Any first time offender with a lawyer would have gotten the same.

yes, and by common sense and what really happened, he robbed someone.

Ok, sure.

Look up the legal definition of robbery and get back to me.

legally, he was convicted of a minor assault. what he really did was robbery.

if i'm hiring a guy that i know committed a predmeditated murder, but his plea deal was manslaughter (which people can get from falling asleep at the wheel of a car), i'm not going to hire him because he murdered someone on purpose. it's the same thing.

legally, you look at kane because he got stuck with an assault charge. if you hold it in the strictly legal light, then you are absolutely right. realistically, he robbed someone.

But we're not talking about the plea Pat.

The police charged Kane with felony robbery, 3rd degree assault, and harassment. The grand jury said that evidence presented for felony robbery charge was insufficient. Therefore the robbery charge is tossed. It's not even on his record.

Past that, he STILL didn't rob anyone. Let's say that I agree to purchase a tent from you for $50. I give you a $100 bill, and you give me the tent. You don't give me my change. You've now stolen from me since you've taken my property ($50.)

If we get in a fight and I take my $50 from you, I didn't rob you. I simply retrieved my property from you. I did so illegally by getting in a fight over it, but I still haven't taken YOUR property. I retrieved MY property that YOU possessed.

Listen, Kane is a schmuck. He did something REALLY dumb. He's not some uber criminal like he's made out to be.

i didn't say that. i was talking about your analogy.

i never read into the case because i don't care. i saw that someone said he robbed the cabbie, and you never argued that part, but the part that he was charged with less. had i known that part of the case i would have said he didn't rob anyone.

my thing was that you can't judge for what charge stuck, if you know something else occured- but that got a little lost in the context. my bad

He was charged with robbery. The grand jury threw that out.

My personal view is that when a grand jury or judge refuses to indict, meaning there isn't enough evidence to support a charge, that a person didn't commit the crime that they're accused of. I don't subscribe to the idea that just because someone was initially charged with said crime that they did it. I know too many cops that are willing to overcharge to allow the GJ to sort it out.

yeah, but bobby lou gets pulled over for a 70 in a 55, but gets a parking ticket. what did bobby lou do?

how about betty sue pulled over for the same ticket, she cries and gets a parking ticket. what is she guilty of?


no it's not a grand jury, but there are plenty of cops who undercharge.

Slightly different scenario, since traffic tickets are a revenue stream, not criminal enforcement, but I acknowledge your point.

that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you have a discussion on a message board between two people with opposing views who have never met

Dammit, man. I was hoping for a shit show. YOU DID IT WRONG!

Wtf where's all the "fuck you!"s or the "you suck"s?

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.