Home Depot Store Security

Page 2 of 4  
harry wrote:

Yes. "Capitalism - Green in tooth and claw"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you get CONVICTED of three FELONIES you go to jail for 25 to life, it is called "the three strikes law"...
Most professional shoplifters know more about the law than people think and won't steal felony-value amounts in any one attempt...
BTW, arrests have nothing to do with convictions Molly... You can be arrested many times and not end up getting convicted of the crimes you are accused of OR you could have ONE incident which results in three FELONY counts and get that 25 to life sentence for one event if you are convicted on all counts at trial... I really hate it when people spout off supposed knowledge about the law and then get it totally wrong...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quit right Evan. Thank you for being so specific.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:45:40 -0800 (PST), Molly Brown

Many / most all states now have a three strike rule.
Old stuff:
"On November 4, 1995, Leandro Andrade stole five videotapes from a K-Mart store in Ontario, California. Two weeks later, he stole four videotapes from a different K-Mart store in Montclair, California. Andrade had been in and out of state and federal prisons since 1982, and at the time of these two crimes in 1995, had been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escaping from prison. As a result of these prior convictions, the prosecution charged Andrade with two counts of petty theft with a prior conviction, which under California law can either be a felony or a misdemeanor. Under California's three strikes law, any felony can serve as the third "strike" and thereby expose the defendant to a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
[...]
"Kevin Weber was sentenced to 25 years to life for the crime of burglary (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).[21] Prosecutors said the six-time parole violator broke into the restaurant to rob the safe after a busy Mother's Day holiday, but triggered the alarm system before he could do it. When Weber was arrested, his pockets were full of cookies he had taken from the restaurant"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/30/2010 11:39 PM, Oren wrote:

Wasn't there a ex-con in Californiastan sent up for life after swiping a slice of pizza away from a kid? The screw you attitude of criminals is what keeps them in trouble. More than once, I've read in the local paper about a fugitive who was captured during a traffic stop because he wouldn't dim his headlights. It struck me that there must be a deep fundamental psychological defect that is responsible for the behavior of terminal screw-ups and they're so surprised when they get arrested.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I recall two memorable arrests in my career. One was for a chap who swiped a barbecued half-chicken from a Stop-And-Rob. Another was for one of two teenage girls who shoplifted a scarf from a discount store (her cohort stole a pair of nylon panties).
Both were charged with "Theft of Wool, Mohair, or Edible Meat," which, at that time, was a felony.
The rule in police work is to charge the suspect with the highest conceivable crime. This gives the DA negotiating room to reduce the charge to misdemeanor mopery in exchange for a guilty plea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The funniest I've seen was a young man that was sentenced to six months in federal prison.
"What are you locked up for?!"
"Um mm, harassing a bear!"
I nearly lost it. After we talked I went and read his file and it was true.
His claim for defense was that the bear ran up a tree and he just standing there watching it . The Park Ranger saw different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren wrote:

Heh!
Check this out. That small orange blob at the bottom of the tree is a cat named Jake. According to the news report, Jake was declawed, else the bear would be in really deep doo-doo.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ42QAtmwSIhGhMS5Llk81qPcU6RLsyGVhHz6ArZrYpgKn6OKJK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2010 8:36 PM, HeyBub wrote:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ42QAtmwSIhGhMS5Llk81qPcU6RLsyGVhHz6ArZrYpgKn6OKJK
I was over at my friend's place today and he is the guardian of a Rotwiener, a tiny Wiener dog who thinks she's a Rottweiler. My thumb is bigger than her snout but the little bitch will challenge anything. The funniest thing it the world is to see her go after a big laid back dog and the big dog looks down at this tiny Tasmanian Devil dog bouncing off of him and gnawing on one of his toes and I could swear the big dog has a WTF expression on his face/snout. The big dog's foot is bigger than the Rotwiener's head and I know he could flick the little dog across the yard with a wave of his paw but the good natured pooch just looks down at the crazy little bitch and may lick her head every now and then but it makes her crazier. It's side splitting funny. :-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/30/2010 9:37 PM, Evan wrote:

Funny thing about law, the law never seems to work according to law.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Alan Dershowitz posited several rules regarding the criminal law.
1. Virtually all criminal defendants are, in fact, guilty. 2. Rule #1 is known to the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney. 3. Many times convictions cannot be had without violating the defendant's rights. 4. Rule #3 is known to the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney. 6. Often what the defendant did cannot be proved and what can be proved is not what the defendant did. 7. Rule #6 is known to the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney.
Here's how a perp can be sent to the Grey Bar Hotel by merely changing ONE LETTER in the offense report.
"While on routine patrol, we turned the corner of "X" and "Y" streets and saw suspect "Z", known to us as a person with several prior convictions for auto theft, sitting ON a parked car we later determined to be stolen..."
Change "ON" to "IN" and see what happens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Michael Connelly quotes a friend of his who says the worst thing that can happen to a defense attorney is to have a client who is actually innocent.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

