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

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets 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: 1641 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 # 12. #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   #12. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#7) http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A133399.PDF People v. J.M., Ct. App. Calif., 1st Dist., Div. 5, A133399 (28 Aug 2012) In California, it is robbery if either the taking, or the carrying away, was effected by threat or fear. In J.M., it was a simple snatch and go. The taking was effected without touching the victim. Fear or intimidation did not aid the taking by sudden snatching. In the context of robbery, fear imports apprehension rather than fright. However, to avoid a robbery conviction, the perp must also show that fear or intimidation did not aid the carrying away. In J.M., the victim testified that she did not pursue the perp "[b]ecause he ran really fast." She did not attribute fear as playing a role. Citing this, the court found that it was not robbery. In the case of our hat snatcher, it is not a simple snatch and go. She hung around and taunted the victim. Why did he make no attempt to take his hat from her? What induced him to submit to her taking away of his hat? If he says he feared combat with a mad woman, or attributes his submission to some apprehension, the crime is converted from grand theft to robbery during the taking away of the MAGA hat. It is a felony, the value of the hat notwithstanding. - - - - - - - - - - 2 The victim demonstrated for the juvenile court that she was “holding the phone in her right hand [with] her fingers on the bottom part of the phone and her thumb . . . on the top of the phone . . . .” Her right arm was bent, and she was “holding [her] phone kind of close to [her] chest area . . . ,” with her hand covering more than half of the phone. The suspect wrapped his hand around the top of the phone, grabbed it, and ran. When he grabbed the phone, he did not touch the victim’s hand or any part of her body, and her arm did not move at all. The victim stated she was scared “[b]ecause I don’t know what happened.” The victim did not pursue the suspect “[b]ecause he ran really fast.” The victim noticed his build and clothes; he was wearing a black jacket and blue jeans. The lady sitting next to the victim helped her call the police. [...] - - - - - - - - - - 4 [...] DISCUSSION I. The Juvenile Court’s Robbery Finding J.M. contends the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that he committed robbery. In evaluating this contention, we “must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whet her it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 576, quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, italics omitted.) In making this determination, we “‘presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence.’” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806.)1 Penal Code section 211 sets forth the elements of robbery: “Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” Robbery consists of two components; gaining possession of the victim’s property and carrying it away. (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1165.) In order to support a conviction for robbery, the taking, either the gaining possession or the carrying away, must be accomplished by force or fear. (People v. Gomez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 249, 257.) In the absence of force or fear, a taking from the person is grand theft, not robbery. (People v. Morales (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 134, 139.) _____ 1 The same standard of review applies to a claim of insufficiency of the evidence in juvenile proceedings involving criminal acts and adult criminal trials. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) - - - - - - - - - - 5 J.M. contends the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of robbery because it does not support a finding he used force or fear to take the victim’s iPhone. We agree. There is no evidence that, to accomplish the taking here, J.M. used the force required to establish robbery. “‘[S]omething more is required than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1259 (Burns), quoting Morales, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at p. 139.) “‘[W]hen actual force is present in a robbery, at the very least it must be a quantum more than that which is needed merely to take the property from the person of the victim . . . .” (Burns, at p. 1259.) There is no evidence here that J.M. used force beyond that necessary to take the victim’s iPhone from her hand. Indeed, she stated that, when J.M. grabbed her phone, he did not touch her hand or any part of her body and did not even cause her arm to move. (Compare People v. Mungia (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1703, 1706-1707 [evidence sufficient for robbery although the victim did not see or hear the defendant before he took her purse, where he shoved her and in a separate motion, took her purse off her shoulder].) Nor is there any evidence that reasonably supports an inference J.M. used fear to accomplish the taking. The evidence demonstrates only that he appeared suddenly, grabbed the phone from the victim’s hand, and ran away. There is no evidence he threatened or intimidated the victim or that the victim surrendered her phone because she was afraid. Indeed, she stated that she did not see J.M. before he took her phone. She said the incident scared her “[b]ecause I don’t know what happened.” Being startled, however, does not appear to satisfy the fear requirement for robbery. (Pen. Code, § 212 [defining “fear” as it is used in Pen. Code § 211 to mean fear of an unlawful injury].)2 There is no evidence that J.M. used the victim’s fear of such injury to accomplish the taking or to prevent the victim from recovering her phone. Although she acknowledged _____ 2 Penal Code section 212 states: “The fear mentioned in Section 211 may be either: 1. The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family; or, 2. The 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.” - - - - - - - - - - 6 that she was “still scared at that time,” she did not attribute her decision not to pursue J.M. to her fear. When the prosecutor asked her: “[W]hy didn’t you run after the person that took your phone?” she responded simply: “Because he ran really fast.” nolu chan  posted on  2017-10-06   15:50:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 12.         There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12. 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