Posted on 09/02/2006 9:11:47 PM PDT by beaversmom
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, Colo. -- Two men who took fruit and vegetables out of a garbage can have been sentenced to six months in jail, a punishment they say is harsh and the only choice they had to avoid a felony on their records.
Giles Charle, 24, of Sumersworth, N.H., and David Siller, 27, of Wayne, Pa., were on their way to the Rainbow Family's annual gathering when they were arrested in June and charged with felony burglary and misdemeanor theft.
Authorities said they took five cucumbers, four or five apricots, two bundles of asparagus spears and a handful of cherries from a garbage can at Sweet Pea Produce. The two pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing Wednesday and the felony charge was dropped.
"We didn't have any intention of committing a crime or doing anything wrong," Charle told the Steamboat Pilot & Today newspaper. "We had just come in town and we were prepared to buy groceries from a store but everything was closed."
Thousands of people were in the Steamboat Springs area at the end of June and early July for the Rainbow Family gathering north of town. At times, the relationship between members of the nomadic group and authorities was tense and a number of citations were issued.
Assistant District Attorney Kerry St. James said the men were facing the felony because they trespassed onto property without permission and took something that did not belong to them. He said the plea bargain was the suspects' decision.
"They had a choice between accepting a deferred felony with 90 days in jail or a misdemeanor conviction with six months in jail," he said. "They agreed to spend the six months in jail."
Don Wirtshafter, an attorney in Ohio who represented many Rainbow Family members over the summer, said Charle and Siller were forced to choose between two evils.
"A suspended sentence would have worked for these boys, but when a prosecutor is really going after you, the best thing you can do is plea," he said. "At best, this case is bizarre."
Charle's mother, Shaune McCarthy Charle, called the jail sentence a joke.
"It's really amazing and unbelievable how taking garbage out of a Dumpster became a felony," she said. "(St. James) is completely incorrigible."
Colorado Rainbow Family ping for later.
If they had been local boys there would have been no charges......just a friendly warning that dumpster diving was bad for your health.
Since they did not violate a state or federal law, it seems likely they will be in a local jail. I doubt that cranky little town has axe murders and rapists. Seems to be a higher penalty to the town taxpayers then the hippies though, if they had to serve the six months.
They're all Jerry's Kids (Jerry Garcia, that is...)
Help the retarded. Give them a bath.
But it's fine when you have a smaller group? What you call "uncool" others might call "assault and battery on a federal officer," which is what a forest ranger is.
"As flaky as the Rainbowers are, they do generally hold tight to a non-violent ethic."
Ted Bundy held tight to a non-violent ethic 98% of the time. So let's give him a break for his occasional slips.
As you've said, the object was to make an "example." Two days in a quiet little jail in a quiet little town have no deterrent value. But 6 months is a major inconvenience and does have deterrent value.
Actually the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
> But it's fine when you have a smaller group? What you call "uncool" others might call "assault and battery on a federal officer," which is what a forest ranger is.
No, of course it's not fine. Assault is assault even if it's one-on-one. But a large group, IF it goes uncontrolled, becomes a riot, which is something else. If it was a small group the rangers wouldn't have had to retreat.
Thus, anyone who is part of a large group, who begins throwing things, is risking taking the group to the riot level. That's "way" uncool, as opposed to just "uncool". Use of language -- I was being unclear in my adjectives. I condemn even one person throwing rocks.
>> "As flaky as the Rainbowers are, they do generally hold tight to a non-violent ethic."
> Ted Bundy held tight to a non-violent ethic 98% of the time. So let's give him a break for his occasional slips.
Aw, geez, you know what I meant. One individual, being bad, is being 100% bad, and there's no internal counter-balance. A group of 100 people, with 5 of 'em acting up, is being 5% bad, and if the other 95% calm the 5% down, that's a good thing.
>> I could see a couple nights in jail being plenty of "example". Six months is completely out of hand.
> As you've said, the object was to make an "example." Two days in a quiet little jail in a quiet little town have no deterrent value. But 6 months is a major inconvenience and does have deterrent value.
I was thinking of a couple days being enough that he'd spend the time of the Gathering in jail, instead of partying in the woods and fields. Taking some discarded fruit from a trashcan shouldn't cost him losing his rent, job, car/insurance payments, etc. assuming he had a home base. Six months is more than a major inconvenience. It's enough to basically destroy a person's living (unless the person is totally nomadic and has no possessions). Many of the Rainbowers are part-timers, who have some semblance of a real life most of the time.
But whatever..., if you'd be willing to spend six months in jail for dumpster-diving because you were hungry and the local cops decided to make an example out of you, I suppose I have nothing else to say.
Absurd sentence.
If thousands of hippies can abuse their travel freedom to inflict disruption on the life of small towns and rural communities, leaving a 200-ton fecal matter calling card, then local DAs can use prosecutorial discretion to fight back.
Turnabout is fair play.
i) Regardless of degree, these defendants were liable to multiple counts arising from the same episode, including but not limited to criminal trespass, criminal tampering and unlawful taking, possession and use of property not their own.
There is a vast and unbridgeable gap between a cop, acting on reasonable suspicion or a lawful search warrant, entering private property, opening a dumpster and extracting objects as evidence, and a private citizen, without authorization, unlawfully entering private property, tampering with equipment and extracting property not his own.
It is my guess that the DA's upgrade to felony may have been technically justified by the law, the rules and the facts. I am also guessing that the reason these two defendants entered the plea is because they were advised to do so by counsel, who realized the risk of not accepting the deal that was offered and advised against courting the cost and uncertainty of proceeding to trial and subsequent appeal.
ii) What part of "trespassing" and "tampering" and "private property" do you not understand? I might get hungry at midnight, when I have nothing to eat in the house and no access to a grocery store or restaurant. But that doesn't mean I have the right to trespass on my neighbor's property, open his garbage can and extract whatever I want. Moreover, new age "counter-culture" types are known to be fond of fasting and no MD would have diagnosed these two as being on the verge of starving to death. There was no compelling or extenuating reason for their transgression. Failing to nutritionally provision themselves, they chose to violate another's property rights simply to gratify their own convenience.
iii) Payments of such expenses as rent, insurance and the like can easily be mailed in from jail. Or another, such as a friend or relative, can do this. And if somebody loses his job because he knowingly violated the law, whose fault is that -- the perpetrator's or the prosecutor's?
iv) These communities and forest service personnel are sick and tired of the expense and disruption in their lives caused by these morons. I don't blame them one bit for fighting back with whatever tool is at their disposal.
Co-signing - ROFLOL!
Stick around... Some day I'll tell you how he gave all his Christmas savings to Hari Kerisnas (sp) at the mall when he was 11. He thought the fact that they were bald was because they had brain tumors, so he wanted to cheer them up!
He's 43 now and completely normal. Honest.
I can.
The article clearly states that the pair were charged with felony burglary.
From the Colorado Criminal Code (Title 18) --
Statute text
(1) A person commits third degree burglary if with intent to commit a crime he enters or breaks into any vault, safe, cash register, coin vending machine, product dispenser, money depository, safety deposit box, coin telephone, coin box, or other apparatus or equipment whether or not coin operated.
(2) Third degree burglary is a class 5 felony, but it is a class 4 felony if it is a burglary, the objective of which is the theft of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S., lawfully kept in or upon the property burglarized.
History
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 427, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-4-204. L. 81: (2) amended, p. 974, § 10, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 2031, § 45, effective July 14.
Their intent to commit a crime was clear -- trespassing, tampering and unlawful taking.
They definitely entered into equipment or apparatus (the dumpster), as specified in sec 1 of the Colorado statute.
They therefore are subject to a charge of 3rd degree burglary, a class 5 felony as defined in the statute.
Not when it is on your own property.
Once it is taken out to the curb yes. But not while it is sitting at your door or in your kitchen.
It was still on his property.
So you think that it is ok to go onto someone else's property and take stuff? You know you don't.
The point is not the value or what he was going to do with it later. The point is that it was his and it was on his property.
At age 8 it is excusable. When you are an adult you should know, you don't go on to private property and take stuff.
If it takes six months in the city jail for them to get it through their heads that you don't go on to people's property and take things without permission then I guess it takes six months.
It is not like they were starving. They would have at worst missed a snack.
If they had a reputation for behaving badly local or not the owner likely would have preferred charges.
One thing about it, they don't have to worry about their meals for 6 months.
Sorry but you are wrong. They ruled that trash was fairgame. On the curb is not a requirement.
And if it takes a year, that would probably be fine with you, too. Five years, ten -- I mean, hell, whatever it takes, right? I have a hunch that your standard determining "whatever it takes" is whatever the prosecuting attorney and the judge cook up in the back room. Come on.
This is a "let's send a message to those damn hippies" sentence. It is grossly excessive for such a trivial, victimless crime.
If the judge was concerned about the mess that the hippie group creates, perhaps he could have sentenced these two to a week of cleaning up that mess. Such a sentence would even have saved taxpayer dollars. Instead he provided two hippies with taxpayer-sponsored room and board for six months, in an environment where they can learn how to become real criminals. Just brilliant.
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.