I didn’t say it did. She was a jerk- allow me to condemn her actions.
However, this thread isn’t about her actions- it’s about **Magellan’s **insistence that her actions are an example of “Liberal Tolerance”. If she somehow represents all of liberaldom, then every bad action by any member of the conservative side (and hell, there’s a bunch of 'em, ain’t there?) represent the overall tone of conservatives.
Don’t like it? Tell **Magellan **to knock it off.
What is the relevant legal definition of “force” that qualifies her theft as robbery, and what case law shows that similar acts are treated as robbery?
I, of course, have no answers to these questions, which is why I’ll provisionally trust the DA’s decision not to bring this wildly inappropriate charge. But if you’re calling for three years in prison, I trust you’ve got a reason for doing so.
Incidentally, your idea that she should be charged with a lesser crime because she’s pregnant is pretty gross.
You know better but can’t force yourself to admit it. Not just a psycho, a coward too.
No, they don’t *solve *shit. They cause *more *problems. You’re really having trouble with this comprehension stuff, aren’t you?
In Texas, stealing something worth more than $50 is a felony; anything beneath that is a misdemeanor. Of course, we may be dealing with experts on California Criminal Law here…
The professor did wrong & is facing criminal charges. Not surprised to see all the Usual Suspects using this incident to vent their hateful spleen.
If Magellan had been there, he would have slugged the miscreant. If Damuri had–he would have shot her. Or so they imply…
Strongly disagree. Taking the sign is a property crime; challenging the student trying to get it back to “try and stop [the professor]” was a veiled threat. Not actionable, of course, but all the more disturbing since the pro-life position is clearly a minority view at UCSB.
I hope the professor gets some extra-embarrassing community service.
This does seem like the best outcome. I’d also be delighted if she lost her job for gross violation of the university’s ethics code (found in a pdf here):
This way we’re not paying tax dollars to engage with her further, and it’d be a humiliating warning to other faculty not to engage in shenanigans like this.
THIS would be the best outcome. I just assumed that it would be near impossible to fire a professor.
I sort of assumed she would lose her job as a matter of course.
Because nothing says “oppression by a totalitarian system of government” like a random act of lawbreaking by three individuals apparently operating without any connection to or incitement by some larger group.
This Miller Young person sounds like a crybaby, a whiner and a disgustingly self indulgent piece of work. I’d rather deal with her through social shaming than through jail time though.
Her name is certainly mud in the right-wing press, about which she is likely inconsolable.
This is something that I alluded to earlier. There is an upside for her in this. For some in her circle she becomes a heroic celebrity. So any punishment need to take that into account and make sure that it is a net negative for her. Her being fired with work wonderfully.
Like LHoD said, it’s the idea that she should spend years in prison that I was objecting to, not that she should be punished at all. A fine and/or some sort of community service would be appropriate, I think.
I saw no shortage of articles strenuously denouncing her… have you seen any that defend her? Or is this circle limited to her own coterie of ivory-tower liberals? Maybe one of them has a blog, at least?
Are you reading the same thread that I am? Because I don’t see anyone here saying that what she did was correct. The disagreement the professor is just another idiot doing something stupid, vs. A clear example of the evilness of liberals vs. a violent maraudar who should be put away to protect society.
They are just taking your posts to the logical conclusion. If having an armed populace is a good thing so that citizens can use deadly force to prevent car jackings, and if the stealing of the sign is as bad as a car jacking, then uses of deadly force is justified to prevent the stealing of the sign. So in the best of all possible worlds the girl would have been armed sh she could blow away the professor.
Which of course would have ended the life of the fetus inside her, which would kind of negate what the pro-life activist was on campus to agitate for. But hey, thanks to the OP and a few others we now know that this forcible taking of signs is a Very Bad Thing, deserving of violent reistance and lengthy jail terms, so omelet, eggs, etc.
There is no special legal meaning to the words.
In California, the elements of the felony of robbery are:
[ol]
[li]The taking of property from another person’s possession or immediate presence[/li][li]that does not belong to the actor[/li][li]against the victim’s will[/li][li]using force or threats[/li][li]with the intention of depriving the victim of the property permanently (or for such an extended period of time that the victim would be deprived of a substantial portion of the value or enjoyment of the property[/li][/ol]
Assuming the facts are substantially as related above, this case does meet the elements of the felony of robbery. To answer your specific question, California courts have held that any force or fear is legally sufficient if the taking is done without the victim’s consent. See, e.g., People v. Wolcott, 665 P. 2d 520 (Cal. Supreme Court 1983) (“The fear which induces the victim to part with his property “may be either: . . . . .[t]he fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery.”); see also People v. Anderson, 414 P. 2d 366 (Cal. Supreme Court 1966) (”…The terms ‘force’ and ‘fear’ as used in the definition of the crime of robbery have no technical meaning peculiar to the law and must be presumed to be within the understanding of jurors.")
That said, it’s worthwhile to note that an important part of the process of law is the concept of prosecutorial discretion. In my opinion, even though the acts described above fit within the elements of the felony crime of robbery, it would be very unusual for a prosecutor to decide to charge a felony under these circumstances. We do not expect prosecutors to behave like automatons - we vest discretion in them precisely because we rely upon their ability to apply the vast resources of their office in a way that makes good policy sense.
So you think that wallet or cell phone is too far removed from an anti-abortion sign sign to make them comparable?
I am at least as much outraged by the violation of this girl’s civil rights as I am with the robbery but it was a robbery and the MINIMUM sentence for robbery is 2 years.
First of all its not theft, its ROBBERY, there is a difference. Its a pretty big difference in the eyes of the law.
I think she deserves at least some jail time but a 5 year sentnce doesn’t mean 5 year jail time. 3 of those years for assualt/battery can only be probation (the assault/battery is not usually more than 6 months jail time unless you send someone to the hospital) and you are eligible for parole on the 2 year sentence for robber very soon after incarceration.
Well, thats not quite accurate, I demanded the MINIMUM sentence for robbery. That doesn’t necessarily mean jail time but I would object to her getting no jailtime if she weren’t pregnant.
So show me another case where something like this has happened and the criminal got no jail time. I don’t even see any indication that she was even arrested.
Bolding mine.
Self Addressed Stamped Envelope?
See also State v. Snyder, 172 P. 364, (Nev. Sup Ct 1918) “`Force’ is the power or energy by which resistance is overcome…” Quoted with approval by People v. Dreas, 153 Cal. App. 3d 623, (Cal Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 1984).