Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Bank robber's official defense: "Since the banks had been bailed out and the people had not, I was going to confiscate money from US Bank in Jackson, Wyoming, and redistribute it to the poor and homeless in America. And that's what I did"   (opposingviews.com ) divider line 196
    More: Spiffy, Wyoming, Corey Donaldson, U.S. District, bank robbery, branch manager, homeless  
•       •       •

8771 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 5:31 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-01 04:08:46 PM  
www.timdrussell.com
 
2013-05-01 04:20:16 PM  
Good. Fu*k banks.
 
2013-05-01 04:39:56 PM  
Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!
 
2013-05-01 04:46:45 PM  
In before the "Thanks, Obama!" chorus.....
 
2013-05-01 04:51:47 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!


Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?
 
2013-05-01 04:56:01 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!


I say give him a bow and a target with an arrow in the bullseye. If he can split the arrow with his shot, then let him off.
 
2013-05-01 04:59:08 PM  
hiddenfilms.files.wordpress.com

I remember they used to play this POS on Cinemax three times a day when I was a kid.
 
2013-05-01 05:35:14 PM  
See? See what I was on about?

americanmaitred.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-01 05:35:46 PM  
Im ok with this
 
2013-05-01 05:36:30 PM  

mbillips: See? See what I was on about?

[americanmaitred.files.wordpress.com image 580x949]


Holy, shiat, check that awesome spiderweb tie! John Dillinger, you are more my hero every day.
 
2013-05-01 05:37:13 PM  
Crime does not pay, and that's why we bail out the criminals when their businesses go down the toilet. Only the innocent will have to carry the burden.
 
2013-05-01 05:37:35 PM  
Stick it to the man. Fark banks and bankers
 
2013-05-01 05:37:38 PM  
Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?
 
2013-05-01 05:37:41 PM  
Yea verily...
 
2013-05-01 05:39:15 PM  
Bad subby. Popover subscribe fail.
 
2013-05-01 05:41:14 PM  
What about lupins?
 
2013-05-01 05:41:17 PM  
Acquit.
 
2013-05-01 05:45:52 PM  
FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?
 
2013-05-01 05:46:45 PM  
Go the fark home, aussie. This AMERICA, got-dammit! Our wealth redistribution only goes one way, and it's not from top to bottom. You take your evil socialism back to the land of nightmares. Those bankers worked hard for those bailouts. If those homeless bums wanted a bailout, they should have hired better lobbyists.
 
2013-05-01 05:47:50 PM  

Ned Stark: Acquit.


I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives.  Also, what's up with that shiat?  If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.
 
2013-05-01 05:48:25 PM  
The first mistake was letting an Ausie in the country.  Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, as everyone knows.
 
2013-05-01 05:48:50 PM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-01 05:48:57 PM  
He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.
 
2013-05-01 05:51:29 PM  
I'd like to buy this guy a beer.
 
2013-05-01 05:51:49 PM  

PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?


It sounds as though the judge is saying kind of tounge in cheek that he can argue the legality but he is not able to admit whether or not he feels the robber was justified. A take it as a wink and a nod to the robber even though he has to do his job and upstand the law.
 
2013-05-01 05:52:08 PM  

timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.


I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.
 
2013-05-01 05:55:16 PM  
Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.
 
2013-05-01 05:57:55 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-01 06:00:26 PM  

titwrench: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

It sounds as though the judge is saying kind of tounge in cheek that he can argue the legality but he is not able to admit whether or not he feels the robber was justified. A take it as a wink and a nod to the robber even though he has to do his job and upstand the law.


I take it as more of the same problem with the legal system in America that causes us to put 17-year-olds in prison for consensual sex with their 16-year-old girlfriends...

The idea that the law itself is paramount, and that the jury cannot question it from the courtroom.

We've forgotten that this was one of the reasons why the jury system existed in the first place - to make sure that well-intended laws weren't inappropriately applied.
 
2013-05-01 06:02:54 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.


What minority owned banks exist?
 
2013-05-01 06:03:12 PM  

FrancoFile: What about lupins?


It's not lupins.
 
2013-05-01 06:03:14 PM  
Caught already? Hoping for some lupins.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-01 06:04:48 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


No, it really wouldn't. They wouldn't keep popping up in societies if there wasn't some sort of net benefit.

/That's not to say we don't need some sort of banking/financial system in general reform in the US.
 
2013-05-01 06:05:20 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


No, but it would be a better place if banks and bankers were held accountable for their actions instead of being bailed out and given bonuses for committing fraud and making bad bets. "Too big to fail" and "too big to jail" are inherently unjust concepts.
 
2013-05-01 06:08:07 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: The Stealth Hippopotamus: timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.

What minority owned banks exist?


t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-01 06:08:34 PM  
The prosecutor in that case should be happy I'm not on the jury.
 
2013-05-01 06:10:45 PM  
Stupid biatch.
 
2013-05-01 06:11:52 PM  

Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.


Oldiron_79: Im ok with this


phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?


Ned Stark: Acquit.


ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]


libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.


Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.


AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.



... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.
 
2013-05-01 06:11:53 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: What minority owned banks exist?


There has to be one, right?
 
2013-05-01 06:12:19 PM  
Good they are all crooks and this is what should happen.  The people are demanding their money back, and the banker's heads on pikes.
 
2013-05-01 06:14:45 PM  

mbillips: Holy, shiat, check that awesome spiderweb tie! John Dillinger, you are more my hero every day.


I hear he has a pretty good escape plan.
 
2013-05-01 06:14:53 PM  

Sgt Otter: [hiddenfilms.files.wordpress.com image 300x421]

I remember they used to play this POS on Cinemax three times a day when I was a kid.


Except as a kid I loved it.
 
2013-05-01 06:18:43 PM  
Good. We need this and the public execution of bank and finance executives who have negativly hurt the United States and her people.

i234.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 06:20:29 PM  

Tatsuma: ... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.


I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.
 
2013-05-01 06:23:27 PM  

Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.


Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.
 
2013-05-01 06:24:18 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: The Stealth Hippopotamus: timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.

What minority owned banks exist?


In Wyoming no less!
 
2013-05-01 06:27:40 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-01 06:27:45 PM  
So we'll have him raped, then?
 
2013-05-01 06:29:07 PM  

Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.


The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.
 
2013-05-01 06:30:55 PM  
Only think I am mad about is that he failed.
 
2013-05-01 06:31:29 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people.


Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.

Can I go out and start murdering them? It is, after all, comeuppance.

Communist_Manifesto: the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.


Gangbangers in America are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drive-by, can I just walk up to any gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.
 
2013-05-01 06:31:58 PM  

mod3072: If those homeless bums wanted a bailout, they should have hired better lobbyists.


Yay!
 
2013-05-01 06:35:16 PM  

scottydoesntknow: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

I say give him a bow and a target with an arrow in the bullseye. If he can split the arrow with his shot, then let him off.


Agreed, but only if he fires one arrow into the air, hits that arrow with a second arrow and the first arrow ends up splitting the arrow on the bullseye.
 
2013-05-01 06:37:54 PM  

Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.


It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters.  They had it coming.
 
2013-05-01 06:37:55 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people.

Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.

Can I go out and start murdering them? It is, after all, comeuppance.

Communist_Manifesto: the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

Gangbangers in America are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drive-by, can I just walk up to any gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.


I said nothing about justifying homicide mr. strawman.
 
2013-05-01 06:39:07 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: Good. We need this and the public execution of bank and finance executives who have negativly hurt the United States and her people.

[i234.photobucket.com image 470x331]


Nah, life with the luxury of a supermax prison would be far more fitting.
 
2013-05-01 06:39:15 PM  

links136: It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters. They had it coming.


No, no it's not. It's not the same thing at all.

Communist_Manifesto: I said nothing about justifying homicide mr. strawman.


Oh so only crimes that might lead to murder, like robbing a bank, are justified, but not straight up murder?
 
2013-05-01 06:40:48 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.

The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.


This is why I'm okay with people redirecting their anger towards Obama for screwups.

More often than not it's congress, but he's a symbol of government and government has been helping corporations screw us over for the longest time.

THANKS, OBUMMER!
 
2013-05-01 06:40:48 PM  

Tatsuma: links136: It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters. They had it coming.

No, no it's not. It's not the same thing at all.

Communist_Manifesto: I said nothing about justifying homicide mr. strawman.

Oh so only crimes that might lead to murder, like robbing a bank, are justified, but not straight up murder?


I never said the guy was justified, I even said it wasn't right. Go fark yourself troll
 
2013-05-01 06:40:59 PM  
The sad thing is that 140K is a mere burp to the bank.
 
2013-05-01 06:45:17 PM  

King Something: scottydoesntknow: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

I say give him a bow and a target with an arrow in the bullseye. If he can split the arrow with his shot, then let him off.

Agreed, but only if he fires one arrow into the air, hits that arrow with a second arrow and the first arrow ends up splitting the arrow on the bullseye.


Well, I know what I'm trying after work....
 
2013-05-01 06:45:53 PM  

timujin: Ned Stark: Acquit.

I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives.  Also, what's up with that shiat?  If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.


I'm not sure what the state has to prove - I'm on my phone so I don't feel like GIS. Basically, motive is particularly important when it's needed to convict someone of a crime. That's left up to state/federal law so it isn't consistent.