The good folks in Gitmo are not criminals and are not subject to the criminal laws of this country. Likewise they are not entitled to the safeguards and rights afforded to criminals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2010 8:31 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Then why on earth is our Affirmative Action administration trying them in civilian court?
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Damned if I know. Ignorance of the law, I presume.
I keep trying to knock down canards the progressives put up:
1. "We can't keep people locked up without a trial!" Sure we can. We do it all the time. Those found in civil contempt (i.e., non-payment of child support), Juveniles (who, under the law have no criminal capacity), Contagious desease carriers, Illegal immigrants (held under civil deporation rules), Emergency mental health declarations, and many classifications.
We can't lock up accused CRIMINALS without a trial, but enemy combatants are not "criminals." They do not get a right to a trial by jury, legal counsel, indictment by a grand jury, or their own witnesses. They are, moreover, probably not subject to the restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment."
2. "The president has no authority in this matter..." Check his Article II powers. As C-in-C, the president has ABSOLUTE power over military operations and neither the courts nor the Congress can gainsay his decisions. As one appellate judge put it "If the president's actions are unacceptable, the remedy is the next election."
And so on...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/1/2010 11:24 AM, HeyBub wrote:

What gets to me are the morons who keep claiming that The President has powers that he doesn't have then claiming that he doesn't have powers that he does have. It's mind boggling.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

That would be (quoting directly from the Constitution): The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Absolute? That's just nutty. You really enjoy rewriting history, don't you? Of course the President's actions can be checked and not only by the elective process. One merely needs to know recent history as in Youngstown Sheet and Tube vs. Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court threw out President Truman's seizure of the nation's steel mills, which he had defended as an emergency measure in wartime. It's probably important to note that the President, even though CinC, can't declare war. Only Congress can. Hardly an unchecked and absolute military commander. Congress can certainly refuse to fund any war the President chooses to fight, but spineless as they are, probably never would, even if Obama attacked Canada.
Or take the Pentagon Papers case. Justice Black, a former Klansman, joined the majority in ruling that when assertions of Presidential power collide with the Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, in that case), that pesky old Constitution wins hands down. It was written very clearly to PREVENT the executive from becoming a dictator because no one wanted another King George. That deliberately weak executive role left Presidents far less powerful than they would like to be and perhaps *need* to be. It has resulted in numerous attempts to "reach" farther than they are allowed to.
A more recent example from 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html
"The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it. Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions."
This wasn't just a "Bush thing." There have been near constant attempts by both parties to stand this pretty clear-cut balance of powers on its head (FDR, Truman, Nixon, Bush and many more all tried) but the fact is that the President can indeed be checked (eventually), even in wartime, when he attempts to arrogate power to himself that he is not entitled to by law. That fact that they *sometimes* get away with it doesn't make it legal. The loophole most who try to end-run the Constitution rely on is that the Court can't *restrain* them from doing something illegal, only rule that is was illegal or unconstitutional once they've done it.
As Justice Kennedy wrote in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195 "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is.'
It also seems you've forgotten about the most basic check on Presidential misconduct: Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.
If we allow *any* president to throw a US citizen into permanent detention with no one knowing where he is being held or why, how does that make us any different than Stalin and the KGB? It doesn't. It also sounds like you haven't thought out whether you really want Obama to be able to take a dislike to you, label you an enemy combatant and make you disappear with no chance of judicial review, because that's what it sounds like you're arguing for. I didn't want Bush making people disappear, nor do I want Obama doing it.
Due process is the cornerstone of all our judiciary and for good reason. The Supreme Court thought that preserving the concept of habeas corpus was something very important. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
- we now return you to your not even decently marked Off Topic excursion into "The Constitution - For God's sake, it doesn't say THAT!"
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

Do you have difficulty in understanding "Commander in CHIEF"? Neither the Youngstown case nor the steel mill episode (or the Pentagon Papers case) involved the military. The court went on at length about the president's authority in the Prize Cases. It concluded that it would be impossible, both practically and legally, for Congress - or the courts - to get involved in the strategy or tactics of waging war.
I agree that only the Congress can DECLARE war, but the president has unfettered authority to WAGE war. Remember, Clinton WAGED war on more countries than any president since FDR.
You are correct in that Congress can cut off funding for military operations. Teddy Roosevelt once asked Congress for an appropriation to send the "White Fleet" on an around-the-world tour, thereby demonstrating our nation's ability to operate globally. Congress declined to provide the money.
Roosevelt quipped: "Well, I have enough money to send the fleet HALFWAY around the world! Let's see if Congress will pay to get them back."

You make a good point. However, I NEVER start off-topic threads (well, maybe once or twice but they were clearly marked as such). That said, I don't allow what I believe to be in error to go unchallenged either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

Show one. Just one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

Doesn't count. Subject was: "WAY OT: Loon Over MyYammy" [11/21/2010]. (emphasis added)
And my exact statement, which you Dowderized, was "However, I NEVER start off-topic threads (well, maybe once or twice but they were clearly marked as such)."
Have you found an OT thread I started that wasn't so marked yet, or are you still thrasing, feeling ashamed, and vowing to strike back by exaggerating harder?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.