California DA Requires 'Need' Be Considered When Prosecuting Looting!

Do you personally consider "need" (as referred to in the OP) as a mitigating factor? Yes, no?

Just curious.

 

How do you figure?

 

No and neither does the DA. Reason 7 million why you should ignore BS on RW blogs

 

I think your question is whether "need" is significant enough to forgive an act that is illegal.

The word "need" is not nearly specific enough for that.

If "need" is a matter of life and death, then yes it absolutely is enough.

Do police "need" to shoot unarmed black kids in the back? Many believe so.

Does a guy "need" to break the speed limit to get his very pregnant wife to the hospital on time? Many police believe so.

Is a homeless kid without a legal guardian of any kind going to get fined for snagging an apple for the brother he/she is raising? I seriously doubt it. There may be other action to help, though.

Our law is not as inconsiderate and unyielding as many people seem to think it is.

 

So, in your mind, someone stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family, is the same as someone who destroys a Target and steals 15 pair of Nike's and a big screen tv?

Same/same, or different?

 

In a welfare state there should never be a real need to steal food.

 

Why, is not it obvious? If not ( ) read the OP again:

A California district attorney has told her subordinates to consider whether looting was done “for financial gain or personal need” in deciding whether to prosecute a case, a local publication has reported.

That's a travesty of justice.

 

So long as they both smashed a storefront window during an unlawful assembly (aka rioting), of course it is the same.

 

Again, read the OP:

A California district attorney has told her subordinates to consider whether looting was done “for financial gain or personal need” in deciding whether to prosecute a case, a local publication has reported.

 

Not at all, that was not my question. In light of OP

A California district attorney has told her subordinates to consider whether looting was done “for financial gain or personal need” in deciding whether to prosecute a case, a local publication has reported.

Should the "need' be considered as a mitigating factor at all?

 

Should someone who stole a loaf of bread face the same charges as someone who stole a tv?

 

Who suggested that?

 

The city should pay business owners back 100% for damage to property, stolen goods, and psychological stress inflicted. Also, those caught looting should be forced to pay back to the city through community service and/or cash what the city had to pay to the business owners. And they should be made to make a public apology with a megaphone, telling the world what losers they are, and walk with a sign saying "I am a loser and a criminal" for a month.

 

Yes, if they both are members of the same peacefully protesting demonstration

 

And, I pointed out that "need" is ALWAYS considered in our system of justice.

This isn't some new thing.

So, what's your problem?

My view is that those who assault protesters by smashing windows, thus encouraging violent police action, creating hardship for businesses, causing injury to protesters, etc., ought to be jailed immedicately. Those protesting in Minniapolis on the night Floyd was murdered CALLED THE POLICE and the fire department to stop those who were rioting. Protesters are not interested in riot. They are there to make a point.

But, the crimes of those who riot do not justify suspending the rules of justice in America.

 

What a joke...

California is toast

 

The glories of the Welfare State. We'll feed you til you're morbidly obese, but you should probably go and loot more food just in case.

 

Are you talking about those fat adults who blew all their money on Popeyes and beer?

 

Huh?

It's a VERY simple question. Is stealing a loaf of bread the same as destroying a Target and stealing a television?

It's a yes/no question.

 

Not in a context where starvation is real (19thC London, the Third World, etc). In a context where the thief is fat and has an iphone, it's exactly the same as stealing a tv.

 

Ok. Which fat bread thief was not prosecuted? Name? Picture?

 

What BS!

In California, indeed, less than stealing $950 is a misdemeanor instead of a felony, sure.

But that penalty can be $1,000 and 6 months in jail, although some specified
Misdemeanors can be charged up to 1 year in jail and more money.

And all will be charged the by the DA, although most are diverted to other penalties or monitoring, multiple crimes will be escalated to worse penalties and be charged as a felony.

If someone actually broke a window, even if they simply grabbed the proverbial loaf of bread, it would be very unlikely for that to be only a misdemeanor, breaking and entering are crimes of themselves and to repair and replace window will be get you into felony too.

But even minor theft will not be ignored unless the shopkeeper doesn't want to pursue it.

 

they are green lighting them to steal snacks from small business owners.

 

Really?

Now your point has reduced to "stealing a snack" so a prosecutor won't charge a homeless person for looting?

Even Andy of Mayberry in 1960 wouldn't arrest a homeless hobo for looting for grabbing a snack from the filling station!

So this is how the Republicans are going to Make America Great Again, At Last?

 

"Progressive" Democrats and Republicans are now paying dearly for their obnoxious Big Bad Government schemes. It is fun to watch them twist in the fiery updraft.