Sanitation Worker Sent To Jail For 30 Days For Picking Up The Garbage Too Early

[Dan Druff]

Druff advocates people going to prison for 25 yrs when they steal pizza from a kid.

However he also advocates using fake credit card information to get the best price on flights/hotels/etc.

It's okay to steal from large corporations, but not a $2 piece of pizza.


My 2 cents here. Yes the career criminal should get a larger slap on the wrist. If Druff steals pizza from a kid and it's his first offense maybe he gets probation and has to take a course. The career criminal should do 1-3 months in jail for the exact same crime.

Why do you and jsearles keep ignoring that this was forcefully taking something from little children, and not "stealing"?

The value of the slice of pizza doesn't matter here. It's that it was taken with force from someone's possession.

There is a huge difference there in the eyes of the law, because of the trauma (and danger) experienced by the victim.

You do realize that if the guy was caught stealing pizza that was sitting on an unattended table, it would have been a misdemeanor and this Three Strikes law wouldn't have applied, right?

You don't think it's incredibly brazen, egregious, and scumbaggish to forcefully take things that you want from children?

The guy was sentenced because he had a long criminal history and clearly wasn't changing. This was the final straw. I would have some sympathy if he just swiped some food when he was hungry, but this was a case of him victimizing children for fun.

BTW, the incident occurred as a result of a "dare" between the two friends, not because the two of them were hungry.

[Dan Druff]

Do you understand that petty theft involves taking something that isn't in the possession of other people, right?

Shoplifting is petty theft, because you're physically stealing it from a shelf, not from a person.

There is much more trauma involved from the victim when someone forcefully steals from them than when they swipe things that aren't being watched closely.

In this case, the victims were minors under the age of 13, who specifically told the guy not to take their pizza, and he did anyway because he was bigger and knew they couldn't stop him.

To me it's especially egregious when people victimize children.

Between that and the fact that the guy was already a career criminal, I was happy to see him off the streets for a long time.

Maybe you missed this part of the article I already quoted earlier:

The friend was never prosecuted, but in January, a jury found Williams guilty of petty theft. Typically a misdemeanor, that charge was bumped up to a felony because of his prior convictions

And maybe you should know what the fuck you are talking about before opening you mouth. Designations of petty or grand theft have absolutely nothing to do with force, but the amount or value of the stolen object.

In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively.

LOL @ Druff the legal expert

Hey genius, we weren't debating petty theft versus grand theft.

You called it petty theft, and I explained why it wasn't. And I was correct. That's why he was charged with a felony. He would not have been charged with a felony if he took an unattended slice of pizza.

[jsearles22]

Druff advocates people going to prison for 25 yrs when they steal pizza from a kid.

However he also advocates using fake credit card information to get the best price on flights/hotels/etc.

It's okay to steal from large corporations, but not a $2 piece of pizza.


My 2 cents here. Yes the career criminal should get a larger slap on the wrist. If Druff steals pizza from a kid and it's his first offense maybe he gets probation and has to take a course. The career criminal should do 1-3 months in jail for the exact same crime.

Why do you and jsearles keep ignoring that this was forcefully taking something from little children, and not "stealing"?

The value of the slice of pizza doesn't matter here. It's that it was taken with force from someone's possession.

There is a huge difference there in the eyes of the law, because of the trauma (and danger) experienced by the victim.

You do realize that if the guy was caught stealing pizza that was sitting on an unattended table, it would have been a misdemeanor and this Three Strikes law wouldn't have applied, right?

You don't think it's incredibly brazen, egregious, and scumbaggish to forcefully take things that you want from children?

The guy was sentenced because he had a long criminal history and clearly wasn't changing. This was the final straw. I would have some sympathy if he just swiped some food when he was hungry, but this was a case of him victimizing children for fun.

BTW, the incident occurred as a result of a "dare" between the two friends, not because the two of them were hungry.

There you go again using words like forcefully without any factual backing.

There you go again ignoring the fact he was legally prosecuted and found guilty of petty theft. There you go again ignoring that you had no idea what the definition of that was.

Facts- crime committed was petty theft. Period. That's a misdemeanor. The laws intent was never to send people to prison for 25 years for petty misdemeanors.

[jsearles22]

Maybe you missed this part of the article I already quoted earlier:

The friend was never prosecuted, but in January, a jury found Williams guilty of petty theft. Typically a misdemeanor, that charge was bumped up to a felony because of his prior convictions

And maybe you should know what the fuck you are talking about before opening you mouth. Designations of petty or grand theft have absolutely nothing to do with force, but the amount or value of the stolen object.

In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively.

LOL @ Druff the legal expert

Hey genius, we weren't debating petty theft versus grand theft.

You called it petty theft, and I explained why it wasn't. And I was correct. That's why he was charged with a felony. He would not have been charged with a felony if he took an unattended slice of pizza.

What fucking part of "a jury found him guilty of petty theft" don't you understand?

I called it petty theft and explained why it was. You're simply wrong. This was petty theft by definition. Petty theft is anything under $500 in value. You can't just keep saying it's not petty theft because it legally and by definition was.

[simpdog]

Druff advocates people going to prison for 25 yrs when they steal pizza from a kid.

However he also advocates using fake credit card information to get the best price on flights/hotels/etc.

It's okay to steal from large corporations, but not a $2 piece of pizza.


My 2 cents here. Yes the career criminal should get a larger slap on the wrist. If Druff steals pizza from a kid and it's his first offense maybe he gets probation and has to take a course. The career criminal should do 1-3 months in jail for the exact same crime.

Why do you and jsearles keep ignoring that this was forcefully taking something from little children, and not "stealing"?

The value of the slice of pizza doesn't matter here. It's that it was taken with force from someone's possession.

There is a huge difference there in the eyes of the law, because of the trauma (and danger) experienced by the victim.

You do realize that if the guy was caught stealing pizza that was sitting on an unattended table, it would have been a misdemeanor and this Three Strikes law wouldn't have applied, right?

You don't think it's incredibly brazen, egregious, and scumbaggish to forcefully take things that you want from children?

The guy was sentenced because he had a long criminal history and clearly wasn't changing. This was the final straw. I would have some sympathy if he just swiped some food when he was hungry, but this was a case of him victimizing children for fun.

BTW, the incident occurred as a result of a "dare" between the two friends, not because the two of them were hungry.

Druff you don't need to lump me in with Searles.

I didn't see anywhere in the article where he forcefully took it. If he pushed the kids down and stole their pizza yes, that is a lot more traumatizing and needs to be addressed.

Did he flash a gun or weapon? Then yes bump it up to a felony.

Did he commit crimes in the past? Yes, so address that and give him extra time for that.

[Dan Druff]

Why do you and jsearles keep ignoring that this was forcefully taking something from little children, and not "stealing"?

The value of the slice of pizza doesn't matter here. It's that it was taken with force from someone's possession.

There is a huge difference there in the eyes of the law, because of the trauma (and danger) experienced by the victim.

You do realize that if the guy was caught stealing pizza that was sitting on an unattended table, it would have been a misdemeanor and this Three Strikes law wouldn't have applied, right?

You don't think it's incredibly brazen, egregious, and scumbaggish to forcefully take things that you want from children?

The guy was sentenced because he had a long criminal history and clearly wasn't changing. This was the final straw. I would have some sympathy if he just swiped some food when he was hungry, but this was a case of him victimizing children for fun.

BTW, the incident occurred as a result of a "dare" between the two friends, not because the two of them were hungry.

Druff you don't need to lump me in with Searles.

I didn't see anywhere in the article where he forcefully took it. If he pushed the kids down and stole their pizza yes, that is a lot more traumatizing and needs to be addressed.

Did he flash a gun or weapon? Then yes bump it up to a felony.

Did he commit crimes in the past? Yes, so address that and give him extra time for that.

Do you need to flash a gun or weapon to take items from a 10-year-old?

BTW, he didn't actually go to prison for 25 years. That's another myth. Judges had (and still have) the leeway to adjust various things in lesser cases like these, such as downgrading them to "second strike" offenses. He was out in time to threaten to shoot his girlfriend in 2003 over a matter of $150. He could have been sent to prison for life at that point, but prosecutors went easy on him because he only threatened to shoot her, but didn't actually have a gun with him when making the threat (lol).

jsearles, he was technically convicted on "felony petty theft", but only because it was easier to pin on him than a strongarm robbery charge. Prior to 2011, they could upgrade petty theft to a felony if the person had previously served prison time for theft or robbery.

But this wasn't a traditional petty theft. It was a strongarm robbery, and even if you don't agree it was strongarm, it was at the very least robbery. So stop casting this guy as a petty thief who got 25 years, because he was neither a petty thief nor did he get anywhere near 25 years.

[simpdog]

Druff you don't need to lump me in with Searles.

I didn't see anywhere in the article where he forcefully took it. If he pushed the kids down and stole their pizza yes, that is a lot more traumatizing and needs to be addressed.

Did he flash a gun or weapon? Then yes bump it up to a felony.

Did he commit crimes in the past? Yes, so address that and give him extra time for that.

Do you need to flash a gun or weapon to take items from a 10-year-old?

BTW, he didn't actually go to prison for 25 years. That's another myth. Judges had (and still have) the leeway to adjust various things in lesser cases like these, such as downgrading them to "second strike" offenses. He was out in time to threaten to shoot his girlfriend in 2003 over a matter of $150. He could have been sent to prison for life at that point, but prosecutors went easy on him because he only threatened to shoot her, but didn't actually have a gun with him when making the threat (lol).

jsearles, he was technically convicted on "felony petty theft", but only because it was easier to pin on him than a strongarm robbery charge. Prior to 2011, they could upgrade petty theft to a felony if the person had previously served prison time for theft or robbery.

But this wasn't a traditional petty theft. It was a strongarm robbery, and even if you don't agree it was strongarm, it was at the very least robbery. So stop casting this guy as a petty thief who got 25 years, because he was neither a petty thief nor did he get anywhere near 25 years.

I haven't read the whole case (have you??), but in the article it doesn't mention that he threatened violence at all.

Theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you, but a robbery is taking something from a person and using force, or the threat of force, to do it. Robbery, like theft, involves taking someone’s property without the owner’s consent, but it has some elements that theft doesn’t require.

I don't agree just because it's a 10 yr old that violence is assumed.

Anywho, I'm back to watching the Cavs/Spur game. Great game so far. Have a great evening.

[jsearles22]

Druff you don't need to lump me in with Searles.

I didn't see anywhere in the article where he forcefully took it. If he pushed the kids down and stole their pizza yes, that is a lot more traumatizing and needs to be addressed.

Did he flash a gun or weapon? Then yes bump it up to a felony.

Did he commit crimes in the past? Yes, so address that and give him extra time for that.

Do you need to flash a gun or weapon to take items from a 10-year-old?

BTW, he didn't actually go to prison for 25 years. That's another myth. Judges had (and still have) the leeway to adjust various things in lesser cases like these, such as downgrading them to "second strike" offenses. He was out in time to threaten to shoot his girlfriend in 2003 over a matter of $150. He could have been sent to prison for life at that point, but prosecutors went easy on him because he only threatened to shoot her, but didn't actually have a gun with him when making the threat (lol).

jsearles, he was technically convicted on "felony petty theft", but only because it was easier to pin on him than a strongarm robbery charge. Prior to 2011, they could upgrade petty theft to a felony if the person had previously served prison time for theft or robbery.

But this wasn't a traditional petty theft. It was a strongarm robbery, and even if you don't agree it was strongarm, it was at the very least robbery. So stop casting this guy as a petty thief who got 25 years, because he was neither a petty thief nor did he get anywhere near 25 years.

You'd do better to just stop. Please show me in the California penal code where anything is designated as felony petty theft. I'll wait

Youre misunderstanding the difference between escalators and wobblers. The guy was convicted of regular old petty theft. It was then escalated to a felony due to his past history. Due to this escalation, he then was subject to three strikes. I disagree with this process. It's like his past is being held against him twice.

Cliffs- Druff keeps using words like forcefully with no factual backing. Druff also has no idea what petty theft is by definition. He thought it was based on an empty shelf or taking from a person. It's not, it's based on value. If he took it via force it would be called aggravated petty theft, or more likely charged as robbery or aggravated robbery with injury

*insert Druff wall if text not admitting he's wrong here*

[Dan Druff]

Do you not realize that he was charged with felony petty theft because it was the easiest way to get a felony conviction, and that robbery or even aggravated petty theft had a higher burden of proof?

This sort of thing is done all the time in the criminal legal system.

This wasn't a traditional petty theft. Just like if you were charged for using the internet to facilitate a wager, rather than fraud after ripping someone off of $500.

[jsearles22]

Do you not realize that he was charged with felony petty theft because it was the easiest way to get a feeling conviction, and that robbery or even aggravated petty theft had a higher burden of proof?

This sort of thing is done all the time in the criminal legal system.

This wasn't a traditional petty theft. Just like if you were charged for using the Internet to facilitate a wager, rather than fraud after ripping someone off of $500.

You realize both of those other charges require proof of force and there isn't even a claim of force right? So he committed petty theft.!

All my points are still valid. If I wouldn't get 1 day in jail, no one else should get 25 years. You also like to gloss over that his buddy wasn't even charged for the identical crime!!

It's like you're aware that if it was a simple petty theft that the sentence is absurd, so you can't come off the petty theft debate even in the face of overwhelming facts. Legal definitions be damned

[Dan Druff]

Robbery involves taking property from a person by force or intimidation.

I think it's pretty clear the intimidation thing applies given that the perp was an adult and the victims were 10 years old. They didn't have to threaten anything for the 10 year olds to not resist. After taking the pizza, he sauntered away slowly, rather than run, because he knew they couldn't do anything about it. Complete piece of shit. And again, he was picking on children for fun, not because he was hungry.

However, this was a much harder conviction to obtain, and petty theft was a slam dunk. Not because it was petty theft, but because petty theft is a subset of robbery. They could then upgrade it to a felony due to his priors.

This was legal maneuvering to get a fair and just conviction.

Unless you equate forcefully taking pizza from kids to ordinary theft of a $2 item, this guy was not the poster boy for unjust punishment.

Your "he shouldn't be punished twice for past crimes" crap is nonsense, because prior convictions have always been a huge factor in criminal punishment.

[jsearles22]

Robbery involves taking property from a person by force or intimidation.

I think it's pretty clear the intimidation thing applies given that the perp was an adult and the victims were 10 years old. They didn't have to threaten anything for the 10 year olds to not resist.

However, this was a much harder conviction to obtain, and petty theft was a slam dunk. Not because it was petty theft, but because petty theft is a subset of robbery. They could then upgrade it to a felony due to his priors.

This was legal maneuvering to get a fair and just conviction.

Unless you equate forcefully taking pizza from kids to ordinary theft of a $2 item, this guy was not the poster boy for unjust punishment.

Your "he shouldn't be punished twice for past crimes" crap is nonsense, because prior convictions have always been a huge factor in criminal punishment.

There you go AGAIN using the word forcefully where it doesn't apply.
By your line of thinking, any theft from a person HAS to be robbery and that's simply not true.

Another greasy aspect of three strike laws- order of offenses matter. If I commit petty theft today, I likely get minor probation. Armed robbery next week, I get a year. Felony assault later and that's strike 2 and I get 5 years. But reverse those and now the petty theft is escalated and I get 25 years? So the same people can commit the same crimes but are treated differently.

[Dan Druff]

Robbery involves taking property from a person by force or intimidation.

I think it's pretty clear the intimidation thing applies given that the perp was an adult and the victims were 10 years old. They didn't have to threaten anything for the 10 year olds to not resist.

However, this was a much harder conviction to obtain, and petty theft was a slam dunk. Not because it was petty theft, but because petty theft is a subset of robbery. They could then upgrade it to a felony due to his priors.

This was legal maneuvering to get a fair and just conviction.

Unless you equate forcefully taking pizza from kids to ordinary theft of a $2 item, this guy was not the poster boy for unjust punishment.

Your "he shouldn't be punished twice for past crimes" crap is nonsense, because prior convictions have always been a huge factor in criminal punishment.

There you go AGAIN using the word forcefully where it doesn't apply.
By your line of thinking, any theft from a person HAS to be robbery and that's simply not true.

Another greasy aspect of three strike laws- order of offenses matter. If was commit petty theft today, I likely get minor probation. Armed robbery next week, I get a year. Felony assault later and that's strike 2 and I get 5 years. But reverse those and now the petty theft is escalated and I get 25 years? So the same people can commit the same crimes but are treated differently.

You were a three strikes proponent earlier today.

Now you're against it?

[jsearles22]

There you go AGAIN using the word forcefully where it doesn't apply.
By your line of thinking, any theft from a person HAS to be robbery and that's simply not true.

Another greasy aspect of three strike laws- order of offenses matter. If was commit petty theft today, I likely get minor probation. Armed robbery next week, I get a year. Felony assault later and that's strike 2 and I get 5 years. But reverse those and now the petty theft is escalated and I get 25 years? So the same people can commit the same crimes but are treated differently.

You were a three strikes proponent earlier today.

Now you're against it?

I'm not against it. I've repeatedly said I feel like you should have to commit three felonies. Felonies that are felonies are their own merit, not because of stupid escalators or because of order of offenses. Commit three separate and you are a habitual offender that needs dealt with.

You've shown an incredible lack of legal knowledge tonight Druff. I'm going to bed. Thanks for chiming in tubby ass bloated white bread silver spooned nerd

[Dan Druff]

"Lack of legal knowledge", coming from the guy who thinks that it's a miscarriage of justice to consider a person's priors when punishing them.

And the guy who doesn't understand that what you're officially charged with and the crime you actually committed are often two different things.

Good job stealing insults from Jewdonk, though. Really burned me there. I especially like the fat insults from a guy who has been a white trash marshmallow his whole life, and now thinks he's a beefcake because he lost a few pounds for a few months.

[jsearles22]

"Lack of legal knowledge", coming from the guy who thinks that it's a miscarriage of justice to consider a person's priors when punishing them.

And the guy who doesn't understand that what you're officially charged with and the crime you actually committed are often two different things.

Good job stealing insults from Jewdonk, though. Really burned me there. I especially like the fat insults from a guy who has been a white trash marshmallow his whole life, and now thinks he's a beefcake because he lost a few pounds for a few months.

Tilt much?

Your comprehension is also poor. I never said don't use someone's prior. I simply said don't use it to escalate and three strike on same offense. That gives the appearance of using it TWICE in one scenario

I never debated or even implied that charges and actual offenses often vary

You're simply putting words in my mouth because you're being made to look a fool. This from a guy who thought petty theft meant no one was present. Your knowledge of law isn't close to mine. Your knowledge of many things probably far surpasses me. But Druff could never admit that. Druff is never wrong

So tilt at a little lighthearted "I'm going to bed you pasty fatass" humor. You really are insufferable

[Dan Druff]

"Lack of legal knowledge", coming from the guy who thinks that it's a miscarriage of justice to consider a person's priors when punishing them.

And the guy who doesn't understand that what you're officially charged with and the crime you actually committed are often two different things.

Good job stealing insults from Jewdonk, though. Really burned me there. I especially like the fat insults from a guy who has been a white trash marshmallow his whole life, and now thinks he's a beefcake because he lost a few pounds for a few months.

Tilt much?

Your comprehension is also poor. I never said don't use someone's prior. I simply said don't use it to escalate and three strike on same offense. That gives the appearance of using it TWICE in one scenario

I never debated or even implied that charges and actual offenses often vary

You're simply putting words in my mouth because you're being made to look a fool. This from a guy who thought petty theft meant no one was present. Your knowledge of law isn't close to mine. Your knowledge of many things probably far surpasses me. But Druff could never admit that. Druff is never wrong

So tilt at a little lighthearted "I'm going to bed you pasty fatass" humor. You really are insufferable

If we took a poll here regarding who is more insufferable, do you have any doubt that you would lose by at least a 9-to-1 margin?

[jsearles22]

Tilt much?

Your comprehension is also poor. I never said don't use someone's prior. I simply said don't use it to escalate and three strike on same offense. That gives the appearance of using it TWICE in one scenario

I never debated or even implied that charges and actual offenses often vary

You're simply putting words in my mouth because you're being made to look a fool. This from a guy who thought petty theft meant no one was present. Your knowledge of law isn't close to mine. Your knowledge of many things probably far surpasses me. But Druff could never admit that. Druff is never wrong

So tilt at a little lighthearted "I'm going to bed you pasty fatass" humor. You really are insufferable

If we took a poll here regarding who is more insufferable, do you have any doubt that you would lose by at least a 9-to-1 margin?

Only Druff can reply with "I might be an insufferable faggot douche, but you're more insufferable!"

[thesparten]

I don't know druff, it's not like back in the day with teenager exuberance..the cops gave you a warning and told you to stop drinking in the back of the park at night..now EVERYTHING IS A FUCKEN FELONY..and I'm no liberal..what this guy did was intolerable but "jail for life"

[Dan Druff]

I need to borrow the Delorean and send this thread back in time to myself on the day I was about to unban jsearles.