So, just another Internet tough guy. :rolleyes:
I am unable to find any case involving the theft of a sign in which criminal charges were pressed. Perhaps you can do better.
So show me where she was arrested.
And I don’t want her to spend 5 years in prison. At least three of those years are probation (for the assault and battery) at least half the 2 year sentence for robbery can be mitigated by parole (and frankly all but time served could be converted to probation if this is a first offense).
If this sort of thing isn’t unusual, can you cite a few instances where this has happened before and the criminal didn’t ever see the inside of a jail?
2 years mandatory for robbing someone of a tic tac under threat of force. I didn’t write that law, the California state legislature did.
And we pillory conservativism on this page every day for something one conservative idiot does.
When she admits to taking the sign from the girl by force and says she was able to do it because she was stronger than the girl, thats force.
Its two years and its the minimum sentence if she is convicted (and barring jury nullification, I don’t see how she could not).
Why? 
Do you think it should be irrelevant?
You’re so stupid, you embarass other liberals.
Where do i imply that I would have shot her? You’re just making that up aren’t you?
Wait, I can’t tell is you are being sarcastic or not (I have heard anti-gun folks say some monumentally stupid shit that I can never be sure if i’m being whooshed or if the person is being serious) but do you really think that the logical conclusion of the right to keep and bear arms is shooting people for stealing an anti-abortion sign?
You do realize that there is a standard you can use deadly force, right? Carjacking, yes, someone walking away with your anti-abortion sign, no.
So how is shooting this professor the logical conclusion of guns in society?
It as the second hit on google for me.
A very convincing, well thought out argument. :rolleyes: Right on your level.
In the part where you’re equating the violent theft of a sign with the violent theft of a car.
Either acknowledge that your cherished fetish-based ideology has real consequences in the real world, or stop and think a bit until it comes to you.
Both are violent acts of theft, according to you, and even stealing a sign is worth more jail time than even a carjacker normally gets, according to you. So your own juvenile fetish-based worldview is simply being shown to you for what it is - and you can’t force yourself to confront it honestly.
Get help.
Not really on point.
None of those charges (or similar California-specific charges) would apply here. Not to mention the fact that the case involved an ongoing conspiracy to steal signs rather than an isolated incident.
I’m sure there is, but the fact remains that Ms. Dumbass-Miller-Young is actually charged with theft, not robbery.
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/mar/21/ucsb-professor-charged-theft-and-battery-after-con/ (first para)
Yes, I know the quoted police report also says ‘robbery’ but that’s not the eventual charge.
I would still like to clarify your view on the case, if you’re willing. Should all such (and by such I mean specifically the forcible taking of signs one doesn’t like) thefts, or robberies, as you prefer, result in multi-year sentences for persons found guilty, or is there something special about this case?
Also not to hijack, and not in any way to excuse Ms. Dumbass-Miller-Young’s actions, but the organization from whom the sign was taken apparently is called “Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust”. I mean, come on already.
Regarding the OP: I realize I am very late to the party, but I am baffled by the slur ‘feminazi’. Assuming it isn’t a cute euphemism for ones open declaration of misogyny, what is so threatening about feminism that warrants a comparison to The Nation Socialist German Workers’ Party?
So where do I equate the forcible taking of a sign with the violent theft of a car? The only mention of the word violence is made by people on YOUR side of the argument (mostly because they want to try and pretend that violence is the requirement for robbery rather than use (or threat of use) of force) and the only time someone mentions carjacking is once again, when someone on YOUR side of the argument try to imply that I might react to this sort of robbery the same way I would react to a carjacking.
You do a pretty good job of arguing against the things you wished I had said but not so good at arguing against the things I actually say. If they didn’t have the term “straw man” to describe that sort of logical fallacy, we would just call it lying.
Where do I say anything about carjacking? You just keep imagining stuff don’t you? Where do I say anything about violence? Violence is not a requirement for robbery.
The minimum sentence for robbery isn’t MY idea. Take it up with the California legislature, its their law.
The minimum sentence for carjacking is three years (garden variety robbery is two). And the associated assault and battery that goes with it would depend on the severity of the injury and any aggravating factors (like use of a weapon) and would almost certainly be greater than what I am suggesting for this case. IOW, you don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual.
I’m not the one that is so fixated on guns (or pissed off at miserably failing as defending their position on guns) that I feel the need to bring other threads into this one. You should really get some help for that.
What makes you think the news article is more accurate than the police report?
I think I mentioned prosecutorial discretion above and I am fine with it in this case but if someone meets all the elements of a crime, why wouldn’t you charge them with that crime and plea down to theft?
As I understand the way the system works, the police report does not specify the charges actually brought. Bringing charges is the responsibility of the District Attorney’s office.
Here is a quote from an Reuters article, itself quoted by Newsbusters (just so there’s no question of being liberally biased):
Are we good, then?
You asked about people being charged for stealing signs. I mean the woman is being charged with theft of signs right? And she is being arrested right? Was the professor arrested and driven away in a police car?
You want a case exactly like this one?
Yep, and I said I’m OK with that. But she is actually guilty of robbery and I think the prosecutor should have charged her with robbery and pleading down to theft, if that’s what he wanted.
Yes. I don’t care whether its robbing Fred Phelps of his signs, robbing code pink of their signs or even robbing 16 year old girls of their anti-abortion signs. I might actually more upset by this than if she had taken their lunch money.
They don’t have to serve multi-year sentences but they should be charge and if found guilty, sentenced to the minimum sentence and then depending on whether they show contrition for their actions, whether they have been making a habit of this sort of thing, and any other relevant factors, the judge can suspend the sentence and replace it with probation or a shitload of community service. I thin an appropriate alternative penalty would be to let her avoid jail by making a dozen signs like the one she destroyed for display at the school’s free speech zone.
At this point, I would be satisfied with her spending a night or two in jail, a couple of years probation, the loss of her job, and some community service (perhaps making signs for the “Survivors of the Holocaust”).
Yeah, I think the girls are tools, I disagree with their message and their tactics. I am relatively pro-life by this board’s standards. I believe in the unfettered right to an abortion during the first trimester, no waiting periods, no nothing. I believe that abortions during the third trimester should be limited to cases where the life or physical health of the mother are at stake. I’m wishy washy about what to do during the second trimester. So I certainly think these girls are over the top in their message but I don’t think they do their own cause any favors by making such a spectacle of themselves.
Thank you; this is very helpful. Are there guidelines for this sort of discretion, such that it’d be weird for prosecutors to charge a felony under these circumstances? Is this a case of de minimis, and is that even a real legal thing these days as opposed to some random crap I remember from eighth grade Latin? Or is there another term for not charging a person for a crime they technically committed because, c’mon?
OK, so it would appear we (that is, Damuri and I) have at least some common ground here. Fair enough.
So let’s cut to the chase:
Is the real question how serious a crime this is or how much jail time should be served? I don’t think so. The real question is whether this episode is representative of how “liberals” normally treat those people who disagree with them, or who espouse views that they find intolerable. That was the original basis for the thread, after all.
Is there any evidence at all that this is not an isolated incident? And please don’t offer anecdotes of other incidents, let’s have some solid data. How many opportunities for this kind of reaction have there been in the U.S. in the past 10 years, and how many times has this kind of reaction been observed? (Note that the first part of that question is critical to evaluate “normal treatment.”)
Further, for all those cases where this kind of reaction has been observed, how many times has the action been generally praised, or at least gone unpunished?
Let’s see those statistics and sources, boys.
This is isolated, and I say this as a conservative who dealt with the 80s brand of speech codes and political correctness on campus. There are always a couple of members of faculty who are idiots, but I never had a problem. The best line I ever got from a professor of mine was, “thanks for not showing up in your uniform every time you came to my class.” Said with a smile, and I pulled an A in his political science course while disagreeing with him.
The bigger crime this idiot committed is hurting the UC system by giving an example to the general public of stupidity on campus by a tenured professor. The next time someone asks to support the UC system, we will hear people state that they see no need to support a bond issue, or higher taxes to support someone who researches black porn and doesn’t believe in free speech.
Great. Thanks. Idiot.
Her Rate My Professor page: Mireille Miller-Young at University of California Santa Barbara | Rate My Professors
Well, got me curious if her position is pro or con.
You know, I was going to try to defend my position there, and in attempting to do so, I argued myself out of it.