I hate to break it to you, but this is just part of why the crime, drug, suicide, and violence problems Steamboat has are among some of the worst in the state for a town of its size.
Plenty of bad stuff happens here, it's the individuals such as yourself that place your head in the sand and pretend it's a pristine mountain town. There is a lot of meth trafficking here, lots of shady things as well.
If you want it to truly pristine, don't take the approach that nothing bad happens because people are nosey, you have to be vigilant and confront this stuff head on.
With pertinence to this case, it's misplaced zeal and perhaps some other corruption involved in a power play for votes that went awry.
Well at least we're on the same page on a couple of things.
Don't get me wrong either, I think burglary warrants 6 months in jail. Our only contention is that these guys trespassed or burgled.
Honestly I am no fan of the Rainbow group either. Salt of the earth or whatever some call them there is the undisputed fact that they attract some of the country's worst bottom-feeding scumbags, and yet as a group they do nothing about it and those kinds of people seldom "rehabilitate" or ever improve as a result of being associated with the group. This in of itself defines the group as a whole, whether they like it or not.
However, judicially adjudicating someone on said premise is called discrimination. That, or in your case prejudice, which is senseless.
The best way to influence is by example, not expression of opinion. Now, it's not that I profess I "practice what I preach". However, given your obvious disdain for them it's interesting that you'd so quickly attack the group as what appears a means to justify your opinion on the matter.
I have no desire to let people get off with this kind of thing, but stealing trash does not warrant 6 months in jail.
If someone came into my yard and stole trash from my garbage can, I'd be pretty frustrated and I'd make a police report. I would in no way wish a 6 month jail sentence upon an individual for that though.
What some are confusing is what would happen if someone came into my house without permission. It's very unfortunate that patriotism and vigilance is called "barbarism" while on the same note they want the entire law library thrown at a couple of people over trash.
Quite hypocritical, and it really exposes the silly logic of some individuals. Kudo's for the distortion of law, and the deluded minds for ruining this country one town at a time.
Fortunately in this case, the majority saw logic and reason unlike some sorry bitter individuals. 379664 to name one, when I see people as yourself encroach upon my liberties through your political opinion, voicing that and supporting the destruction of justice, I feel it is important to counter you.
In your case you have accomplished quite well the removal of your own credibility in open forum, and if this is how you would handle "town meeting" setting then we're all the more fortunate.
You are completely off your rocker, by your interpretation of the statute that's tantamount to arguing a glass of water as lemonade. You're reaching really far to twist that around.
With response to your point about wishing people to be able to live safely, I believe that Colorado's "make my day" law resolves that. Enter my property and threaten mine or my family's safety - you die.
I live by the philosophy that if you take my liberty, I give you death.
Your last comment really has me chuckling, if you consider a trash bin a product dispensing device, or "goods container" or anything of that nature then yes, that law applies.
Given the information supplied later by the store owners, they did not appear to have intent on stealing from anywhere but the trash. By your own quote (and I have read those statutes by the way) that no longer fits the definition.
Another point is that this takes a layman a few minutes of googling to find this out, I do not think the defense attorney was being on the level and there is some shady practice there that needs review as well. I have spoken to a couple of attorneys who said they would have had no problem advising a client in this situation to plead not guilty to burglary and probably would have received a far lesser conviction on trespassing than these individuals have.
This was no burglary case by the definitions of burglary as defined by CRS, when you look at the information presented by the victims after the police report.
When you prosecute solely based on a police report and ignore all other information presented after the fact, you may have a case, but it takes a pretty corrupt court to allow you to do that.
It is my personal belief that there was an agenda that also included the defense attorney.
For having worked as a paralegal it's also an example of your ignorance that you state "burglary" yet in CRS there are 4 different statuts constituting different levels of offense for the different levels of burglarism.
What you are doing effectively here is removing your own credibility and giving the "opposing side" yet even more credence to their arguement. Your arguements are circular and your points lack any sound basis. What you are stating is purely hypothetical and not grounded in reality. The conviction happened, there is no case law here due to the plea bargain.
Yet according to case law, what was committed here was indeed a misdemeanor with the maximum possible sentence pursued. If you were a lawyer, you'd have lost your credentials on this one case had you participated as counsel in it.
I actually appreciate your debate, even if it is delusional and irrational. By giving us solid ground to base our discussion off of, you've all but vindicated our points as they refute your statements.
Please, keep it coming, the more stuff you throw out the worse you tar yourself and make my own points all the more rational.
Weallnutz, when you have not had a chance to fully inspect your properties but are demanded of a police report on the spot so to speak, you only present what you see at that moment.
If you had a call come in stating that you were just burglarized, under that context you must first discover that you were not in order to reverse your story. Unfortunately that period of discovery could not happen until after the apprehension had taken place.
The Sweet Pea owners had further investigated and wished to present information relevant to the case that the ADA had ignored. They were at fault for not filling out what was asked of them initially. However, if the ADA was truly serving the public trust, he would have mentioned that form to them when they had made their last inquiry and statement rather than ignore them and say an example needs to be made.
Our View: Ensuring justice is met
Fair enough, and don't get me wrong I agree with vigilance.
It just seemed that you were implying "nothing bad happened" because of such vigilance, but I hear ya on the context you're framing that in.
It's not worth doing something that pathetically stupid.
September 14, 2006 at 7:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Ensuring justice is met
Steamboat_Pilot
I hate to break it to you, but this is just part of why the crime, drug, suicide, and violence problems Steamboat has are among some of the worst in the state for a town of its size.
Plenty of bad stuff happens here, it's the individuals such as yourself that place your head in the sand and pretend it's a pristine mountain town. There is a lot of meth trafficking here, lots of shady things as well.
