Cop Trashed House- Now he’s a wanted a man

[kcal09]

I think we shouldn’t punish them be sending them to jail as this will cost us taxpayers money. Instead, they should be forced to pay for the damage plus some penalty. The prisons are already overcrowded and the taxpayers are tired of supporting non violent criminals.

[jpinpb]

[quote=kcal09]I think we shouldn’t punish them be sending them to jail as this will cost us taxpayers money. Instead, they should be forced to pay for the damage plus some penalty. The prisons are already overcrowded and the taxpayers are tired of supporting non violent criminals.[/quote]

Maybe we can give them community service work. What would be appropriate punishment? Build homes for the homeless, like Habitat for Humanity or something.

[jpinpb]

[quote=kcal09]I think we shouldn’t punish them be sending them to jail as this will cost us taxpayers money. Instead, they should be forced to pay for the damage plus some penalty. The prisons are already overcrowded and the taxpayers are tired of supporting non violent criminals.[/quote]

Maybe we can give them community service work. What would be appropriate punishment? Build homes for the homeless, like Habitat for Humanity or something.

[jpinpb]

[quote=kcal09]I think we shouldn’t punish them be sending them to jail as this will cost us taxpayers money. Instead, they should be forced to pay for the damage plus some penalty. The prisons are already overcrowded and the taxpayers are tired of supporting non violent criminals.[/quote]

Maybe we can give them community service work. What would be appropriate punishment? Build homes for the homeless, like Habitat for Humanity or something.

[jpinpb]

[quote=kcal09]I think we shouldn’t punish them be sending them to jail as this will cost us taxpayers money. Instead, they should be forced to pay for the damage plus some penalty. The prisons are already overcrowded and the taxpayers are tired of supporting non violent criminals.[/quote]

Maybe we can give them community service work. What would be appropriate punishment? Build homes for the homeless, like Habitat for Humanity or something.

[jpinpb]

[quote=kcal09]I think we shouldn’t punish them be sending them to jail as this will cost us taxpayers money. Instead, they should be forced to pay for the damage plus some penalty. The prisons are already overcrowded and the taxpayers are tired of supporting non violent criminals.[/quote]

Maybe we can give them community service work. What would be appropriate punishment? Build homes for the homeless, like Habitat for Humanity or something.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Butleroftwo][img_assist|nid=14028|title=Vendetta|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=47][img_assist|nid=14029|title=Vendetta1|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=218][/quote]

Okay, I feel really, really bad saying this, and I know that it reveals a mile-wide character flaw, but I just can’t help myself…….Has anyone thought to do some radiological studies on the wife’s face? I can’t tell if that’s Botox and silicone cheek implants, or StoneLite and thinset. A skilled radiologist might be able to find some of the purloined building supplies.

OK, I’ll stop now.

Wait….does anyone else think he’s had some lip collagen injections? (hopefully, it’s not actually a substance applied with a caulk gun)

I know…..I’m a shit. Honestly, I have my moments of empathy, even for this couple. But this visual momentarily shortcircuited that part of my brain. And I have to admit: watching Mrs. Acosta chainsawing a cypress tree in her backyard right in front of her little girl (who appeared to be somewhat disturbed by the sight) didn’t help with that in the least.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Butleroftwo][img_assist|nid=14028|title=Vendetta|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=47][img_assist|nid=14029|title=Vendetta1|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=218][/quote]

Okay, I feel really, really bad saying this, and I know that it reveals a mile-wide character flaw, but I just can’t help myself…….Has anyone thought to do some radiological studies on the wife’s face? I can’t tell if that’s Botox and silicone cheek implants, or StoneLite and thinset. A skilled radiologist might be able to find some of the purloined building supplies.

OK, I’ll stop now.

Wait….does anyone else think he’s had some lip collagen injections? (hopefully, it’s not actually a substance applied with a caulk gun)

I know…..I’m a shit. Honestly, I have my moments of empathy, even for this couple. But this visual momentarily shortcircuited that part of my brain. And I have to admit: watching Mrs. Acosta chainsawing a cypress tree in her backyard right in front of her little girl (who appeared to be somewhat disturbed by the sight) didn’t help with that in the least.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Butleroftwo][img_assist|nid=14028|title=Vendetta|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=47][img_assist|nid=14029|title=Vendetta1|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=218][/quote]

Okay, I feel really, really bad saying this, and I know that it reveals a mile-wide character flaw, but I just can’t help myself…….Has anyone thought to do some radiological studies on the wife’s face? I can’t tell if that’s Botox and silicone cheek implants, or StoneLite and thinset. A skilled radiologist might be able to find some of the purloined building supplies.

OK, I’ll stop now.

Wait….does anyone else think he’s had some lip collagen injections? (hopefully, it’s not actually a substance applied with a caulk gun)

I know…..I’m a shit. Honestly, I have my moments of empathy, even for this couple. But this visual momentarily shortcircuited that part of my brain. And I have to admit: watching Mrs. Acosta chainsawing a cypress tree in her backyard right in front of her little girl (who appeared to be somewhat disturbed by the sight) didn’t help with that in the least.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Butleroftwo][img_assist|nid=14028|title=Vendetta|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=47][img_assist|nid=14029|title=Vendetta1|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=218][/quote]

Okay, I feel really, really bad saying this, and I know that it reveals a mile-wide character flaw, but I just can’t help myself…….Has anyone thought to do some radiological studies on the wife’s face? I can’t tell if that’s Botox and silicone cheek implants, or StoneLite and thinset. A skilled radiologist might be able to find some of the purloined building supplies.

OK, I’ll stop now.

Wait….does anyone else think he’s had some lip collagen injections? (hopefully, it’s not actually a substance applied with a caulk gun)

I know…..I’m a shit. Honestly, I have my moments of empathy, even for this couple. But this visual momentarily shortcircuited that part of my brain. And I have to admit: watching Mrs. Acosta chainsawing a cypress tree in her backyard right in front of her little girl (who appeared to be somewhat disturbed by the sight) didn’t help with that in the least.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Butleroftwo][img_assist|nid=14028|title=Vendetta|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=47][img_assist|nid=14029|title=Vendetta1|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=218][/quote]

Okay, I feel really, really bad saying this, and I know that it reveals a mile-wide character flaw, but I just can’t help myself…….Has anyone thought to do some radiological studies on the wife’s face? I can’t tell if that’s Botox and silicone cheek implants, or StoneLite and thinset. A skilled radiologist might be able to find some of the purloined building supplies.

OK, I’ll stop now.

Wait….does anyone else think he’s had some lip collagen injections? (hopefully, it’s not actually a substance applied with a caulk gun)

I know…..I’m a shit. Honestly, I have my moments of empathy, even for this couple. But this visual momentarily shortcircuited that part of my brain. And I have to admit: watching Mrs. Acosta chainsawing a cypress tree in her backyard right in front of her little girl (who appeared to be somewhat disturbed by the sight) didn’t help with that in the least.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]I think I made very clear that I am not condoning his actions. I just don’t like the selective nature. There are plenty of people trashing places. This is not the first incident. The issue I take is the headline of “cops” setting aside the wife “realtor” was involved. It’s like realtors can walk on water. God knows, they’ve done more than their share of damage the past decade.

The cop should be punished. Along w/many other FBs trashing their place. Less now that banks are doing cash for keys. The cop is a moron. He is held to a higher standard. And he could be living for free. He is a disgrace to all cops.

All that set aside, let’s hear about some more people that should be prosecuted and a few headlines about how the realtor isn’t wearing a halo.

Media trying to arouse the public to be angry at the cop for what he did. What about the realtor? What about the countless other people doing the very same thing?[/quote]

The link you provided earlier was an Ohio case, which has nothing to do with CA law. Also, I heard the DA in this matter discuss why this case was different: They displayed a level of malice and intent when it came to the destruction of the property, but more importantly there were witnesses to the crimes. Usually, there isn’t that level of damage and rarely are there witnesses to the crime. That’s what makes this case different.

Also, regarding Section 502.5, this portion is interesting:

“Every person who, after mortgaging or encumbering by deed of
trust any real property, and DURING the existence of such mortgage
or deed of trust, OR after such mortgaged or encumbered property
shall have been sold under an order and decree of foreclosure or at
trustee’s sale, AND with intent to defraud or INJURE the mortgagee or
the beneficiary or trustee, under such deed of trust . . .”

A plain reading of that appears to indicate that there could be liability for destruction prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure. They only need prove that the intent was to injure the nice folks who held the note. Which appears to be the case here. I know nothing about this area of law, but this looks like a good case for the D.A.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]I think I made very clear that I am not condoning his actions. I just don’t like the selective nature. There are plenty of people trashing places. This is not the first incident. The issue I take is the headline of “cops” setting aside the wife “realtor” was involved. It’s like realtors can walk on water. God knows, they’ve done more than their share of damage the past decade.

The cop should be punished. Along w/many other FBs trashing their place. Less now that banks are doing cash for keys. The cop is a moron. He is held to a higher standard. And he could be living for free. He is a disgrace to all cops.

