"Looting "is no longer allowed in California

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,894
2,949
1,743
47
DFW
#21
I'm gonna blow your mind with some lawyer :poo: right now.;)

California Penal Code:

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.

So, depending upon the exact facts....they very well may not....probably aren't....even be "robberies", but rather "burglaries". :woot::runaway::p

I'm posting this not to dismiss or minimize the heinous conduct evidenced in that report....scumbags all.

I'm not posting this to say one way of the other whether such news reports should should adhere to legal definitions in their reporting. I don't really care about that.

I'm posting it to reflect that the law often uses precise definitions to differentiate between various crimes that may not be in use by the non-lawyer.

It's one of the, I'm sure 1000s, of reasons non-lawyers are prone to dislike lawyers. It's like playing Monopoly with the only DHead that has actually read the rules on the bottom of the box and refuses to play with the "house rules" that have been effect for years.
1637776050833.jpg
 

Boomer.....

Territorial Marshal
Feb 15, 2007
7,692
6,307
1,743
OKC
#22
Sadly the PPP was a giant cluster! It was a good idea and needed by many, but the government wasn't ready or organized to carry it out. Then they rush it and essentially forgive the vast majority of loans (under $2 mil I believe) with little paperwork. On top of that, you had some banks being really strict and wanting to see documentation and others doing little background work.
 

OrangeFan69

LA Face with an Okla. booty.
A/V Subscriber
Apr 24, 2010
8,130
7,800
1,743
44
Los Angeles 90046
instagram.com
#24
Then you are not understanding my post.
People and companies that illegally obtained funds should be punished and money recovered.
However the MUCH bigger issue was the government ineptitude distributing the money and then waiving payments.
So, the Retail stores are to blame for the looting as well?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,204
20,814
1,743
#27
Then you are not understanding my post.
People and companies that illegally obtained funds should be punished and money recovered.
However the MUCH bigger issue was the government ineptitude distributing the money and then waiving payments.
I'm definitely, without a doubt, understanding your post.

I'm just not agreeing with it.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,211
2,353
1,743
#29
I'm understanding your post.

I'm just not agreeing with it.
Millions upon millions of PPP funds (definitely a low estimate) were waived from repayment. The government waived the repayment —- the person obtaining the PPP loan did nothing fraudulent. Government ineptitude.

The government is giving out millions upon millions of funds (definitely a low estimate) to students even though the students did nothing to request the funds. The students did nothing fraudulent. Government ineptitude.

The government is giving out millions upon millions of funds (definitely a low estimate) to private businesses in the BBB plan. If the private business does not file for the grants some other private business will. Government ineptitude.

In this case the amount doled out due to government waste and government ineptitude far outweighs fraud. Both are important to stop, but if we care about spending taxpayer money responsibly, the best savings is fixing the waste. Bad enough that it happened during the pandemic with PPP and other COVID funds, shame on us for allowing this to occur again with BBB.
 
Last edited:

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,026
32,883
1,743
oklahoma city
#32
I am glad you think stealing is bad. Hope that wasn’t too tough of a decision.

If corporation illegally used COVID-funds, I agree they not only deserve outrage, but we must get them to pay it back. I submit, however, that the ire is best directed at government ineptitude. Many companies didn’t even have to ask the government to forgive the PPP loans, the government did it anyway. And the Build Back Better plan has even more incredibly wasteful spending that props up the revenues of large companies.
Interesting. So, this poor appearing man steals in broad daylight because he knows the current government is likely to do nothing about it and you condescendingly make fun of some saying it is bad. Just a bad guy who is to blame for his actions.

Then, you want to blame the government when businesses know they can get away with taking taxpayer money from the government because they have massive lobbies that mold our government to do exactly what they want. That is the fault of the goverment they control, not their fault.

In summary:
Poor guy with no say in how the government treats his behavior. All his fault.
Rich companies who greatly influence the government getting away with massive amounts of taxpayer money from the government. Blame the government.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,204
20,814
1,743
#33
Millions upon millions of PPP funds (definitely a low estimate) were waived from repayment. The government waived the repayment —- the person obtaining the PPP loan did nothing fraudulent. Government ineptitude.

The government is giving out millions upon millions of funds (definitely a low estimate) to students even though the students did nothing to request the funds. The students did nothing fraudulent. Government ineptitude.

The government is giving out millions upon millions of funds (definitely a low estimate) to private businesses in the BBB plan. If the private business does not file for the grants some other private business will. Government ineptitude.

In this case the amount doled out due to government waste and government ineptitude far outweighs fraud. Both are important to stop, but if we care about spending taxpayer money responsibly, the best savings is fixing the waste. Bad enough that it happened during the pandemic with PPP and other COVID funds, shame on us for allowing this to occur again with BBB.
I understand your position.

I simply disagree with it.

You've got your opinion on a question of ethics that isn't subject to objective proof.

I've got mine on the same question.

My ire is "better" directed at active fraud and criminal misconduct than governmental ineptitude. I think that ire is "better" directed at issues of intent and deliberate actions, your view of the "better" focus of your ire seems to be on which one affects taxpayer money the most.

Both should be avoided, and not ignored. We just disagree on which would better deserves our ire. It's not a zero sum game we're discussing.

It's not a big deal....unless you really believe this isn't a question of opinion upon which reasonable minds can disagree.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2006
4,211
2,353
1,743
#34
Interesting. So, this poor appearing man steals in broad daylight because he knows the current government is likely to do nothing about it and you condescendingly make fun of some saying it is bad. Just a bad guy who is to blame for his actions.

Then, you want to blame the government when businesses know they can get away with taking taxpayer money from the government because they have massive lobbies that mold our government to do exactly what they want. That is the fault of the goverment they control, not their fault.

In summary:
Poor guy with no say in how the government treats his behavior. All his fault.
Rich companies who greatly influence the government getting away with massive amounts of taxpayer money from the government. Blame the government.
Look, I get that you and other progressives view anyone making money as “rich”. But your reply clearly shows you are not aware of what happens with PPP and what is currently happening with some funds with BBB.

To attempt to equate someone breaking in a store and stealing to a mom-and-pop operation that applies for a loan in good faith and the government waives repayment, without them asking, says a lot.

Since it doesn’t appear you have some history with PPP and BBB - let me give you three examples that I personally am aware.

1) PPP loan: A friend and fellow Poke is a co-owner of a company that probably does $4-$8M in revenue annually. He has a lot of employees. He and his partner applied for a $1.3M PPP loan near start of pandemic as he legitimately feared the pandemic might crater his business. Luckily, it didn’t and he only used about $60K of that loan. This summer the government, without him asking, sent him a notice that his PPP loan repayment was permanently waived. He was surprised, but since has learn the repayment waiver notice was received by many companies (are you truly comparing someone breaking in to a store and looting/stealing to this?)

2) COVID student loan payment: It wasn’t reported much, but state universities received lump sum COVID payments from the federal government. OU, for instance, received well over $15M this year for student support. Funds were allowed to be directly distributed to students from the university. Attached to the fund distribution was an objective that the direct student distribution should be need based. OU simply made the decision that any student with a federal student loan was needs based. However, as you can guess there are students with loans that are not in a need situation, they simply are delaying paying tuition. This year a OU student with a $10K federal loan received $6,250 (need based or not). Meaning that students had 62% of their 10K paid off by taxpayers. (Should students really return the money? Are these students now “rich companies”?)

3) BBB: This one I know well…because I have been working on this over the last few months. The BBB is allocating billions of dollars for many items, including building broadband. That sounds nice except the policies allow for the agencies to give money to subsidize broadband builds even to areas that already have broadband. The money WILL be allocated. If a company does not apply for the money, a competitor will simply pick-up that grant and compete against them. It is a horribly written provision that REQUIRES the funds to be distributed even if there is not a need.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,026
32,883
1,743
oklahoma city
#35
Look, I get that you and other progressives view anyone making money as “rich”. But your reply clearly shows you are not aware of what happens with PPP and what is currently happening with some funds with BBB.

To attempt to equate someone breaking in a store and stealing to a mom-and-pop operation that applies for a loan in good faith and the government, without them asking, waives repayment says a lot.

Since it doesn’t appear you have some history with PPP and BBB - let me give you three examples that I personally am aware.

1) PPP loan: A friend and fellow Poke is a co-owner of a company that probably does $4-$8M in revenue annually. He has a lot of employees. He and his partner applied for a $1.3M PPP loan near start of pandemic as he legitimately believe the pandemic would crater his business. Luckily, it didn’t and he only used about $60K of that loan. This summer the government, without him asking, sent him a notice that his PPP loan repayment was waived. He was surprised, but since has learn the repayment waiver notice was received by many companies (are you truly comparing someone breaking in to a store and looting/stealing to this?)

2) COVID student loan payment: It wasn’t reported much, but state universities received lump sum COVID payments from the federal government. OU, for instance, received well over $10M this year. Funds were allowed to be distributed to students. Attached to the fund distribution was the direct student distribution should be need based. OU simply made the decision that any student with a federal student loan was needs based. However, as you can guess there are students with loans that are not in a need situation, they simply are delaying paying tuition. This year a OU student with a $10K loan received $6,250 (need based or not). (Should students really return the money? Are these students now “rich companies”?)

3) BBB: This one I know well…because I have been working on this over the last few months. The BBB is allocating billions of dollars for many items, including building broadband. That sounds nice except the policies allow for the agencies to give money to subsidize broadband builds even to areas that already have broadband. The money WILL be allocated. If a company does not apply for the money, a competitor will simply pick-up that grant and compete against them. It is a horribly written provision that REQUIRES the funds to be distributed even if there is not a need.
I'm not a "progressive" so your attempt to label because you can't answer my question about YOUR thoughts is typical message board deflection.

I understand PPP far more than you would ever know. You don't even know how many PPP loans did my company got. You don't know if we pay them back or if they were forgiven. Again, try to dig with the lame insults because you simply can't answer the question.

I said nothing about "mom and pop" and anybody with even slight ability to understand the point would know that talking about major lobbying is not "mom and pop." So again, can't handle the actual question so try to turn it into something else.

I'm not going to read your likely made-up "examples" that are going to be 100% not what I was talking about and everyone on the board knows it but you.

I won't read any further responses from you about this. I made my point completely and your "answer" shows you have no answer other than strawmen, false labels, and insults. There is nothing left to discuss.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
8,287
3,749
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#38
Colorado State Board Drops ‘Sex Offender’ Term Calling It A Negative Label
CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd
November 19, 2021 at 11:59 pm
DENVER (CBS4)– The way sex offenders are labeled is changing in Colorado. The board that sets state standards voted today to change the term “sex offenders” to reflect so-called “person-first” language.

The Sex Offender Management Board, which is made up of everyone from public defenders to prosecutors, sets standards and guidelines for treatment providers so the new terminology will only be used in that context. It doesn’t change the term sex offender in law or the criminal justice system but some worry it’s a step in that direction.

“I’m involved today after hearing that it would be improper or offensive in some manner for me to refer to the man who raped me, as a sex offender.”

A rape survivor, Kimberly Corbin is among those who spoke out against changing the term sex offender to something less stigmatizing, saying labels based on traits people can’t control is one thing, “It’s very, very damaging for those who people who are labeled when it has to do with gender, race, sexuality, ability, but those are not their choices, the biggest thing for me is these are choices that sex offenders make.”

Derek Logue says he shouldn’t have to carry the label for life, “Referring to me by a label for something I did half my life ago is inappropriate and downright offensive.”


(credit: CBS)
He argued “client” would be a better term.

Public Defender Kathy Heffron agreed, “It takes into consideration the uniqueness of individuals who are receiving treatment.”

“Client” is one of five options the board considered.

Supports of the change in terminology argue it will reduce recidivism. Opponents say it will only reduce accountability, noting victims and survivors live with their label for life.

In the end, the board voted 10-6 to go with “adults who commit sexual offenses.”

“I think this strikes a balance that honors the impact to victims and recognizes the current and ongoing impacts of sexual assault but also avoids the labeling term that has negative impacts on those who commit sex offenses.”

Jessica Dotter with the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council worries the change won’t end with the Sex Offender Management Board, “I’m concerned that the use of person-first language generally is an intent to remove accountability from offenders and to diminish the experience of the victims”


(credit: CBS)
Last year, lawmakers considered a bill that would have, among other things, eliminated the term “sexually violent predator” from statutes but they ended up pulling it. Meanwhile, a task force charged with sentencing reform is considering asking the legislature to change terms like “defendant,” “convict,” and “felon” to “justice-involved people.”

Ironically, the Sex Offender Management Board will not drop “sex offender” from its name because only the state Legislature can change the name of the board.




There you have a relabeling that went from sex offender to “adults who commit sexual offenses.”
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/11/19/sex-offender-negative-label/
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,870
2,106
1,743
Oklahoma City
#39
Colorado State Board Drops ‘Sex Offender’ Term Calling It A Negative Label
CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd
November 19, 2021 at 11:59 pm
DENVER (CBS4)– The way sex offenders are labeled is changing in Colorado. The board that sets state standards voted today to change the term “sex offenders” to reflect so-called “person-first” language.

The Sex Offender Management Board, which is made up of everyone from public defenders to prosecutors, sets standards and guidelines for treatment providers so the new terminology will only be used in that context. It doesn’t change the term sex offender in law or the criminal justice system but some worry it’s a step in that direction.

“I’m involved today after hearing that it would be improper or offensive in some manner for me to refer to the man who raped me, as a sex offender.”

A rape survivor, Kimberly Corbin is among those who spoke out against changing the term sex offender to something less stigmatizing, saying labels based on traits people can’t control is one thing, “It’s very, very damaging for those who people who are labeled when it has to do with gender, race, sexuality, ability, but those are not their choices, the biggest thing for me is these are choices that sex offenders make.”

Derek Logue says he shouldn’t have to carry the label for life, “Referring to me by a label for something I did half my life ago is inappropriate and downright offensive.”


(credit: CBS)
He argued “client” would be a better term.

Public Defender Kathy Heffron agreed, “It takes into consideration the uniqueness of individuals who are receiving treatment.”

“Client” is one of five options the board considered.

Supports of the change in terminology argue it will reduce recidivism. Opponents say it will only reduce accountability, noting victims and survivors live with their label for life.

In the end, the board voted 10-6 to go with “adults who commit sexual offenses.”

“I think this strikes a balance that honors the impact to victims and recognizes the current and ongoing impacts of sexual assault but also avoids the labeling term that has negative impacts on those who commit sex offenses.”

Jessica Dotter with the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council worries the change won’t end with the Sex Offender Management Board, “I’m concerned that the use of person-first language generally is an intent to remove accountability from offenders and to diminish the experience of the victims”


(credit: CBS)
Last year, lawmakers considered a bill that would have, among other things, eliminated the term “sexually violent predator” from statutes but they ended up pulling it. Meanwhile, a task force charged with sentencing reform is considering asking the legislature to change terms like “defendant,” “convict,” and “felon” to “justice-involved people.”

Ironically, the Sex Offender Management Board will not drop “sex offender” from its name because only the state Legislature can change the name of the board.




There you have a relabeling that went from sex offender to “adults who commit sexual offenses.”
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/11/19/sex-offender-negative-label/
Thank you for this thoughtful well done post...
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
8,287
3,749
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#40
Thank you for this thoughtful well done post...
Negative labels are exactly what we need right now and not just for Trump. The defund movement and bail reductions programs I totally understand. But when the crime includes any act of violence, the label should stick. Just like the parade story, the suspect deserves the moniker of murderer if he’s indeed the one that was driving. The judge that gave him $1000 bail for his last act of violence should be taken to civil court. The prosecutor that signed off on it should get time for aiding and abetting. Maybe even charged himself. If I go to the store with you and you rob it and kill someone, I get the charge too since I was with you. (Obviously I had to know we were robbing it, but that prosecutor knew the suspect had 50 pages of past violence). This coddling of violent predators has got to stop. Or Kyle will be a busy kid.