If you want it to truly pristine, don't take the approach that nothing bad happens because people are nosey, you have to be vigilant and confront this stuff head on.
With pertinence to this case, it's misplaced zeal and perhaps some other corruption involved in a power play for votes that went awry.
September 13, 2006 at 7:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chatting with David Siller and Giles Charle
Well at least we're on the same page on a couple of things.
Don't get me wrong either, I think burglary warrants 6 months in jail. Our only contention is that these guys trespassed or burgled.
Honestly I am no fan of the Rainbow group either. Salt of the earth or whatever some call them there is the undisputed fact that they attract some of the country's worst bottom-feeding scumbags, and yet as a group they do nothing about it and those kinds of people seldom "rehabilitate" or ever improve as a result of being associated with the group. This in of itself defines the group as a whole, whether they like it or not.
However, judicially adjudicating someone on said premise is called discrimination. That, or in your case prejudice, which is senseless.
The best way to influence is by example, not expression of opinion. Now, it's not that I profess I "practice what I preach". However, given your obvious disdain for them it's interesting that you'd so quickly attack the group as what appears a means to justify your opinion on the matter.
September 11, 2006 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chatting with David Siller and Giles Charle
Hey way to go, let's see if we can nab ALL the trespassers with 6 months in jail.
Oh, but those meth-heads can just run around freely...as well as child molester police chiefs, not to mention the psychotic violent aggressors...
I guess Steamboat will be a lot more "pristine" if we just curb the trespassing but let the other problems remain huge issues.
September 11, 2006 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charle and Siller released
I have no desire to let people get off with this kind of thing, but stealing trash does not warrant 6 months in jail.
If someone came into my yard and stole trash from my garbage can, I'd be pretty frustrated and I'd make a police report. I would in no way wish a 6 month jail sentence upon an individual for that though.
What some are confusing is what would happen if someone came into my house without permission. It's very unfortunate that patriotism and vigilance is called "barbarism" while on the same note they want the entire law library thrown at a couple of people over trash.
Quite hypocritical, and it really exposes the silly logic of some individuals. Kudo's for the distortion of law, and the deluded minds for ruining this country one town at a time.
Fortunately in this case, the majority saw logic and reason unlike some sorry bitter individuals. 379664 to name one, when I see people as yourself encroach upon my liberties through your political opinion, voicing that and supporting the destruction of justice, I feel it is important to counter you.
In your case you have accomplished quite well the removal of your own credibility in open forum, and if this is how you would handle "town meeting" setting then we're all the more fortunate.
September 8, 2006 at 7:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charle and Siller released
379664
You are completely off your rocker, by your interpretation of the statute that's tantamount to arguing a glass of water as lemonade. You're reaching really far to twist that around.
With response to your point about wishing people to be able to live safely, I believe that Colorado's "make my day" law resolves that. Enter my property and threaten mine or my family's safety - you die.
I live by the philosophy that if you take my liberty, I give you death.
September 7, 2006 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charle and Siller released
379664
I hope that you see what is happening here. Facing reality can be a difficult process for the embittered, I hope you make it through this stronger.
September 7, 2006 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charle and Siller released
Your last comment really has me chuckling, if you consider a trash bin a product dispensing device, or "goods container" or anything of that nature then yes, that law applies.
Given the information supplied later by the store owners, they did not appear to have intent on stealing from anywhere but the trash. By your own quote (and I have read those statutes by the way) that no longer fits the definition.
Another point is that this takes a layman a few minutes of googling to find this out, I do not think the defense attorney was being on the level and there is some shady practice there that needs review as well. I have spoken to a couple of attorneys who said they would have had no problem advising a client in this situation to plead not guilty to burglary and probably would have received a far lesser conviction on trespassing than these individuals have.
This was no burglary case by the definitions of burglary as defined by CRS, when you look at the information presented by the victims after the police report.
When you prosecute solely based on a police report and ignore all other information presented after the fact, you may have a case, but it takes a pretty corrupt court to allow you to do that.
It is my personal belief that there was an agenda that also included the defense attorney.
September 7, 2006 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charle and Siller released
379664,
For having worked as a paralegal it's also an example of your ignorance that you state "burglary" yet in CRS there are 4 different statuts constituting different levels of offense for the different levels of burglarism.
What you are doing effectively here is removing your own credibility and giving the "opposing side" yet even more credence to their arguement. Your arguements are circular and your points lack any sound basis. What you are stating is purely hypothetical and not grounded in reality. The conviction happened, there is no case law here due to the plea bargain.
Yet according to case law, what was committed here was indeed a misdemeanor with the maximum possible sentence pursued. If you were a lawyer, you'd have lost your credentials on this one case had you participated as counsel in it.
I actually appreciate your debate, even if it is delusional and irrational. By giving us solid ground to base our discussion off of, you've all but vindicated our points as they refute your statements.
Please, keep it coming, the more stuff you throw out the worse you tar yourself and make my own points all the more rational.
September 7, 2006 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charle and Siller released
Weallnutz, when you have not had a chance to fully inspect your properties but are demanded of a police report on the spot so to speak, you only present what you see at that moment.
If you had a call come in stating that you were just burglarized, under that context you must first discover that you were not in order to reverse your story. Unfortunately that period of discovery could not happen until after the apprehension had taken place.
The Sweet Pea owners had further investigated and wished to present information relevant to the case that the ADA had ignored. They were at fault for not filling out what was asked of them initially. However, if the ADA was truly serving the public trust, he would have mentioned that form to them when they had made their last inquiry and statement rather than ignore them and say an example needs to be made.
September 7, 2006 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )