Bizarre activities, most of which took place in Florida

[Boethius]

FWIW, he wouldn't get any jail time in Canada, either.  Probably restitution and probation.  In the latter case, if he behaves, there would be no criminal record.


It's fairly obvious with most of these crimes that these individuals are what the better half describes as "chemically disbalanced".  A nuisance, but really, this again proves Lord Conrad Black's point about the U.S. having a prison industry.  I agree with him, it's a waste of human potential.

[Faux Pas]

It's not worth much  he didn't commit the crime in Canada. He probably won't do any more time, either.

Conrad Black could hardly be considered an authority on the subject even though he did serve time in a U.S. federal prison. I believe the nickname for where he was incarcerated is "Club Fed". He is after all a convicted criminal

[Boethius]

Oh, I think Conrad Black is an authority.   When he considers a subject, he does a heck of a lot of research. 


The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate, and even the largest number of prisoners, in the world.  Yet it is not safer than most countries with fewer prisoners. 

[Faux Pas]

Oh, I think Conrad Black is an authority.   When he considers a subject, he does a heck of a lot of research. 


The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate, and even the largest number of prisoners, in the world.  Yet it is not safer than most countries with fewer prisoners.

Then we have a differing of opinions. Let him serve time in a few real prisons in several different countries and get back to me. Obviously a convict with too much time on his hands.

[Boethius]

It doesn't change the fact he served time with fellow felons, all doing time for indictable offenses (i.e., more serious crimes), and that the types of convicts he encountered constitute the majority of those imprisoned in the U.S. - i.e., non violent criminals. 

[Faux Pas]

It doesn't change the fact he served time with fellow felons, all doing time for indictable offenses (i.e., more serious crimes), and that the types of convicts he encountered constitute the majority of those imprisoned in the U.S. - i.e., non violent criminals.

Doesn't make him an authority either. He didn't do what is considered "hard time," he was merely locked up and couldn't go anywhere. There were a number of federal penitentiaries where he could have served hard time but, that's not where he was. Mostly he was with other high brow white collar criminals. US prisons for the most part forsake reform years ago. It's punishment except for the special few with money and connections. He has both

[Boethius]

No, that's untrue.  Black has written about his prison experiences.  Certainly, many of those with whom he was incarcerated were white collar criminals, but he was also incarcerated with a lot of men who were there for drug crimes, mostly, drug use.


Black ended up teaching at the prison, teaching both American history and teaching prisoners to read.  There aren't too many white collar criminals who are illiterate, or barely literate.

[Anotherkiwi]

I have a hard time believing the same court and judge handles cases from jaywalking to murder anywhere.  There may be no designation of misdemeanor and felony in your country.  But, I am sure your judicial system recognizes differing levels of crimes. These no doubt are handled in different venues with different possible sentences. 

Who on earth equated jaywalking with murder?  Certainly not me.  The distinction I made was that there is no difference in criminal damage cases.  Yes, we do have different courts - District Court for less serious offences, and High Court for the most serious.

I don't want all crimes handled the same.  To me it would be idiotic and an inefficient use of the court's time and finances to have our most experienced judges bogged down with damaged windows while a killer was being tried in a court by a less experienced judge.

I agree, although a couple of High Court judges have told me that it can be refreshing to preside over the occasional trial in the District Court.  This can happen when the workload in the High Court eases off, for whatever reason.

So someone with enough money could just damage property at will then pay for it and repeat this process indefinitely?

That's just being silly. 

Jail time would come into play sooner or later.  The system would have to have a method of handling repeat offenders other than allowing them to buy their way out.

Restitution?  What about all the career criminals who can't or won't pay?  A fine is great for the government.  It is like a cool little crime tax.  But how does a fine benefit the guys who's door was destroyed?  What does he do when the criminal won't pay the restitution?  The possibility of jail time is the one bit of leverage that will usually make the criminal pay up if he/she can.

Fines and/or reparation payments are discussed before the sentence is imposed.  Should the defendant be unable to pay any or all of the monetary penalty, then a Court Order will be issued attaching his salary/wages or government benefit.  Believe me, that's the last thing that people want, so most (not all) will make every effort to pay it off.  As for the guy whose door was destroyed, his insurance company will foot the repair bill.  It is they who will eventually get the reparation money through the Court.  Of course jail is a possibility for a repeat offender, but only as an absolute last resort.

A moronic legal system would be one that allowed endless criminal property damage for people who could afford to buy their way out, or one that had zero threat of jail time for those who refused to pay for their crime.

No, people aren't buying their way out.  Do they do it in your country?

[Miquel Westano]

Who on earth equated jaywalking with murder? 

I don't know that anyone did.  It was just an example.

The distinction I made was that there is no difference in criminal damage cases.  Yes, we do have different courts - District Court for less serious 

Well let me try a better example.  Are you saying someone who breaks a window and someone who intentionally starts a fire and destroys a multi million dollar apartment complex would have no distinction in their cases since they are both criminal damage cases?  I find that hard to believe.

No, people aren't buying their way out.  Do they do it in your country?

You have to be kidding me on that, right? 

[Anotherkiwi]

Well let me try a better example.  Are you saying someone who breaks a window and someone who intentionally starts a fire and destroys a multi million dollar apartment complex would have no distinction in their cases since they are both criminal damage cases?  I find that hard to believe.

Of course those examples are different, because they are different crimes.  Your first example would be criminal damage (if intentional), but the second is arson, which is a whole different ball game.

No, people aren't buying their way out.  Do they do it in your country?

You have to be kidding me on that, right?

Which part is supposed to be humorous?  You seem to forget (if you ever knew) that New Zealand is officially the second-least corrupt country in the world.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/infographic/global

While people may occasionally wonder how some verdicts have been reached, defendants "buying their way out" is not one of the avenues.

[Anotherkiwi]

So what makes you think your laws are better or are better in this situation? Because the offender might have to go to jail? The only person or thing moronic in this incident is the perpetrator. He ordered a sausage biscuit then, finding out the price of the biscuit showed his ass, disrupted the business and punched the door out. No he doesn't have a right to do so, it wasn't his business and it wasn't his door.

You're getting way off my point here, which was questioning how this particular case could be construed as a felony.  The reasonable responses from other posters answered my question.  I quite agree with you that this particular perp is a moron, who shouldn't have done what he did.  However, my point is that all he did was break a door - it's not the end of the world!

This is just another example of your ultra liberalism clouding your judgement of right and wrong. Excusing the offender and blaming the set and establish laws of the land. In your progressive mind he's innocent and the law is wrong. This line of thought and you are a perfect example of everything wrong in the world today 

What hallucinogenic substances have you been smoking?  "Ultra liberalism"?  Seriously?  There's nothing cloudy about my judgement of right and wrong - I spent enough time as a Court prosecutor to be well aware of the difference.  Where have I excused this offender, or said that he is innocent?  I agree that anyone espousing this particular line of thought needs to be re-educated, but I would strongly disagree that I could possibly be a "perfect example of everything wrong in the world today!"

[Larry1]

This one is not from Florida. It's from South Carolina.

A couple is facing criminal charges after repeatedly calling 911 yesterday to report that possums and people were “jumping out of their refrigerator and microwave,” according to a police report.

... In addition to their claims about appliances, the pair told police that they had “pictures of worms coming out of the floor of their vehicle,” as well as images of “midgets and other people camouflaged.” Upon review of the photos, a cop noted that they actually showed “a basketball goal and a tree.”

While both Terry and Fowler denied being under the influence of any narcotics, cops concluded that the couple’s five 911 calls were likely triggered by the synthetic drug “flakka,” which often has hallucinatory effects on a user.

http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/flakka/flakka-911-possums-microwave-894521

Possums and amouflaged midgets. That flakka must be powerful stuff.

[tfcrew]

triggered by the synthetic drug “flakka,”

Purchased for just $5, it’s similar to bath salts. “It’s an agitated state, causes heart attacks, paranoia, schizophrenia,” Hunt said.
Florida has been ground zero for flakka, where one man was caught on camera kicking down a door to police headquarters in the southern portion of the state. Now, the Drug Enforcement Administration has tracked its troublesome movement to upstate New York, in Buffalo and Syracuse.
Hunt said it causes “crazy strength -- would take four police officers to restrain you.”

http://pix11.com/2015/11/05/synthetic-drugs-could-pose-next-epidemic-dea/

[Faux Pas]

You're getting way off my point here, which was questioning how this particular case could be construed as a felony.  The reasonable responses from other posters answered my question.  I quite agree with you that this particular perp is a moron, who shouldn't have done what he did.  However, my point is that all he did was break a door - it's not the end of the world!

I disagree. I stayed exactly on point. The offender didn't "just break a door". He broke the law in the process of breaking the door. When he broke the law his trespass became criminal. I assume it was raised to a felony based on what the others have stated, the price of the door. I really don't know but, it doesn't matter. The disruption of business and the breaking the door was a criminal act. Why is that moronic? Maybe things are different where you're from but here, nobody has a right to disrupt your business or break your door. There's laws against it.

What hallucinogenic substances have you been smoking?  "Ultra liberalism"?  Seriously?  There's nothing cloudy about my judgement of right and wrong - I spent enough time as a Court prosecutor to be well aware of the difference.  Where have I excused this offender, or said that he is innocent?  I agree that anyone espousing this particular line of thought needs to be re-educated, but I would strongly disagree that I could possibly be a "perfect example of everything wrong in the world today!"

Disagree if you wish. Makes me no difference. Nothing clouding your judgement while you blame the moronic cops and moronic laws? This from a court prosecutor no less? Yes AK, you are so far left you make Fathertime look like a moderate. Laws are not made to be broken. Like the law, disagree with it or not, it is the law of the land. Break the law and pay the penalty. You do grasp that don't you councilor?

[Anotherkiwi]

I disagree. I stayed exactly on point. The offender didn't "just break a door". He broke the law in the process of breaking the door. When he broke the law his trespass became criminal. I assume it was raised to a felony based on what the others have stated, the price of the door. I really don't know but, it doesn't matter. The disruption of business and the breaking the door was a criminal act. Why is that moronic? Maybe things are different where you're from but here, nobody has a right to disrupt your business or break your door. There's laws against it.

And where did I disagree with you?  My only query was how something apparently so minor could be constituted as a felony.  That particular point was the only thing I felt was moronic about the law.

Disagree if you wish. Makes me no difference. Nothing clouding your judgement while you blame the moronic cops and moronic laws? This from a court prosecutor no less? Yes AK, you are so far left you make Fathertime look like a moderate.

I have news for you - my views certainly don't make me any more than slightly left in this world.  I prefer to think of the relativity being more like the post which Boethius made a day or two ago - that the majority of posters on this forum are so far to the right that any opposing view, however "moderate" or "liberal," is seen as extreme left-wing.  That includes the treatment of Muzh by so many here.  While it's not a myth that that people in the USA have the right of free speech, because anything can get posted on here, it's pretty obvious that anyone who disagrees with the Republican view of the world gets dumped on pretty quickly.

Laws are not made to be broken. Like the law, disagree with it or not, it is the law of the land. Break the law and pay the penalty. You do grasp that don't you councilor?

I have no problem with the concept - it's the idea of something so relatively minor being accorded the status of a felony which I couldn't understand.  Maybe someone should review that particular law (and any that are similar by way of having monetary limits) and recommend an update to allow for inflation since the law was originally drafted.  $1,000 may have been a year's average salary then, but it's only a week's today.

[Gator]

While it's not a myth that that people in the USA have the right of free speech, because anything can get posted on here, it's pretty obvious that anyone who disagrees with the Republican view of the world gets dumped on pretty quickly.

This is less about the conservative RWD members and more about  the sad state of affairs of a divided nation.
Democrats outside of RWD can be just as bad, starting with their leaders. 

To illustrate this, the liberal voices here consider me a neocon, and in contrast self-tests peg me as a moderate.   I almost voted for Obama in 2008. 

[Faux Pas]

And where did I disagree with you?  My only query was how something apparently so minor could be constituted as a felony.  That particular point was the only thing I felt was moronic about the law.

If you own the business and losing customers, revenue as a result of the actions of this offender and have to replace the door then it's not "minor". Anyone even you, should have the right to own or conduct a business without being impeded or inconvenienced by individuals such as this. There is a law that insures it. Would you have felt better if he had pulled out a gun and shot the place up?

I have news for you - my views certainly don't make me any more than slightly left in this world.  I prefer to think of the relativity being more like the post which Boethius made a day or two ago - that the majority of posters on this forum are so far to the right that any opposing view, however "moderate" or "liberal," is seen as extreme left-wing.  That includes the treatment of Muzh by so many here.  While it's not a myth that that people in the USA have the right of free speech, because anything can get posted on here, it's pretty obvious that anyone who disagrees with the Republican view of the world gets dumped on pretty quickly.

Yes, they do. Your liberal views are not as shared with the rest of the world as much as you wish to proclaim. Yes, there are very liberal/socialist views prevalent throughout Europe and North America but, thanks to your peace loving Muslims, even that is changing very fast.

I have a lot of respect for Muzh and his views. I consider him my friend yet I am far from the right wing that you seem to believe that most here sit but, still far right from Muzh's beliefs. The only difference IMHO between the American right and left is Idealism vs Realism. I consider myself in the middle of that. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The problem with idealism is the realists are expected to pay for it. As for getting dumped on, if your positions or arguments can't stand up to scrutiny and you feel dumped on perhaps you should re-examine those views?

I have no problem with the concept - it's the idea of something so relatively minor being accorded the status of a felony which I couldn't understand.  Maybe someone should review that particular law (and any that are similar by way of having monetary limits) and recommend an update to allow for inflation since the law was originally drafted.  $1,000 may have been a year's average salary then, but it's only a week's today.

Why, because someone living a world away, doesn't live under the law feels it moronic and unjust? You have no skin in the game, no dog in the hunt yet you feel it completely acceptable to decide how others should live their lives. So very liberal of you AK

[Anotherkiwi]

Yes, they do. Your liberal views are not as shared with the rest of the world as much as you wish to proclaim. Yes, there are very liberal/socialist views prevalent throughout Europe and North America but, thanks to your peace loving Muslims, even that is changing very fast.

Simple mathematics shows that you live amongst a tiny minority of the world's population.  News flash, just in case you don't see any world news (other than Muslims setting off bombs) - the rest of the world does not necessarily share your views.  I'm not saying that it's better or worse - just different.  As I posted earlier, my views do NOT make me anywhere close to a member of the loony left.

As for getting dumped on, if your positions or arguments can't stand up to scrutiny and you feel dumped on perhaps you should re-examine those views?

I don't feel dumped on - I was referring to other posters who seem to get flamed as soon as they espouse a non-Republican viewpoint.

Why, because someone living a world away, doesn't live under the law feels it moronic and unjust? You have no skin in the game, no dog in the hunt yet you feel it completely acceptable to decide how others should live their lives. So very liberal of you AK

Do you EVER properly read what I write?  Try again.

[Larry1]

Given the interest in US criminal laws I thought I would post this story:

OAK LAWN, Ill. -- A disagreement over the meaning of all-you-can-eat led to an arrest at  a restaurant.

Oak Lawn police say Natasha West ordered the $4 all-you-can-eat pancakes at a Denny's Restaurant on November 6.

They say when West started sharing the pancakes with her friends, a waitress told them that was not permitted.

Police said West swore at the waitress and tried to hit her. The group then left the Denny's without paying.

http://wgntv.com/2015/11/13/irate-customer-arrested-after-sharing-all-you-can-eat-pancakes/

Miss West was charged with assault and damage to property. Although the article doesn't specify, my guess is that both were misdemeanors.

When I have ordered all you can eat dishes my understanding has been that it was all I could eat rather than all everyone at the table could eat.

[Larry1]

Moorish Nation, whose members make it their business to assume ownership of vacant luxury homes without paying a dime, appears to have established an outpost in one of Charlotte’s finest neighborhoods.

For at least three months, according to neighbors and attorneys familiar with the case, a woman named Ninti el Bey and up to eight other people have been living on and off in a 5,200-square-foot home in Piper Glen.

According to documents associated with the case, the 42-year-old Bey has launched a one-woman legal fight to keep control of the expansive stucco structure on Kelly Woods Lane. She has defied or threatened Realtors, the Piper Glen Homeowners Association and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police, documents indicate. She has been evicted at least once and was arrested as recently as Saturday.

Yet, Bey and her clan always seem to find a way to return, and neighbors say the lights come back on almost every night in the supposedly vacant house.

Moorish Nation – or at least the religious group’s radical offshoot that doesn’t recognize federal, state and local laws. Members also take a generously broad view of their rights to other people’s property – often targeting expensive homes that are vacant, foreclosed upon or up for sale, then filing nuisance court actions to hold their ground as long as possible.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article44522178.html

They are bringing communism to the US.

[Brasscasing]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article44522178.html
They are bringing communism to the US.

Not communism but anarchy, Larry. The radical offshoot of this group (although not necessarily affiliated  to them) call themselves "Sovereign Citizens". These are the people that are usually involved with this kind of activity.

They reject all laws and governance and believe they are answerable only to themselves.

We have them in Canada as well calling themselves Freemen of the Land or some such thing.

These people are generally considered dangerous to police or 'Caution Victors' (police jargon for violent) when dealing with them.

Brass

[Larry1]

It was unclear what the property damage charge related to in reply #143 above, in the fight over a patron buying the all-you-can-eat $4 pancakes and distributing them to the other people at her table. I think the answer involves another attack on a door:

West and her party then left Denny’s without paying their tab, but not before she repeatedly kicked a door on the way out.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/all-you-can-eat-pancakes-rage-648920

Kicking or punching doors of fast food restaurants seems to be a common occurrence here.

[alex330]

Naked car burglar wanted by Port St. Lucie policePort St. Lucie police are asking for the public’s help in finding a naked man who burglarized a vehicle Sunday.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/naked-car-burglar-wanted-by-port-st-lucie-police/npPGG/

[Larry1]

Once again we see another domestic fight over food. Violent arguments over food seem to be even more common than violent arguments about sex.

When I saw the headline I thought this would be in Florida.

According to a criminal complaint, a patrolman dispatched to the residence spotted the 6’, 240-pound Armstrong repeatedly punching the 15-year-old boy. Armstrong and the child told officers that the confrontation was due to Armstrong’s displeasure about the burrito her son brought home.

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/another-taco-bell-burrito-attack-347291

For the metric folks, she is 1.83 tall and weighs 109 kgs. Big mama.

I think it's safe to say that she will not be mother of the year.

[ML]

Violent arguments over food seem to be even more common than violent arguments about sex.

Sex is desired.
Food is needed.