Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Leicas stolen - LUG strikes back!
From: corbeau@hekizan.com
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:56:03 -0700
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021024083954.00a65c10@mail.hekizan.com>

At 12:47 PM 10/24/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>C.,
>
> > Yes, but remember you will be putting a teenage
>
>I don't believe we know she was a teenager.  It was said she was a "young
>girl", and that can mean 20's, depending on how old you are.

Point taken.

> > mother in jail
>
>I don't believe anyone was suggesting jail.

I'm not an attorney but I imagine theft of $4,000+ worth of anything is 
grand theft and a felony.  Even so, maybe she wouldn't go to jail but 
people certainly go to the stripey hole for less.


> > ...all over a camera that has been returned.
>
>Hum.  "returned".  She was caught trying to pawn off stolen goods, and it
>was taken from her at that point in time.  I guess it was returned in some
>sense of the word, but certainly NOT by her own doing.

I did not post returned by the perp. Please don't put ASCII into my keyboard.

> > Through the veil of distance, I have a feeling the cop/judge in
> > charge knew
> > exactly what they were doing when they processed the case.
>
>I wasn't aware the case had been "processed" to any end, as it was stated
>that the DA's office was "surprised that she'd only been given a ticket"
>given the value of the gear.  So, the cop/judge etc. didn't have complete
>info apparently.  The only thing that was relayed, as far as I read, was a
>"ticket" was issued...and she was remanded to "some sort of counseling
>program for treatment".

Semantics.  Someone wrote a ticket so they 'processed'  the case or 
whatever you want to call it.  My point, which I thought I explicitly 
stated, was that the cop/judge/whoever issued the 
ticket/processed/whatever, may well have known that the value of the goods 
pushed this crime into felony range but chose to 
ignore/overlook/playdumb/whatever because they thought the social impact on 
the kids was greater than the value (what value is also debatable) of full 
prosecution for theft of a camera.  If it had been the latest of a string 
of similar offenses, perhaps the outcome would have been 
different.  There's no way to tell given the (lack of) information.

Again, as stated, this is not my opinion of a proper course of action, 
simply a possible explanation for why the woman was simply given a 
ticket.  Personally, I assure you, I am not known for my leftward leanings 
or a soft stance on crime as attested by my giant metal box chock full of 
long and short oily black things that I am licensed to carry in public and 
that make the neighbors nervous when they come over to borrow tools.

C.

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from corbeau@hekizan.com (Re: [Leica] Leicas stolen - LUG strikes back!)