I just can't.
$50,000 bond imposed on a homeless man who almost certainly made a mistake (and thus didn't break the law) when he thought over OVERpaid for a Mountain Dew but inadvertently underpaid by 43¢.
And got arrested for it by the STATE police.
pennlive.com/news/2021/09/m…
$50,000 bond imposed on a homeless man who almost certainly made a mistake (and thus didn't break the law) when he thought over OVERpaid for a Mountain Dew but inadvertently underpaid by 43¢.
And got arrested for it by the STATE police.
pennlive.com/news/2021/09/m…
As article points out, felony theft in PA requires intent: he had to INTEND to stiff the store.
The DA has to prove this *beyond a reasonable doubt*. The sign said "2 for $3." He paid $2 for ONE.
I can't imagine a DA who could win this one at trial.
Still: a **$50,000 bond**
The DA has to prove this *beyond a reasonable doubt*. The sign said "2 for $3." He paid $2 for ONE.
I can't imagine a DA who could win this one at trial.
Still: a **$50,000 bond**
The state would lose this case for sure if it goes to trial.
But that $50K bond? Now the man's in jail. Bet he gets a misdemeanor "time served" plea offer to go home that day. Does it take it? Or does he languish longer in prison and have toroll the dice on SEVEN YRS in prison?
But that $50K bond? Now the man's in jail. Bet he gets a misdemeanor "time served" plea offer to go home that day. Does it take it? Or does he languish longer in prison and have toroll the dice on SEVEN YRS in prison?
And why, you ask, does a 38-yr old homeless man even face seven yrs in prison for what is, at most, the theft of 43¢ (but isn't, bc state can't prove it)?
Because over a decade ago he didn't pay of a tank of gas and stole a $40 paid of sneakers.
Mindless, thoughtless savagery.
Because over a decade ago he didn't pay of a tank of gas and stole a $40 paid of sneakers.
Mindless, thoughtless savagery.
To summarize: the state police (!) arrested (!) a homeless man, who tried to OVERpay (!) for a Mountain Dew but accidentally (!) underpaid by 43¢ (!). Then a judge hit him w a $50,000 bond (!). Now faces seven yr (!) in state prison (!) because of two small decade-old priors (!).
No part--not a single damn part--of this makes even the barest scintilla of sense. Not one single part.
Just... God damnit.
Just... God damnit.
Will add: when I first read this, I skimmed past this paragraph, which is relevant.
Perhaps the DA's case is stronger than I initially suggested, given this interaction. Though likely still pretty hard (reckless? easy. But intent? Tougher).
Still? No need for $50K.
Perhaps the DA's case is stronger than I initially suggested, given this interaction. Though likely still pretty hard (reckless? easy. But intent? Tougher).
Still? No need for $50K.
BUT! This is also simply... not true. The Supreme Court has made it clear that police have almost unfettered discretion to decline to bring charges.
The legal victim here is not the store. The victim is the state. That's how crim law works.
The legal victim here is not the store. The victim is the state. That's how crim law works.
Perhaps the state police have some sort of internal policy of agreeing to make an arrest whenever the person stolen from asks for it, but... PA ppl--does that sound true??
And even if it is, that still means it's an internal choice, not some sort of external inviolate rule.
And even if it is, that still means it's an internal choice, not some sort of external inviolate rule.
And as I think more abt this quote, the worse it gets:
https://twitter.com/johnfpfaff/status/1440088632295968777
And one last thing for this thread (for now), about an under-appreciated aspect of bail setting in PA:
https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1440320741073846293?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
