Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Homeless man gets 15 years for stealing a $100

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 8:43 p.m. EST by distortion (196)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A homeless man gets 15 years for stealing $100, a CEO gets 40 months for stealing 3 billion... explain that one http://a2.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/118/4f315b90a633445d9fa5d23153d18764/l.png that should be a placard

27 Comments

27 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 13 years ago

The courts hate small timers. Go big if your going to steal is the obvious message isn't it? The English used to say if your a big enough criminal they make you a noble.

[-] 1 points by ddxega (1) 12 years ago

What it comes down to is that--if this is real--the man stealing 3 billion ought to get life. The homeless man shouldn't NEED to steal money. No one should NEED to steal to eat, even if they fucked their own lives up. I'm sure the poor guy wasn't given a good chance in this life to be a success.

[-] 1 points by PoliticallyIncorrectBenjamin (50) 13 years ago

C'mon folks, break out of your bubble, only in the US would this man get jail time. In the middle east he would have been executed and the same in China. Actually in China they wouldmhave put the bullet through his head and then charged his family for the cost of it.

First time petty theft in the middle east, off with your right hand. It makes you an outcast and forces you to eat with the hand you wipe with.

We Americans are soooooooo cruel, Go Fuck Yourself, proper fuck too.

[-] 1 points by mdsmithbsc (27) 13 years ago

Simple, they gave that homeless man a place to live and 3 square meals a day.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

Keep it in perspective. Are you mad because he got so many years - or are you mad that the corporate criminal got so little time? Direct your anger appropriately. Roy Brown had a criminal record that went at least as far back as 1988 - not for simple possession either - but for charges that painted a completely different picture than just some poor homeless man. He made life choices - and honestly, the judge did him a favor because he has 3 squares and a cot now. The judge should have put him back out on the street if he really wanted to punish him.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 13 years ago

You know, it costs more to keep the man in jail for 15 years than it would to give him a welfare check and food stamps. And hell, you could even give him an apartment for less than the 35 K a year for 15 years it is going to cost us to brutalize him.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

Don't give him welfare or foodstamps. This man chose to be on the streets by his past criminal actions. Like I said, the judge should have really punished him and put him back out instead of giving him 15 years of food, shelter, and clothing at the expense of the taxpayers.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 13 years ago

No i'm not mad that he got 15 years, well... yes... actually i am, i believe the punishment should fit the crime, should he be punished? yes? but 15 years after he voluntarily turned himself in immediately because he felt bad? and over $100?? But that wasn't the point, only an example, the point is If any average member of society regardless of race was to steal 3 billion and destroy all the lives that went along with it, that's a life sentence, but when a CEO of a big company does, it's 2 years at club med. I know it says 40 months but he'll be out in a 1 or 2 with good behavior and nice big fat fall guy pension waiting for him.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

15 years - but I would imagine his criminal history probably had a hand in it... The max punishment for armed robbery (and even though he wasn't really armed, he pretended to be and the teller wouldn't have known the difference so it's considered armed robbery) is 25 years, so the judge was actually lenient if you want to look at it like that.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 13 years ago

regardless if his sentence was fair or unjust, his sentence isn't the problem, it's the sentence of the CEO

[-] 1 points by spaceman (6) 13 years ago

o man now i get it! Rich man is eating ice-cream man? Like i hope they got some 4 me too man before it melts. I got the munchies and the point now man. If i fall down and rip my bell-bottoms I can have some cauz he found 20 bucks in a parking lot and got some right man? See its easy man how come it so hard to get man?

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 13 years ago

thank you for your intelligent contribution

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

Then why make the comparison? Why even bring up the homeless guy's punishment? That's just a red herring to the argument. It's just another example of where and why this movement overall will struggle... There's no clarity in any of it. It's like saying, "It's OK if Obama drops a bomb in Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya because Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan." Make your point and debate your actual point...

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 13 years ago

How do you not see something wrong with 1 man steals a $100 and gets 15 years and another man steals 3 billion and gets 3 years? You don't see the problem there? i really need to explain to you whats wrong with that picture?

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

I never said I didn't have a problem with it. What I said was that I'm wondering why you feel the need to mention both when you "claim" to have a problem with the latter - your words, not mine. You fit right into this movement because you can't make and stick to any single point any better than those leading OWS. Best wishes.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 13 years ago

I claimed to have a problem with both of those, but you kept drawing your attention to the homeless guy and whether or not his sentence was fair and missing the point, the real question is the CEO and whether his sentence was fair, using that guy as an example what happens when ordinary citizens steal.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 13 years ago

If the problem is with the CEO, then the argument against his punishment should stand on its own - without garnering support for the argument by making an apples and oranges comparison to a completely unrelated case (regardless of that man's disposition in the other case). If the problem is with both, then they should be debated separately. I'm not missing the point you are trying to make. I'm trying to help you understand how to make your point. You won't win debates with red herrings thrown in the mix.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 13 years ago

Yea, I was in court last year and I saw a man get sentenced to 8 years for stealing a CD player out of Walgreen's. I think Walgreen's should have been grateful that he took that obsolete technology out of the store for them.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 13 years ago

My guess is he had priors and/or was on parole/probation.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 13 years ago

Yes, you may be correct about that, I really don't know. It still seems harsh unless he had priors for violent crime, in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 13 years ago

Not homeless anymore, right?

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 13 years ago

Now he has a room, three square meals and cable TV. He's hit the jackpot.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 13 years ago

And free health care.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 12 years ago

The homeless guy is no longer homeless or hungry. OWS should be happy.