Aggravated Robbery With a Deady Weapon

Well thank god we can all at least agree on that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

And some criminals are finding out who are cancer patients in the area and where they live. Cancer patients are prescribed opiates and that is the number one drug of choice other then heroin for addicts.

---

Even handicap license plates and placards can pose a problem. I've advised my mother to keep her car placard hidden out of view when the car is at home in the driveway.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Well thank god we can all at least agree on that.

---

Well hopefully in twenty years, you two can remain friends? He is going to need a lot of help in order to find a job with the type of record that he is going to have.

The prison time is the easy part, the next 20 years of having a criminal record will be the hard part. And I don't believe that violent crimes are expugnable?

Quote:

---

Quoting Who'sThatGuy

---

Well hopefully in twenty years, you two can remain friends? He is going to need a lot of help in order to find a job with the type of record that he is going to have.

The prison time is the easy part, the next 20 years of having a criminal record will be the hard part. And I don't believe that violent crimes are expugnable?

---

We can be roomies. I'll get us a bunk bed and everything. Then during the day we can grab our metal detectors and go down to the beach looking for change to buy Mcdoubles.

No but seriously, i don't think my mind can really comprehend the thought of life 20 years from now.
And its even harder to comprehend the fact you might have to wait 20 years before you can see someone again.

And yeah i'm sure we would still be friends, assuming prison didn't ruin him. Some people come out worse than when they went in.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Then the odds of conviction after trial are roughly 100%.

Still roughly 100%.

He presumably would not testify at trial because, prior convictions aside, he's guilty. Based on his honest testimony alone, his chance of conviction would be roughly 100%.

Roughly 0%.

Based on your description of the crime, he intended to confront the occupants of the home in order to try to get whatever it was that he believed that they possessed. You also make it sound like he and his friend were desperate junkies.

He couldn't do what? He was brandishing the gun, so obviously he wasn't to scared to brandish. If you mean he was too afraid to shoot somebody, you just told us that the gun wasn't loaded.

Depending on his record, probably more like 20 - 50. If he was terrorizing children, all bets are off.

I don't think it's a universal that a burglar's possession of a firearm means that he wants to confront a homeowner; but in the case under discussion we were told "He broke into a house while the family was home and attempted to rob them", so here there was the intent to confront the homeowner. Odds are he was operating on the assumption that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and was hoping to get a stash of drugs and money, or that the homeowner was one of the unfortunate people who is the subject of a neighborhood rumor that he has a large amount of cash or other valuables hidden in his house.

Actually, you can make pretty strong inferences based on the facts. He wanted something that didn't belong to him, so he and his buddy got a gun, broke into a home, and terrorized a family as part of their effort to get it. And yes, you can make lots of inferences about his (lack of) character based on his actions.

You've already told us that he knew that they were home. You have told us that he was going to use the firearm for [something] but "chickened out". He wasn't planning to wave an unloaded firearm around an empty house.

Priors can potentially come in as evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident -- and that can happen without the defendant's testimony. Odds are, though, that you're thinking about prior acts of theft which, if a defendant testifies, can often come into evidence to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness.

People coming up against overwhelming evidence of guilt rarely take their cases to trial unless they are not offered a plea bargain that reduces their potential exposure. When they do take this type of case to trial, odds of conviction are roughly 100%.

Sure. We can estimate his chance of acquittal under the facts given as roughly .0000000000000001%.

---

Just noticed your name was 'Mr. Knowitall'. That explains a lot LOL

Someday, Santa will grant my wish that people don't drag up OJ or McDonald's without actually knowing what happened and why.

Someday.

Oh, you'll be able to see him during those twenty years. It's just that it will be with glass between you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Someday, Santa will grant my wish that people don't drag up OJ or McDonald's without actually knowing what happened and why.

Someday.

---

Hey i thought that was a very relevant reference haha
Some people believe he's truly guilty, but he still got off even with all the evidence against him.
And what about McDonalds? I happen to love McDoubles...

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Oh, you'll be able to see him during those twenty years. It's just that it will be with glass between you.

---

I don't think i could do it to be honest. I think it would be harder to look at him through the glass than to not even look at him at all.

The prosecution basically became the Broncos on Super Bowl Sunday.

Had all the weaponry for a conviction....

... and muffed the punt instead.

Doggie is referring to the fact that many people refer to the case where McDonald's was sued over their hot coffee when they are evidently not familiar with the true facts of the case.

Just understand that she is not responsible for anything she says when football is on. Even I don't always understand her then.

Quote:

---

Quoting nlxo

---

Hey i thought that was a very relevant reference haha
Some people believe he's truly guilty, but he still got off even with all the evidence against him.

---

Well at the time OJ had almost an endless amount of money.

Your friend probably has about a buck-three-eighty.

If you come up with real money, you too could hire expert witnesses and others to try to convince a jury that he isn't guilty, but that would still be hard because the State not only has circumstantial evidence, they also have direct evidence, testimony, a cooperating defendant and possibly forensic evidence to. .