a gun and shows her his hand in his pocket. Then the woman scared for her life has a heart attack and dies. I guess its not murder as he never really had a gun in the first place. Its one of those oh well she should of known he didnt have a real gun.
 
Dark Jedi said:
But that what it comes down to is what the victim perceives.

Look at it this way if the victim lets say has a heart condition and our man walks in with a note and sayd I have a gun and shows her his hand in his pocket. Then the woman scared for her life has a heart attack and dies. I guess its not murder as he never really had a gun in the first place. Its one of those oh well she should of known he didnt have a real gun.
Click to expand...

I think that would be considered mansalughter (but please correct me on that). He would be liable because he made threats and caused her heart failure. He should NOT be guilty for having a gun, being that he didn't have one.

I can perceive anything that I want. Hell, I perceived that the guy had a weapon in his pocket when he was fiddling with his cell phone (in my Chicago visit experience above). That doesn't mean I am going to claiming he assaulted me for money. The guy just had the jitters from being tweaked out.

All I am saying is that I BELIEVE that what the victim perceives is irrelevant. If I didn't have a weapon, I didn't have a weapon. I am well aware that the courts, and many others, disagree with me.
 
What was the arrest record for each of the two individuals?
The law proscribes certain penalties for fraud and for armed robbery. I'm surprised a mod would take part in such biased posting.
 
vailpass said:
What was the arrest record for each of the two individuals?
The law proscribes certain penalties for fraud and for armed robbery. I'm surprised a mod would take part in such biased posting.
Click to expand...
The point is is that these penalties are wrong, at least for the banker.

EDIT: Oh, and mods are people too, lest you forget.
 
lordofthereef said:
I think that would be considered mansalughter (but please correct me on that). He would be liable because he made threats and caused her heart failure. He should NOT be guilty for having a gun, being that he didn't have one.

I can perceive anything that I want. Hell, I perceived that the guy had a weapon in his pocket when he was fiddling with his cell phone (in my Chicago visit experience above). That doesn't mean I am going to claiming he assaulted me for money. The guy just had the jitters from being tweaked out.

All I am saying is that I BELIEVE that what the victim perceives is irrelevant. If I didn't have a weapon, I didn't have a weapon. I am well aware that the courts, and many others, disagree with me.
Click to expand...

Try this: go to your airport and joke about having a bomb or a gun. Merely mention having a bomb or a gun and see what happens. Raise your voice and say, "bomb." Discuss your latest spy thriller in which the protagonist has a nice gun for that matter.

Chances are you do not have a gun or a bomb but witness the effect of just mentioning such devices on your person. Happy interrogations.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Try this: go to your airport and joke about having a bomb or a gun. Merely mention having a bomb or a gun and see what happens. Raise your voice and say, "bomb." Discuss your latest spy thriller in which the protagonist has a nice gun for that matter.

Chances are you do not have a gun or a bomb but witness the effect of just mentioning such devices on your person. Happy interrogations.
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to be missing my point. I don't disagree that the scenario you provided would play out the way you claim, possibly to a T. All I am saying is that I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
 
lordofthereef said:
Everyone seems to be missing my point. I don't disagree that the scenario you provided would play out the way you claim, possibly to a T. All I am saying is that I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...

Most of us get your point: you believe that if a person pretends to have a gun and he robs you, and later it is discovered that he did not have a weapon, that he was simply pretending, the law should say it does not matter that he actually did not have a gun, so no additional charges should be attached.

And most of us absolutely know you are wrong and it does not matter if there was a gun or not; the threat is all we need. The threat of a gun must count during arrest and sentencing.

We are correct because we see the big picture and many of us disagree With you because we know you do not see it.

Fair enough?

Bob
 
Fair enough, but, to me, that isn't proof that anyone here is right or wrong. I don't deny the threat of a gun is necessary in sentencing. It should be the THREAT of a gun, if all it was was a threat in my eyes.

In your own example, me talking about my novel that I just wrote with bombs being a main theme. Does that somehow translate into the threat of a bomb? I personally do not think so.

EDIT:
Also, in the specific scenario (the bank robbery) it seems there wasn't even a threat of a gun. guy had hand in pocket and announced that this was a robbery. Someone decided this must be a gun, even though apparently he did not announce it as such, yet he was tried for armed robbery.
 
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the second sentence. The crime didn't fit the punishment and all that. But what about the first? Is his sentence fair compared to the second?
 
kool kat2 said:
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the second sentence. The crime didn't fit the punishment and all that. But what about the first? Is his sentence fair compared to the second?
Click to expand...
When comparing sentences i think the banker should get life without parole.
When not I'd say 20-30 Years
 
kool kat2 said:
Everyone seems to be concentrating on the second sentence. The crime didn't fit the punishment and all that. But what about the first? Is his sentence fair compared to the second?
Click to expand...

Apparently, the second guy had many priors. Breaking the law (on record) multiple times is generally looked at more strictly than a first offense, everything else being equal.
 
Bob Maxey said:
So what is the problem? If Mr. Brown committed first degree robbery combined with an apparent threat of a weapon, what should the judge do?

If you walk into a bank and rob the place and scare the teller with the suggestion of a gun, darn right, you go to jail. It is where you need to be.

Sorry folks, I guess I am the only one here that says he got exactly what he deserved.

Bob
Click to expand...
I agree, but the first guy didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom