[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"There’s a Word for the West’s Appeasement of Militant Islam" "The Bondi Beach Jihad: Sharia Supremacism and Jew Hatred, Again" "This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China" "How Europe Fell Behind" "The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight" Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat? A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land? US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died "‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much" "Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use" "Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet" "America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!" "Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded" Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR! British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames "Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe. "The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent" CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino) Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting! POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25 2026 in Bible Prophecy 2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat 🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025 Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong England is on the Brink of Civil War! Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE "Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’" Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024 Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization. The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with What the fagots LGBTQ really means I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience. Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson) Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Social justice warrior Edith Macias might be charged with a felony for stealing someone’s Trump hat Source: [None] URL Source: https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2017/10/06/edith-macias/ Published: Oct 6, 2017 Author: Dan from Squirrel Hills Blog Post Date: 2017-10-06 07:20:56 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 1755 Comments: 12 n the video below, which was recently filmed at UC Riverside, social justice warrior Edith Macias spends nine minutes explaining why she stole a Trump hat right off the head of a Trump supporter. Macias takes the hat to campus authorities, under the belief that they will take her side. But they don’t. Instead, they take the side of the hat owner, get him his hat back, and call the campus police. Originally, the owner of the hat was not planning to press charges. However, after Macias put a video online where she encouraged other people to steal people’s Trump hats, the owner of the hat changed his mind, and is pressing charges. Macias could be charged with a felony. Meanwhile, Macias continues to claim that she is the victim. And her friends are demanding that the school pay for a safe place for her and her family to live, as well as pay for the cost of her current residence. I’m no legal expert. At first, I thought that a felony charge seemed kind of severe for stealing someone’s hat. However, the fact that Macias has gone online and incited other people to steal people’s Trump hats makes me have no problem with her getting a felony charge. She still shows no remorse for what she has done, and, on the contrary, seems to be quite proud of it. That’s a shame. I think she just ruined any chance she had of living a decent life, or getting a college education. If she is convicted, I hope her sentence is to write a 500 word essay on why it’s wrong to steal other people’s personal property. And then the essay should be put online for everyone to see. I think that would be a much more appropriate sentence than prison, especially for a first time, non-violent offender. Besides, it would be cruel and unusual punishment for the other prisoners if they were forced to live with her. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11. #7. To: A K A Stone (#0) At first, I thought that a felony charge seemed kind of severe for stealing someone’s hat. Yes. But this wasn't stealing. Stealing (theft) is taking property that is not yours and is most often a misdemeanor. Robbery is theft accomplished through the use of physical force against another and is almost always a felony. This was a robbery. Press charges and watch her squirm. misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-06   9:15:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#7) Robbery is theft accomplished through the use of physical force Robbery can be accomplished through use of violence or intimidation, force or fear. Any threat need not be directed at the person himself. If the victim is intimidated into parting with his property, the crime may be robbery even if a different victim would not have been so intimidated. The hat snatching was a bit more than a simple snatch and go. She remained on scene and taunted her victim. Fearful of possible consequences arising from defending his property, the victim was intimidated into submission, whether by fear of tangling with a crazy woman, or of imagined legal consequences. In State v. Witherspoon, below, the perp did not touch the victim. He communicated no explicit threat, but she understandably sensed fear. She was transporting property (money) for her employer. He snatched the money with no resistance from the victim. The victim testified, "Q: If you had not been afraid of this person standing there, could he still have accomplished the taking of this money? A: Yes, like I said, I didn't know what was on his mind." As cited, from Sloan v. State, "the controlling consideration is the state of the victim's mind at the time of submission or compliance with the robber's demands." The appeals court upheld his conviction for robbery, rather than larceny, grand or petty. https://www.leagle.com/decision/1983927648sw2d2791919 STATE v. WITHERSPOON 648 S.W.2d 279 (1983) STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Donald Cedric WITHERSPOON, Appellant. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville. January 25, 1983. Permission to Appeal Denied April 4, 1983. Attorney(s) appearing for the Case David M. Himmelreich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Scott Williams, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee. Fred C. Dance, Nashville, for appellant. Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court April 4, 1983. OPINION DAUGHTREY, Judge. The central question in this appeal is whether the evidence shows that defendant Donald Cedric Witherspoon is guilty of robbery or merely of grand larceny. The jury found him guilty of robbery and set his sentence at five to seven years imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant contends that the record fails to establish a causal connection between his conduct and the fear experienced by the victim at the time [648 S.W.2d 280] of the offense. Because we conclude that the question was properly left to the jury's determination, we decline to reverse on this basis. The proof at trial showed that on May 29, 1981, Linda Hollins was head cashier at a Nashville supermarket. As part of her regular duties, she drove to a nearby branch bank to get $1550 in change for the store's cash registers. Hollins carried the money out to her car in a money bag and put it on the floor behind the driver's seat. She sat down in the driver's seat, but before she could pull her left leg into the car, she suddenly saw the defendant standing between her and the open car door, so that she was unable to close the door. The defendant stood there for a few moments without speaking and then asked directions to the interstate. As he was asking directions, he moved closer to Hollins, grabbed the bag, and ran. He was apprehended in the vicinity a few minutes later, and all the money was recovered. Hollins testified that she was very frightened during the incident and that her fear was caused by the fact that a strange man was standing so close to her. The defendant argues, however, that by her own testimony the victim established a lack of causal connection between her fear and his actions: Q: [by prosecuting attorney] [A]fter you noticed Mr. Witherspoon standing there ... what happened? A: Well, I turned around and he was standing there and I thought, you know, at first he didn't say anything and I thought, of, my gosh, you know, and I was naturally scared to death. Q: What went through your mind at that point? A: Well, at that point I forgot I had the money and the only thing that I could think that he wanted was rape. * * * * * * Q: [by defense counsel] [J]ust turning around and seeing this person standing there, that made you scared? A: Yes, turning around and seeing a person standing inside my car door that I had never seen before, naturally I was scared. Q: If you had not been afraid of this person standing there, could he still have accomplished the taking of this money? A: Yes, like I said, I didn't know what was on his mind. The defendant contends that the taking was not accomplished by placing the victim in fear, but by the deception of asking for directions and then grabbing the money before the victim could respond. Any fear on her part, he argues, was merely a natural reaction to the unexpected presence of a strange man close to her and thus does not fall within the purview of T.C.A. § 39-3901. We disagree with this interpretation of the testimony in the record. T.C.A. § 39-3901(a) defines robbery as "the felonious and forceable taking from the person of another, goods or money of any value, by violence or putting the person in fear." The statutory definition raises two questions pertinent to the facts of this case: first, whether the victim was "in fear" for purposes of § 39-3901(a); and, second, whether the facts show a sufficient causal relationship between her fear and the theft. Under Tennessee law, the standard for determining whether the victim was put "in fear" is largely subjective. In Sloan v. State, 491 S.W.2d 858, 861 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1972), the court held that "the controlling consideration is the state of the victim's mind at the time of submission or compliance with the robber's demands." In the present case, the victim testified that she was fearful from the moment she saw the defendant standing close beside her, positioned in such a way as to prevent her from closing the door to her car. Nor does her fear, whether of rape, robbery, or any other immediate harm, seem unreasonable under the circumstances. As the Sloan court concluded, "[a]fter employing methods intended and calculated to install submissive fear in his victim, a robber cannot be heard to [648 S.W.2d 281] say that they did not produce that effect or that the victim's fear was ill-founded and unreasonable." Id. at 862. The court in Sloan further dealt with the necessary relationship between the victim's fear and the taking, noting that the fear engendered by the assailant must be such as would "induce a man to part with his property for the sake of his person." Id. at 861. Such a rule is followed in a majority of jurisdictions. See generally W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law 699 (1972). See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jones, 362 Mass. 83, 283 N.E.2d 840, 843 (Mass. 1972); Crocker v. State, 272 So.2d 664, 665 (Miss. 1973); State v. Sanchez, 78 N.M. 284, 430 P.2d 781, 782 (N.M.Ct.App. 1967). To support his argument that the victim's fear did not enable the defendant to take her money, the defendant points to the victim's testimony. He characterizes it as an admission that the taking would have occurred even if the victim had not been afraid and analogizes this situation to "purse snatching" cases in which the offender is liable only for larceny and not robbery. However, we think the proof in this case shows more than a mere "snatching." Compare and contrast People v. Patton, 76 Ill.2d 45, 27 Ill.Dec. 766, 389 N.E.2d 1174 (Ill. 1979) (where defendant swiftly approached victim and grabbed purse from victim's fingertips, offense held not to constitute robbery). The defendant here did not simply grab the moneybag from an unattentive victim. Instead, he placed himself so close to the victim and blocked her movement in such a way as to make her immediately apprehensive for her own safety. Moreover, the victim testified that she was so gripped by fear that she momentarily forgot about the money she had in her possession. While the facts present an admittedly close case on this question, it appears that the victim may have let down her guard from fear engendered by the defendant, thus permitting him to grab the money without resistance and escape. Hence the record tends to indicate not only that the defendant's intention was to "intimidate and frighten the victim into docile nonresistance and meek compliance," Sloan v. State, supra, 491 S.W.2d at 861, but also that he succeeded in his purpose, whether or not the victim realized it and whether or not she was able to articulate it at trial. At the very least, the facts were sufficient to make out a question for the jury, after proper instructions on both robbery and larceny. Under the standard of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(e), we cannot say that the evidence fails to support their verdict. We further note that in at least one similar case from another jurisdiction, the courts have reached the same conclusion as we do here. In Flagler v. State, 189 So.2d 212 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966), aff'd 198 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1967), the defendant opened the passenger door of an automobile stopped at a stop sign. He sat in the front seat for several minutes without speaking and then grabbed the victim's handbag and fled. The resulting robbery conviction was upheld by the appellate courts, albeit without extended discussion of the causal link between the victim's fear and the theft. Finally, we find no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on petit as well as grand larceny. The defendant insists that this omission deprived him of the potential benefit of workhouse sentencing for petit larceny, as provided by T.C.A. § 39-4205. He cites as support Lax v. State, 214 Tenn. 162, 378 S.W.2d 782 (1964) (undisputed value of goods $800, defendant convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to workhouse term); and Troglen v. State, 216 Tenn. 447, 392 S.W.2d 925 (1965) (undisputed amount of check $700, defendant convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to workhouse term). But although Lax and Troglen (and T.C.A. § 40-2518) would permit a trial court to charge on petit larceny in a grand larceny case without committing [648 S.W.2d 282] reversible error, our Supreme Court has likewise held that the failure to charge on all possible lesser included offenses is not error where there is no evidence in the record to support such offenses. Johnson v. State, 531 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tenn. 1975). Although the distinction between robbery and larceny under the proof in this case is a fine one, no reasonable reading of the record would permit a factfinder to conclude that the defendant took less than $200 from the victim. It follows that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge on petit larceny. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. O'BRIEN and TATUM, JJ., concur. nolu chan  posted on  2017-10-06   13:56:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 11.         There are no replies to Comment # 11. End Trace Mode for Comment # 11. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com