It's OK to own a gun and cap someone but don't go stealing their doughnut.
Telegraph:
Doughnut theft could land man in prisonQUOTE
It's a story that would make Homer Simpson shudder: one hungry man's unlawful desire for a doughnut may prove to be the most costliest [sic] snack ever. In an unbelievable episode which many may feel highlights the absurdities of the American legal system, a man who stole a paltry doughnut today faces up to 30 years in jail.
thefirelane
Oct 8 2007, 5:19 pm
Ok, at least they could get the story right. Just from other sources, off the top of my head:
He can get up to 30 years (do these people fall for those mail in prizes a lot?!)
He is a repeat offender
3rd felony triggers the more extreme penatly
He assaulted the shopkeeper.
So instead the headline could read: "Career criminal assaults shopkeeper during robbery, faces 30 years in prison"
jayhay
Oct 8 2007, 10:10 pm
I like "Doughnut thief could get 30 years" better.
James_Runner
Oct 8 2007, 10:31 pm
I can already imagine the parody of this on South Park.
Conquistador
Oct 9 2007, 5:19 am
Here is a more detailed account of the incident and Masters' criminal record:
QUOTE
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stor...9F?OpenDocumentMasters, who lives in the nearby town of Park Hills, has been arrested more than a dozen times: for being drunk, for shoplifting, for missed court dates, for marijuana possession. He spent most of the 1990s and a stretch from 2000 to 2004 in state prison for the felonies of torching a car to collect insurance and possessing methamphetamine ingredients.
Elfenstar
Oct 9 2007, 10:14 am
reminds me of the article i just read about the judge who wanted $67 million from a dry cleaners for giving him the wrong pants back.
Article from
NY Times
Conquistador
Oct 9 2007, 10:25 am
To follow up on Elfenstar's post of the NYT article, here is the Wikipedia entry on this case:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._ChungPearson rejected a later offer to settle the case for $12,000
I have no idea why the judge refused to settle for $12,000. He represented himeself, so the $12,000 more than covered the fees for filing the lawsuit and the pants. As for the defendants, I suspect that they did in fact lose his pants and tried to give him some other pants instead; nevertheless, why not take it to Small Claims Court if the defendants refused to compensate him for the loss of the pants?
L8knight
Oct 9 2007, 10:28 am
QUOTE (Adi @ Oct 8 2007, 5:38 pm)
It's OK to own a gun and cap someone but don't go stealing their doughnut.
Telegraph:
Doughnut theft could land man in prisonAre you really this ignorant or is it British Troll day?
BadDoggie
Oct 9 2007, 10:32 am
You should apply for a job at the Sun or Bild, Elfenstar. Anyone in the US can file a lawsuit for anything. I can sue you in the US for annoying me. It doesn't change the fact that such a suit will be thrown out of court. At least Americans have access to redress of grievances. Pearson, a former judge, lost the suit, would've been required to pay the defendant's costs (but fundraisers covered that), and lost his appointment as well. His wife left him and he's a pariah in DC.
And before anyone brings up the McDonald's coffee crap again, the cap didn't fit the cup, the woman suffered severe burns, she only sued after McD's refused to cover her high medical expenses resulting from the burns even though they'd done so in similar cases, and a later court reduced the award severely, basically covering just her medical and legal costs.
woof.
QUOTE (L8knight @ Oct 9 2007, 11:28 am)
Are you really this ignorant or is it British Troll day?
No, it's Americans have no sense of humour day. Relax Bud, of course it's meant to stimulate some chatter otherwise we'd only be answering questions about how to get English language TV and why does everyone hate Americans.