All that set aside, let’s hear about some more people that should be prosecuted and a few headlines about how the realtor isn’t wearing a halo.

Media trying to arouse the public to be angry at the cop for what he did. What about the realtor? What about the countless other people doing the very same thing?[/quote]

The link you provided earlier was an Ohio case, which has nothing to do with CA law. Also, I heard the DA in this matter discuss why this case was different: They displayed a level of malice and intent when it came to the destruction of the property, but more importantly there were witnesses to the crimes. Usually, there isn’t that level of damage and rarely are there witnesses to the crime. That’s what makes this case different.

Also, regarding Section 502.5, this portion is interesting:

“Every person who, after mortgaging or encumbering by deed of
trust any real property, and DURING the existence of such mortgage
or deed of trust, OR after such mortgaged or encumbered property
shall have been sold under an order and decree of foreclosure or at
trustee’s sale, AND with intent to defraud or INJURE the mortgagee or
the beneficiary or trustee, under such deed of trust . . .”

A plain reading of that appears to indicate that there could be liability for destruction prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure. They only need prove that the intent was to injure the nice folks who held the note. Which appears to be the case here. I know nothing about this area of law, but this looks like a good case for the D.A.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]I think I made very clear that I am not condoning his actions. I just don’t like the selective nature. There are plenty of people trashing places. This is not the first incident. The issue I take is the headline of “cops” setting aside the wife “realtor” was involved. It’s like realtors can walk on water. God knows, they’ve done more than their share of damage the past decade.

The cop should be punished. Along w/many other FBs trashing their place. Less now that banks are doing cash for keys. The cop is a moron. He is held to a higher standard. And he could be living for free. He is a disgrace to all cops.

All that set aside, let’s hear about some more people that should be prosecuted and a few headlines about how the realtor isn’t wearing a halo.

Media trying to arouse the public to be angry at the cop for what he did. What about the realtor? What about the countless other people doing the very same thing?[/quote]

The link you provided earlier was an Ohio case, which has nothing to do with CA law. Also, I heard the DA in this matter discuss why this case was different: They displayed a level of malice and intent when it came to the destruction of the property, but more importantly there were witnesses to the crimes. Usually, there isn’t that level of damage and rarely are there witnesses to the crime. That’s what makes this case different.

Also, regarding Section 502.5, this portion is interesting:

“Every person who, after mortgaging or encumbering by deed of
trust any real property, and DURING the existence of such mortgage
or deed of trust, OR after such mortgaged or encumbered property
shall have been sold under an order and decree of foreclosure or at
trustee’s sale, AND with intent to defraud or INJURE the mortgagee or
the beneficiary or trustee, under such deed of trust . . .”

A plain reading of that appears to indicate that there could be liability for destruction prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure. They only need prove that the intent was to injure the nice folks who held the note. Which appears to be the case here. I know nothing about this area of law, but this looks like a good case for the D.A.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]I think I made very clear that I am not condoning his actions. I just don’t like the selective nature. There are plenty of people trashing places. This is not the first incident. The issue I take is the headline of “cops” setting aside the wife “realtor” was involved. It’s like realtors can walk on water. God knows, they’ve done more than their share of damage the past decade.

The cop should be punished. Along w/many other FBs trashing their place. Less now that banks are doing cash for keys. The cop is a moron. He is held to a higher standard. And he could be living for free. He is a disgrace to all cops.

All that set aside, let’s hear about some more people that should be prosecuted and a few headlines about how the realtor isn’t wearing a halo.

Media trying to arouse the public to be angry at the cop for what he did. What about the realtor? What about the countless other people doing the very same thing?[/quote]

The link you provided earlier was an Ohio case, which has nothing to do with CA law. Also, I heard the DA in this matter discuss why this case was different: They displayed a level of malice and intent when it came to the destruction of the property, but more importantly there were witnesses to the crimes. Usually, there isn’t that level of damage and rarely are there witnesses to the crime. That’s what makes this case different.

Also, regarding Section 502.5, this portion is interesting:

“Every person who, after mortgaging or encumbering by deed of
trust any real property, and DURING the existence of such mortgage
or deed of trust, OR after such mortgaged or encumbered property
shall have been sold under an order and decree of foreclosure or at
trustee’s sale, AND with intent to defraud or INJURE the mortgagee or
the beneficiary or trustee, under such deed of trust . . .”

A plain reading of that appears to indicate that there could be liability for destruction prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure. They only need prove that the intent was to injure the nice folks who held the note. Which appears to be the case here. I know nothing about this area of law, but this looks like a good case for the D.A.

[Author]

Posts