Hundreds of brokers netted in FBI sweep

[dumbrenter]

Difference between civil and criminal

I mostly just lurk here and appreciate your insights on most matters but on this one, I am amazed at the level of ignorance & malice exhibited by some of you in your zeal to hang (or inject) anybody you think is responsible for this mess.

Society has tried things like debtor prisons and all in the past and found that they do not work (anybody read Charles Dickens?). If you commit a white collar crime like swindling money out of folks pension funds, it still ranks low compared to violating their rights in person. A white collar criminal has not violated your civil rights by talking you out of your money. You had a choice to do business with that person. This is not the same as breaking into your house and stealing, say $100 worth of your stuff.

Why should folks who ran Enron get death penalty? Did they commit homicide? Did they violate a fellow citizen’s rights? Is it their fault that their investors were a bunch of dumbasses who did not do their homework before investing in Enron?

Extending the same to the mortgage issues in CA or FL, the law will eventually catch up with those brokers & agents who committed fraud, and they will eventually pay for it. But hopefully not in the part of capital punishment as some of you here are asking for. Their customers had a choice to do business with them.

Why is it that those ultimately responsible for this crisis (the new homeowners) are the ones squealing the most and asking for more punishment for brokers and agents? Is it their way of picking on others for their bad judgment? It was greed that drove everybody from hedge fund managers to the homeowners. They all are part of this mess. Now that the party is over, they are all blaming each other for the bad hangover.

Where does this stop when one party asks for capital punishment of the other party in this mess? Can those renters who sat out of this show ask for capital punishment of those home owners who made it difficult for me to buy a home due to their greed?

[scaredyclassic]

At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough?

[scaredyclassic]

At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough?

[scaredyclassic]

At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough?

[scaredyclassic]

At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough?

[scaredyclassic]

At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough?

[temeculaguy]

This country values human life and personal rights over property, always will. That is why the punishment for theft, burglary and robbery are different. If someone sneaks into walmart at night and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. sneaking into your home while you are at work and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. pointing a gun in your face and making you hand over $100 (or even just threatening to beat you). Three different penalties with the one done with a threat to your person being the harshest and the one done at a business or a vehicle being lower than the residence. If the law is designed to discourage certain behaviors more than others, I would prefer not being present if I were to have $100 stolen. And if I could pick between having my car ransacked or my house, I’d prefer the car. Another example is if a theif steals your car from a parking lot, the crime is not eligible for 3 strikes, if they steal it with you and your kids in it (carjacking), the penaly is harsher and it is 3 strikes eligible, take my car, leave me and my kids out of the whole transaction. If the penalties were the same there would be more carjackings and less garden variety car theft. Things are fine the way they are, if it’s my money or my life, take my money, I’ll get more.

On another note not related to criminal law 101, I am suprised we haven’t heard from coreclient or any of the people involved in the hendrix-montecastro filipino nurse murrieta church swindle that was such big news a year or so ago, local papers reported the FBI served search warrants on the big players homes in that case but I can’t find the names of those indicted to see if they were scooped up in the net.

[temeculaguy]

This country values human life and personal rights over property, always will. That is why the punishment for theft, burglary and robbery are different. If someone sneaks into walmart at night and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. sneaking into your home while you are at work and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. pointing a gun in your face and making you hand over $100 (or even just threatening to beat you). Three different penalties with the one done with a threat to your person being the harshest and the one done at a business or a vehicle being lower than the residence. If the law is designed to discourage certain behaviors more than others, I would prefer not being present if I were to have $100 stolen. And if I could pick between having my car ransacked or my house, I’d prefer the car. Another example is if a theif steals your car from a parking lot, the crime is not eligible for 3 strikes, if they steal it with you and your kids in it (carjacking), the penaly is harsher and it is 3 strikes eligible, take my car, leave me and my kids out of the whole transaction. If the penalties were the same there would be more carjackings and less garden variety car theft. Things are fine the way they are, if it’s my money or my life, take my money, I’ll get more.

On another note not related to criminal law 101, I am suprised we haven’t heard from coreclient or any of the people involved in the hendrix-montecastro filipino nurse murrieta church swindle that was such big news a year or so ago, local papers reported the FBI served search warrants on the big players homes in that case but I can’t find the names of those indicted to see if they were scooped up in the net.

[temeculaguy]

This country values human life and personal rights over property, always will. That is why the punishment for theft, burglary and robbery are different. If someone sneaks into walmart at night and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. sneaking into your home while you are at work and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. pointing a gun in your face and making you hand over $100 (or even just threatening to beat you). Three different penalties with the one done with a threat to your person being the harshest and the one done at a business or a vehicle being lower than the residence. If the law is designed to discourage certain behaviors more than others, I would prefer not being present if I were to have $100 stolen. And if I could pick between having my car ransacked or my house, I’d prefer the car. Another example is if a theif steals your car from a parking lot, the crime is not eligible for 3 strikes, if they steal it with you and your kids in it (carjacking), the penaly is harsher and it is 3 strikes eligible, take my car, leave me and my kids out of the whole transaction. If the penalties were the same there would be more carjackings and less garden variety car theft. Things are fine the way they are, if it’s my money or my life, take my money, I’ll get more.

On another note not related to criminal law 101, I am suprised we haven’t heard from coreclient or any of the people involved in the hendrix-montecastro filipino nurse murrieta church swindle that was such big news a year or so ago, local papers reported the FBI served search warrants on the big players homes in that case but I can’t find the names of those indicted to see if they were scooped up in the net.

[temeculaguy]

This country values human life and personal rights over property, always will. That is why the punishment for theft, burglary and robbery are different. If someone sneaks into walmart at night and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. sneaking into your home while you are at work and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. pointing a gun in your face and making you hand over $100 (or even just threatening to beat you). Three different penalties with the one done with a threat to your person being the harshest and the one done at a business or a vehicle being lower than the residence. If the law is designed to discourage certain behaviors more than others, I would prefer not being present if I were to have $100 stolen. And if I could pick between having my car ransacked or my house, I’d prefer the car. Another example is if a theif steals your car from a parking lot, the crime is not eligible for 3 strikes, if they steal it with you and your kids in it (carjacking), the penaly is harsher and it is 3 strikes eligible, take my car, leave me and my kids out of the whole transaction. If the penalties were the same there would be more carjackings and less garden variety car theft. Things are fine the way they are, if it’s my money or my life, take my money, I’ll get more.

On another note not related to criminal law 101, I am suprised we haven’t heard from coreclient or any of the people involved in the hendrix-montecastro filipino nurse murrieta church swindle that was such big news a year or so ago, local papers reported the FBI served search warrants on the big players homes in that case but I can’t find the names of those indicted to see if they were scooped up in the net.

[temeculaguy]

This country values human life and personal rights over property, always will. That is why the punishment for theft, burglary and robbery are different. If someone sneaks into walmart at night and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. sneaking into your home while you are at work and steals $100 worth of stuff vs. pointing a gun in your face and making you hand over $100 (or even just threatening to beat you). Three different penalties with the one done with a threat to your person being the harshest and the one done at a business or a vehicle being lower than the residence. If the law is designed to discourage certain behaviors more than others, I would prefer not being present if I were to have $100 stolen. And if I could pick between having my car ransacked or my house, I’d prefer the car. Another example is if a theif steals your car from a parking lot, the crime is not eligible for 3 strikes, if they steal it with you and your kids in it (carjacking), the penaly is harsher and it is 3 strikes eligible, take my car, leave me and my kids out of the whole transaction. If the penalties were the same there would be more carjackings and less garden variety car theft. Things are fine the way they are, if it’s my money or my life, take my money, I’ll get more.

On another note not related to criminal law 101, I am suprised we haven’t heard from coreclient or any of the people involved in the hendrix-montecastro filipino nurse murrieta church swindle that was such big news a year or so ago, local papers reported the FBI served search warrants on the big players homes in that case but I can’t find the names of those indicted to see if they were scooped up in the net.

[jficquette]

[quote=publicdefender]At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough? [/quote]

Property can be replaced. Life can’t.

[jficquette]

[quote=publicdefender]At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough? [/quote]

Property can be replaced. Life can’t.

[jficquette]

[quote=publicdefender]At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough? [/quote]

Property can be replaced. Life can’t.

[jficquette]

[quote=publicdefender]At common law, I think i remember hearing that all felonies were punishable by Death. It certainly wouldn’t be that absurd; do you really think it would be that much better to spend 30 or 40 years in prison, starting at age 50 than to be executed swiftly? If you’ve ever visited (or resided in) a real prison, you might think the death penalty was not such a bad option…we’re not talking about debtor’s prisons. We’re talking about people who steal money. Huge amounts of money. Same as a robbery, but done with words and paper. Why not kill someone for a robbery, if it’s big enough? [/quote]

Property can be replaced. Life can’t.

[Author]

Posts