lordofthereef
Android Expert
The first guy was convicted by the merit of volumes of money he stole. Similarly, a bankrobber stealing tons more money than a mere $100 is going to receive a more sever punishment.I agree, but the first guy didn't.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The first guy was convicted by the merit of volumes of money he stole. Similarly, a bankrobber stealing tons more money than a mere $100 is going to receive a more sever punishment.I agree, but the first guy didn't.
I agree, but the first guy didn't.
Agree, 3b$ is more then 40 month though. Consider how many lost to this guy? Each individual he scammed should have netted him 40 month.The first guy committed a big financial crime and the other person committed armed robbery. Different crimes entirely and they should not be compared.
Both should do time and in accordance with the respective sentences.
Life is tough, wear a cup.
Apparently the normal number for that kind of money is 6 years, based on the article. 40 months is a little over half that... and with "good behavior", less still.Agree, 3b$ is more then 40 month though. Consider how many lost to this guy? Each individual he scammed should have netted him 40 month.
Agree, 3b$ is more then 40 month though. Consider how many lost to this guy? Each individual he scammed should have netted him 40 month.
I think that's the point though. Perhaps some are happy with what this guy got just not comparatively tow hat the other guy got. Hence they are fighting for lesser sentences in specific cases.So fight for tougher sentences. Simple, really.
I agree with Bob from a legal standpoint, but not from a moral one. Situations like this teach us all one thing: don't turn yourself in next time.
On the positive note, the homeless guy probably isn't going to be worrying about being hungry or having shelter to sleep under for a good while.
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.
So would it be better for the teller to perceived that the guy does not have a gun and acted upon that? I mean those are the only 2 scenarios available.
The other scenerio is that I perceived what the guy has in his pocket pointing towards me as he tries to rob me is NOT a gun and act upon that....but it turns out that it was a gun and I get shot. So stupid me to assume that what he had in his pocket wasn't a gun.
Its because he's black
we need punishments that are more in line with the actual harm caused by the crime committed, not on arbitrary sentencing guidelines.