Skip to comments.
Felon gets 99 years for stealing cell phone
Associated Press ^
| July 11, 2005
Posted on 07/11/2005 1:08:03 PM PDT by Dog Gone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 next last
1
posted on
07/11/2005 1:08:04 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
Nice headline! Editor just forgot to mention that the thief beat the crap out of the cellphone's owner while committing the crime...
2
posted on
07/11/2005 1:09:32 PM PDT
by
Shalom Israel
(Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
To: Dog Gone
I love how the title "forgets" to mention the assault.
3
posted on
07/11/2005 1:09:47 PM PDT
by
FormerLib
(Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
To: Dog Gone
Stupid is as stupid does. It's great they got this thug off the street.
4
posted on
07/11/2005 1:10:08 PM PDT
by
DouglasKC
To: Dog Gone
Jurors, who deliberated about 15 minutes, convicted Reed as a habitual criminal So it takes thirteen minutes to do double elimiantion rock-papers-sissors to pick the jury foreman, one minute to vote, and then one minute to walk back. Gotta love Texas
5
posted on
07/11/2005 1:11:14 PM PDT
by
pikachu
(What if there were no more hypothetical questions?)
To: Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone
7
posted on
07/11/2005 1:13:46 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: Dog Gone; mikrofon
He who steals my name steals trash.
He who steals my cell phone steals gold.
8
posted on
07/11/2005 1:15:59 PM PDT
by
martin_fierro
(Or something like that)
To: Dog Gone
What a complete idiot. He deserves the sentence he got.
9
posted on
07/11/2005 1:16:31 PM PDT
by
Fierce Allegiance
(This ain't your granddaddy's America!)
To: Dog Gone
Next time, he should stick to stealing classified documents and destroying them.
To: pikachu
I think the deliberations went something like this:
Jury foreman: "Okay, everyone. Now that we're seated, how does 99 years sound to everyone?"
Juror 1: "Yep."
Jurors 2-11: "Yeehaw!"
11
posted on
07/11/2005 1:18:07 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: Dog Gone; Shalom Israel
Hmmm. My question for the editor of the paper is why the opening parapgraph didn't ask the question as to how it was that this savage was on the streets at all? Why hasn't he already been sentenced to 99 years for the dozen plus crimes that he has already committed?
All I can say is thank goodness that fellow in the truck had a cell phone to steal so the people of Texas could finally put this vermin away for good!
12
posted on
07/11/2005 1:18:33 PM PDT
by
markedman
(Lay me down to a watery grave)
To: Dog Gone
"If you catch me, you catch me. If not, I'm going to go home and eat it up and go on about my business, dog."I hope you enjoy prison, dog.
13
posted on
07/11/2005 1:22:13 PM PDT
by
BostonianRightist
(I don't trust a government I can't shoot back at.)
To: Dog Gone
This guy is unrepentant and a career criminal. Nevertheless it is wrong to sentence someone to life in jail for stealing a cell phone and hitting someone. He deserves to go to jail, but the punishment does not fit the crime here, and I think that's unjust. Life in prison should be reserved for murderers, traitors, kidnappers, terrorists or rapists.
Many will disagree and that's okay.
To: Dog Gone
"If you catch me, you catch me. If not, I'm going to go home and eat it up and go on about my business, dog." I guess the jury wasn't swayed by his obvious charm. LOL.
15
posted on
07/11/2005 1:22:35 PM PDT
by
Blue Champagne
(Quomodo cogis comas tuas sic videri?)
To: Dog Gone
This is why they should bring back caning. They should inflict physical pain on some criminals. It's the only thing they understand. Life if physical.
25 years in prison at the expense of the taxpayers @ 25K a year is $625,000 for a $300 cell phone? Granted the guy should be off the street, bus isn't there something cheaper we could use. How about multiple canings over a few years to make the guy regret and remember?
I'm sure the "liberals", the ACLU and Amnesty Intl. would love it
16
posted on
07/11/2005 1:24:33 PM PDT
by
garyhope
(moules et frites)
To: Dog Gone
Reed, who testified during his trial against the wishes of his court-appointed attorneys, frequently went into profanity-laced tirades and told jurors he didn't care if they gave him life in prison. Note to self... Profanity-laced tirades do not help sway a jury.
17
posted on
07/11/2005 1:25:25 PM PDT
by
6SJ7
To: martin_fierro
There's nothing like reading and posting on FR using a Treo!
18
posted on
07/11/2005 1:26:33 PM PDT
by
Vision Thing
(Hillary is a mad cow.)
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: Dog Gone
"There's things I choose to do, like, if I go in a store and choose to take a Snicker's bar," Reed testified. "If you catch me, you catch me. If not, I'm going to go home and eat it up and go on about my business, dog." The only reason this guy would say something like this to a jury is because he wants to be in prison.
Seriously.
He's evidently more comfortable there than on the outside.
20
posted on
07/11/2005 1:28:28 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson