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...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:45:40 -0800 (PST), Molly Brown
Many / most all states now have a three strike rule.
"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). 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
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.
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.
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
His claim for defense was that the bear ran up a tree and he just
standing there watching it . The Park Ranger saw different.
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.
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. :-)
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
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.
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
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...
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
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:
"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
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!"
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
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.
Doesn't count. Subject was: "WAY OT: Loon Over MyYammy" [11/21/2010].
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
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
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.