Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lottery winner wasn't supposed to gamble (convicted bank robber on probation)
Yahoo News/AP ^ | Nov 28, 2007

Posted on 11/29/2007 7:08:30 AM PST by nuconvert

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: nuconvert

Illegals buy lottery tickets and win so why not let a legal criminal a piece of the pie?


21 posted on 11/29/2007 7:37:30 AM PST by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

He simply did no wrong. Violating probation?


Parole agreements are now living documents?


22 posted on 11/29/2007 7:39:29 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert; All

“Under terms of his probation, he “may not gamble, purchase lottery tickets or visit an establishment where gaming is conducted, including restaurants where Keno may be played.”

If he can’t visit places where gaming is conducted, then I guess he can’t get gas at most gas stations or visit the majority of grocery stores as gas stations and grocery stores are the biggest sellers of lottery tickets.

This guy can only shop and get gas at Wal-mart or Sam’s till the end of his probation.

Or is my logic faulty?


23 posted on 11/29/2007 7:40:32 AM PST by art_rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

That would work (if they would use it that way) but ...I like to see the little guy win sometimes.


24 posted on 11/29/2007 7:42:21 AM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
My brother has a gambling problem and of course, it causes all kinds of other problems.

In all sincerity, the clause was nothing more than wishful thinking on the judges part....and the judge knows it.

25 posted on 11/29/2007 7:47:30 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
He won. Give him the money.

I agree. From the looks of things, he probably won't keep it long anyways.

26 posted on 11/29/2007 7:47:59 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: art_rocks

“Judges whim”!! Think this is one of those “cuties” between the Public Defender and the Judge. Why doesn’t it say “No more trying to rob banks?” Remember, this was an unarmed robbery.


27 posted on 11/29/2007 7:52:14 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
In all sincerity, the clause was nothing more than wishful thinking on the judges part....and the judge knows it.

I disagree that it was wishful thinking. It was a written agreement.
28 posted on 11/29/2007 7:53:58 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Queston #1...will he go back to the slammer for having violated probation? And #2...if so,for how long? If he goes back for say,six months,I'd say that that's a pretty good deal...if he's allowed to keep the money.

I'd probably be willing to do 6 months in the slammer for a million bucks.But upon entering,I'd make sure that my lawyer informed the Department of Correction that they'd be sued...big time...for every single assault that I suffered at the hands of another prisoner.

And then I'd keep my fingers crossed!

29 posted on 11/29/2007 7:55:27 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Wanna see how bad it can get? Elect Hillary and find out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

We’ll see. I think he’ll get the money.


30 posted on 11/29/2007 7:58:46 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Evidently, some evidence must have included him committing the robbery to support a gambling problem.

Thanks.

31 posted on 11/29/2007 8:00:17 AM PST by traditional1 (Thompson/Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
I'm not a lawyer -- but from a legal standpoint, my first instinct is:

1. He has the right to keep the money (he won the lottery prize legitimately).

2. He gets sent to jail or faces some other legal consequences for violating the terms of his parole.

I don't see how the terms of his parole have anything to do with what happened subsequently as a result of his violation of those terms (since there was nothing inherently illegal about winning the lottery in and of itself).

32 posted on 11/29/2007 8:05:35 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

With that kind of money at stake, it would be profitable to keep him in the system for the next twenty years and that is most likely their intention. He will not be allowed to keep the money. They will keep locking him up to shut him up. Common sense goes out the window when “gold fever” strikes and our justice system is not exempt.


33 posted on 11/29/2007 8:09:01 AM PST by Birdsbane (If You Are Employed By A Liberal Democrat...Quit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Birdsbane

I’m sure the guy has “gambled” 100 times since he has been on parole. I’ll even bet that his parole officer knows about it....and considered it “no big deal”. We’ll see!!


34 posted on 11/29/2007 8:16:09 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
“Under terms of his probation, he “may not gamble, purchase lottery tickets or visit an establishment where gaming is conducted, including restaurants where Keno may be played.”

That kind of limits his choice of grocery stores and convenience stores, huh?

35 posted on 11/29/2007 8:56:28 AM PST by Nephi ( $100m ante is a symptom of the old media... the Ron Paul Revolution is the new media's choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

I think its BS to nuke the guy because he bought a lotto ticket.

The STATES push lottery ticket sales in ever state I’ve been in, and make it appear “so cool to do, you might win”. I’d tell them to shove it, give me my money and STFU.

Generally being on parole means he did his time, took his punishment and just has to keep his nose clean and not rob banks (or other criminal acts). Buying a lotto ticket is NOT a criminal act, by any reasonable standard anyone can set.

If the guy originally went to jail for illegal gambling or say, embezzling funds from gambling winnings, or being in debt up to his eyeballs, that would be a different story.

The STATE pushes lotto. They state needs to pay out. Period.


36 posted on 11/29/2007 9:03:08 AM PST by Rick.Donaldson (http://www.transasianaxis.com - Visit for lastest on DPRK/Russia/China/Etc --Fred Thompson for Prez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert


"D-oh!"
37 posted on 11/29/2007 10:02:16 AM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I'm not a lawyer -- but from a legal standpoint, my first instinct is:

1. He has the right to keep the money (he won the lottery prize legitimately).

2. He gets sent to jail or faces some other legal consequences for violating the terms of his parole.

I don't see how the terms of his parole have anything to do with what happened subsequently as a result of his violation of those terms (since there was nothing inherently illegal about winning the lottery in and of itself).

Ding Ding Ding. We have the winner. Unless the terms of his parole say that he must surrender any winnings or the rules of the lottery state that persons restricted from legally playing the lottery are ineligible then the money is his and his punishment should be the same as it would have been had he not won.

38 posted on 11/29/2007 2:07:29 PM PST by BlueMondaySkipper (If liberals were merely stupid then the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of thie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Oh Santa say it isn’t so.
39 posted on 11/29/2007 2:38:06 PM PST by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

What is obvious is our government in comprised of the more “Sophisticated Class”..... of thieves.

Be sure to steal the man’s winnings you sacks of Legalistic Crap.

W


40 posted on 11/29/2007 2:44:32 PM PST by WLR (Defeating Liberalism and The East since 500 BC Iran delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson