Man faces 30 years to life for stealing a doughnut.

[FoBoT]

and then there is the rest of the story...

...his shoplifting turned into a strong-arm robbery. Masters, who appeared in court Friday, is stunned. The prosecutor shows no signs of backing down. In fact, because Masters has a prior record, he could get a sentence of 30 years to life.

lock him up, he is guilty

 

[Doctor Nyse]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: yllus
I wouldn't mind seeing him stay in jail a year or so. I'm not particularly fond of the "but it costs so little" argument for getting off scot-free.

You probably steal mp3s that cost $1

Ding ding ding.

K. O.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
He assaulted an older woman, who cares about what he stole. He also has a LONG criminal history, sounds like society would be better off with this douche behind bars.

my feelings exactly, he's had a history of this, he'll do it again.....he STOLE......he should go to jail, while 30 years is extreme, we DO need to make people think before doing wrong things, at least illegal things......our punishment system is a joke, if people are even sentenced....nobody fears our punishments

 

[OdiN]

Toss him in, throw away the key.

Already convicted of 2 other felonies.

Just be done with him, and get him off of the streets.

 

[OutHouse]

Farmington Police.

doenst Vic and his crew have more important things to worry about?

 

[ognabor]

Still, for all the attention paid to the doughnut incident, one detail may never emerge: the kind of doughnut Masters stole.

Country Mart stocks everything from simple glazed ring doughnuts to gooey butter squares to filled cream horns and danishes. But the police report makes no mention of the doughnut style. Gibbs said she could not recall it. Other workers, too, drew a blank.

Even Masters, sitting in jail with only time to think, said he could not remember. It is a detail that seems lost to history.

And Masters never got a chance to enjoy that fateful doughnut.

He said he threw it to the ground when he fled.

thats awesome reporting.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: markgm
I'm glad no one considers it robbery in the form of taxes to pay for this kind of crap.

She touched him first, where's the issue?

are you kidding? she touched him first?


she has the right to stop a thief. him useing force to get away then adds on more charges.

since he has a criminal past he is now paying for it.

I missed the law that say I can hurt or touch someone who's doing something wrong and they can't do anything back to me.

ok now thats retarded.

you have the right to stop a criminal from stealing from you. if he didnt want her to touch him the idiot shouldnt have stolen the damn doughnut eh?

if he had shot her in his attempt to get away he would be charged with murder.

I'm missing your point, if she had shot him in his attempt to get away she would be charged with murder.

if he was attmepting to get away? depends on the state.

but she still ahs the right to try to stop him and no it is not assualt or forgive him for hitting her.

if he did not want to be put in such a situation he should NOT Have robbed the place.

he is a carrer criminal. i have no problem with him going away for a long time. he is not going to change.

Wrong. No state lets you shoot someone attempting to get away unless there is still an immediate threat to your life. If they are shooting at you over their shoulder, yes. Other than that, no.

I am not clear on the law in this case, but you certainly are wrong about one so it's likely you are wrong about the other as well.

 

[dmcowen674]

He should be executed.

How dare he steal a Policeman's favorite snack.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: paulxcook
Regardless of his past, the severity of the crime doesn't merit the severity of the penalty that is potentially coming his way. The judicial system has to deal with so much stupid crap these days. What a waste of time and tax payer money.

Wrong.

He will make that county more money in the lock up the rest of his life with you paying for him with a jail roof overhead and three square meals and free health care than he would ever make the county in taxes.

 

[ognabor]

...and how has nobody made a "forbidden donut" comment yet?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: markgm
I'm glad no one considers it robbery in the form of taxes to pay for this kind of crap.

She touched him first, where's the issue?

are you kidding? she touched him first?


she has the right to stop a thief. him useing force to get away then adds on more charges.

since he has a criminal past he is now paying for it.

I missed the law that say I can hurt or touch someone who's doing something wrong and they can't do anything back to me.

ok now thats retarded.

you have the right to stop a criminal from stealing from you. if he didnt want her to touch him the idiot shouldnt have stolen the damn doughnut eh?

if he had shot her in his attempt to get away he would be charged with murder.

I'm missing your point, if she had shot him in his attempt to get away she would be charged with murder.

if he was attmepting to get away? depends on the state.

but she still ahs the right to try to stop him and no it is not assualt or forgive him for hitting her.

if he did not want to be put in such a situation he should NOT Have robbed the place.

he is a carrer criminal. i have no problem with him going away for a long time. he is not going to change.

Wrong. No state lets you shoot someone attempting to get away unless there is still an immediate threat to your life. If they are shooting at you over their shoulder, yes. Other than that, no.

I am not clear on the law in this case, but you certainly are wrong about one so it's likely you are wrong about the other as well.

may be. but i seem to remember reading some laws have it you can shoot if someone is on theproperty. no matter if your life is in danger or not.


but that does nto change the fact no way in hell are they going to charge this lady with assault.

 

[MrMajestyk]

If he gets 30 years, his legs will turn to jelly and he'll have a glazed look in his eyes.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Doctor Nyse

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: yllus
I wouldn't mind seeing him stay in jail a year or so. I'm not particularly fond of the "but it costs so little" argument for getting off scot-free.

You probably steal mp3s that cost $1

Ding ding ding.

K. O.

Two important differences:

1) I don't have a prior record of committing felonies, other than that one incident with a turtle.
2) I actually don't pirate. Being a software developer kind of took the fun out of it.

Parried!

 

[BigJ]

Guys, FFS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_property

I thought stuff like this would be common sense. Both sides need to read that.

There's some good explanations of how much force can be used, when it can be used, and the defense of such force.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: thepd7

Wrong. No state lets you shoot someone attempting to get away unless there is still an immediate threat to your life. If they are shooting at you over their shoulder, yes. Other than that, no.

I am not clear on the law in this case, but you certainly are wrong about one so it's likely you are wrong about the other as well.

may be. but i seem to remember reading some laws have it you can shoot if someone is on theproperty. no matter if your life is in danger or not.


but that does nto change the fact no way in hell are they going to charge this lady with assault.

Well those are two completely different things, someone being on your property like you just mentioned and someone running away like you mentioned earlier.

You can shoot someone trying to break into your house, that's regarded as an immediate threat to your life or the life of your family since you don't know if they have a gun and are going to rape/kill you all or if they just need some cash.

If you shoot someone in your front yard walking in your grass (technically your property) not advancing towards you, good look getting raped in court by their family. I am probably the most pro-gun person you will find on here (maybe not, but close) and even I think you deserve to be thrown in jail for that.

But you absolutely, positively cannot shoot someone running away that is not an immediate threat to your life or the life of another.


edit: The lady may or may not be charged, I know what would happen in the case you mentioned with guns/property, but the laws do vary wildly from state to state in reference to how much force you can use and when in regards to the situation in the OP.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: MrMajestyk
If he gets 30 years, his legs will turn to jelly and he'll have a glazed look in his eyes.

Magnificent win :thumbsup:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: thepd7

Wrong. No state lets you shoot someone attempting to get away unless there is still an immediate threat to your life. If they are shooting at you over their shoulder, yes. Other than that, no.

I am not clear on the law in this case, but you certainly are wrong about one so it's likely you are wrong about the other as well.

may be. but i seem to remember reading some laws have it you can shoot if someone is on theproperty. no matter if your life is in danger or not.


but that does nto change the fact no way in hell are they going to charge this lady with assault.

Well those are two completely different things, someone being on your property like you just mentioned and someone running away like you mentioned earlier.

You can shoot someone trying to break into your house, that's regarded as an immediate threat to your life or the life of your family since you don't know if they have a gun and are going to rape/kill you all or if they just need some cash.

If you shoot someone in your front yard walking in your grass (technically your property) not advancing towards you, good look getting raped in court by their family. I am probably the most pro-gun person you will find on here (maybe not, but close) and even I think you deserve to be thrown in jail for that.

But you absolutely, positively cannot shoot someone running away that is not an immediate threat to your life or the life of another.

Don't spout off stuff you "heard," it's not becoming of you.

you do understand there is a difrence between someone stealing your stuff and someone walking on grass?


really thats insane.

 

[jlee]

*sigh*

NH law:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION

Section 627:8
627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. ? A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

Section 627:8-a
627:8-a Use of Force by Merchants. ?
I. A merchant, or his or her agent, is justified in detaining any person who he or she has reasonable grounds to believe has committed the offense of willful concealment or shoplifting, as defined by RSA 644:17, on his or her premises as long as necessary to surrender the person to a peace officer, provided such detention is conducted in a reasonable manner.

 

[Squisher]

Sucks that he didn't even get to eat the donut.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
*sigh*

NH law:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION

Section 627:8
627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. ? A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

Section 627:8-a
627:8-a Use of Force by Merchants. ?
I. A merchant, or his or her agent, is justified in detaining any person who he or she has reasonable grounds to believe has committed the offense of willful concealment or shoplifting, as defined by RSA 644:17, on his or her premises as long as necessary to surrender the person to a peace officer, provided such detention is conducted in a reasonable manner.

Mmmmmmmk, this happened in MO, not NH. MO's law is the same though.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Wrong. No state lets you shoot someone attempting to get away unless there is still an immediate threat to your life. If they are shooting at you over their shoulder, yes. Other than that, no.

I am not clear on the law in this case, but you certainly are wrong about one so it's likely you are wrong about the other as well.

Even Texas?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Hard to have any sympathy for this guy. He's proven time and time again that he is incapable/unwilling to live by the simplest rules in society. After a while it's best to just put people like him away.

I can imagine the conversaiton in prison though...

Bubba: So... How long ya in fer?
Moron: 30 years.
Bubba: No way! Whut you do? Hit a bank? Kill someone?
Moron: Stole a doughnut.
<Arlo Guthrie> And they all moved away from me... down to the end of the bench until I said...</Arlo Guthrie>
Moron: AND I shoved a clerk!
<Arlo Guthrie>Then they all moved back down beside me and we was laughing and having a great ol' time...<Arlo Guthrie>

:laugh:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Doctor Nyse

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: yllus
I wouldn't mind seeing him stay in jail a year or so. I'm not particularly fond of the "but it costs so little" argument for getting off scot-free.

You probably steal mp3s that cost $1

Ding ding ding.

K. O.

Two important differences:

1) I don't have a prior record of committing felonies, other than that one incident with a turtle.
2) I actually don't pirate. Being a software developer kind of took the fun out of it.

Parried!

Took the fun out of it? So I guess you did steal at some point... right? That doesn't really make you any less guilty.

I'm not quite sure I won't to know what happened with that turtle :Q

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: CadetLee
*sigh*

NH law:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 627
JUSTIFICATION

Section 627:8
627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. ? A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

Section 627:8-a
627:8-a Use of Force by Merchants. ?
I. A merchant, or his or her agent, is justified in detaining any person who he or she has reasonable grounds to believe has committed the offense of willful concealment or shoplifting, as defined by RSA 644:17, on his or her premises as long as necessary to surrender the person to a peace officer, provided such detention is conducted in a reasonable manner.

Mmmmmmmk, this happened in MO, not NH. MO's law is the same though.

I know, I know...just saying.