Ex. Motive/Intent can mean the difference between negligent homicide and first degree. There's a difference between letting your notoriously aggressive dog kill your neighbor and stabbing her to death.
 
2013-05-01 06:45:53 PM  

Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.


If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand.  I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards.  And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.
 
2013-05-01 06:46:13 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: I never said the guy was justified, I even said it wasn't right. Go fark yourself troll


You said you could empathize with it earlier and 'while you might not be ok', not stating whether you actually were or not.

And please, do you even know what a troll is? Hint: much like hipster, the definition is not 'everything I loathe and despise'
 
2013-05-01 06:46:55 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: insertsnarkyusername: What minority owned banks exist?

There has to be one, right?


Jews are minorities.
 
2013-05-01 06:49:59 PM  
Willie Sutton unavailable for comment
 
2013-05-01 06:50:34 PM  

Tatsuma: links136: It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters. They had it coming.

No, no it's not. It's not the same thing at all.

Communist_Manifesto: I said nothing about justifying homicide mr. strawman.

Oh so only crimes that might lead to murder, like robbing a bank, are justified, but not straight up murder?


Are you kidding?  Private banks have decayed society to the point of collapse.  Frankly, they should all be charged with treason and have banks nationalized.

Wouldn't mind the french revolution either.
 
2013-05-01 06:51:25 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: I never said the guy was justified, I even said it wasn't right. Go fark yourself troll

You said you could empathize with it earlier and 'while you might not be ok', not stating whether you actually were or not.

And please, do you even know what a troll is? Hint: much like hipster, the definition is not 'everything I loathe and despise'


Empathy:
1.  the imaginative of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2.  the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively manner;  also: the capacity for this

The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

I never condoned his actions. You apparently don't know what the word empathy means. So I guess if you're not a troll you're just a straight up moron. Don't bother responding, I'm not going to respond to someone who doesn't even understand the concept of empathy.
 
2013-05-01 06:51:46 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: I never said the guy was justified, I even said it wasn't right. Go fark yourself troll

You said you could empathize with it earlier and 'while you might not be ok', not stating whether you actually were or not.


Dude, do you even read the comments of the people you argue with?  Here is what C_M actually said:

It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

He's saying he can see why some people would root for the bad guy in this case, even when it's not right to do so.  Nothing more.  Calm down and have another donut.
 
2013-05-01 06:51:54 PM  
So in other words, this guy blatantly confessed to it, and gave the judge every reason to sentence him not only for armed robbery, but to even tack on terrorism charges as well for it being politically motivated.

BRILLIANT.

I bet that defense attorney sat down with a facepalm after he had to tell the jury that.
 
2013-05-01 06:51:59 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: I never said the guy was justified, I even said it wasn't right. Go fark yourself troll

You said you could empathize with it earlier and 'while you might not be ok', not stating whether you actually were or not.

And please, do you even know what a troll is? Hint: much like hipster, the definition is not 'everything I loathe and despise'


You don't understand.

Just because something is wrong doesn't mean you can't sympathize with it.

For example, if one of your family members were assaulted, it's only natural that you go out and seek revenge.

It's just in this case you ended up beating the kid brother of the guy who committed the actual assault.  But they're in the same family so it's close enough.
 
2013-05-01 06:59:21 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Stick it to the man. Fark banks and bankers


And, well, the rest of us eventually. It's not like the money doesn't come out of the taxpayers' pockets sooner or later.
 
2013-05-01 06:59:24 PM  

Bontesla: timujin: Ned Stark: Acquit.

I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives.  Also, what's up with that shiat?  If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I'm not sure what the state has to prove - I'm on my phone so I don't feel like GIS. Basically, motive is particularly important when it's needed to convict someone of a crime. That's left up to state/federal law so it isn't consistent.

Ex. Motive/Intent can mean the difference between negligent homicide and first degree. There's a difference between letting your notoriously aggressive dog kill your neighbor and stabbing her to death.


Which is kind of my point.  If the prosecution can use that difference in motive, why isn't the defense allowed use the difference between "that's where the money is" and "I'm Robin Hood incarnate"?  Fark lawyerly types?
 
2013-05-01 07:00:25 PM  
Tatsuma:
... what the fark is wrong with you people?



Justice
 
2013-05-01 07:01:58 PM  
Yeah screw bankers and the 50 year-old lady working as a bank teller making minimum wage and that digusting Bank manager making 50k a year stealing money out our pockets!

Psst you're robbing the wrong "bankers" numbnuts. And to you dumb farks showing empathy or support for this moran, fark you too for being too dense to understand the difference between a Wall Street Investment Bank and Bum-Fark Bank of Wyoming.
 
2013-05-01 07:01:59 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people.

Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.

Can I go out and start murdering them? It is, after all, comeuppance.

Communist_Manifesto: the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

Gangbangers in America are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drive-by, can I just walk up to any gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.


You can start by all means.
 
2013-05-01 07:02:52 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: I never condoned his actions. You apparently don't know what the word empathy means. So I guess if you're not a troll you're just a straight up moron. Don't bother responding, I'm not going to respond to someone who doesn't even understand the concept of empathy.


You said 'may not be right', 'might not agree', you did not in any way say that you actually disagreed or agreed with his actions. And if your name was not 'Communist Manifesto' I probably would have given you a lot more leeway on this. So answer:

Do you agree with what he did, or do you think he should be sent to prison?
 
2013-05-01 07:05:32 PM  
reillan:
I take it as more of the same problem with the legal system in America that causes us to put 17-year-olds in prison for consensual sex with their 16-year-old girlfriends...

The idea that the law itself is paramount, and that the jury cannot question it from the courtroom.

We've forgotten that this was one of the reasons why the jury system existed in the first place - to make sure that well-intended laws weren't inappropriately applied.


YES!  I'm not sure which is more amazing -- the fact that so few people know this, or the fact that judges [who have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution] blatantly tell jurors in trials to only judge whether the law was broken, not whether they think the law is inappropriate.  Jurors are ALWAYS free to judge however they see fit, without direction from judges, except possibly for procedural issues.  Their determination of the verdict is COMPLETELY up to them.
 
2013-05-01 07:06:08 PM  

OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand.  I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards.  And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.


You know what's more disturbing? The fact no-one feels the need to hold the politicians who voted for it accountable because they are a member of the party they favor. The just pisses me right off.
 
2013-05-01 07:11:03 PM  

OgreMagi: If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument. Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand. I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards. And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.


I've got two friends who've worked as bank tellers and both of them have been robbed.  One of them was robbed at gunpoint, the other by a man with a letter who threatened to have a gun.  Both of them have had psychological damage, and the one who was robbed at gunpoint still wakes up screaming at night because of the ordeal--years later.

The fact is that what he did likely terrorized normal, everyday, common people who were just trying to make a living for their families.  The executives weren't harmed by this--even a $200k loss is a relatively paltry sum, especially considering banks carry insurance for this sort of thing.  It is the violence--and the threat of violence, as well as the psychological harm that a robbery inflicts upon people, that makes the action unexcusable.  No peaceful person should be subjected to torment in his or her efforts to make a decent living.

While some banks do make a mockery of the system, the normal folks who are trying to survive should not be punished because their bosses are evil.  To think they are is to glorify punishing the true victims of the crimes--the patrons and staff of the business targeted for theft.
 
2013-05-01 07:11:05 PM  

jayphat: OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand.  I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards.  And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.

You know what's more disturbing? The fact no-one feels the need to hold the politicians who voted for it accountable because they are a member of the party they favor. The just pisses me right off.


I refuse to vote for a democrat or a republican because I don't see them any different in their actions.  So yes, I do hold the accountable.  Unfortunately, too many people are willing to let things slide for their party, as you pointed out.
 
2013-05-01 07:11:39 PM  
If I were on the jury, I certainly would be going for nullification on this one.
 
2013-05-01 07:14:41 PM  
His real crime is just thinking too small. You could never take enough with a gun or a bomb.

You would need a computer to really make a dent...
 
2013-05-01 07:16:19 PM  

sgnilward: If I were on the jury, I certainly would be going for nullification on this one.


/which is why I have never sat on a jury, I suppose
 
2013-05-01 07:16:55 PM  

rolladuck: I've got two friends who've worked as bank tellers and both of them have been robbed. One of them was robbed at gunpoint, the other by a man with a letter who threatened to have a gun. Both of them have had psychological damage, and the one who was robbed at gunpoint still wakes up screaming at night because of the ordeal--years later.

The fact is that what he did likely terrorized normal, everyday, common people who were just trying to make a living for their families. The executives weren't harmed by this--even a $200k loss is a relatively paltry sum, especially considering banks carry insurance for this sort of thing. It is the violence--and the threat of violence, as well as the psychological harm that a robbery inflicts upon people, that makes the action unexcusable. No peaceful person should be subjected to torment in his or her efforts to make a decent living.

While some banks do make a mockery of the system, the normal folks who are trying to survive should not be punished because their bosses are evil. To think they are is to glorify punishing the true victims of the crimes--the patrons and staff of the business targeted for theft.


They work for banks, they should be mistreated. Part of the problem and all that.
 
2013-05-01 07:18:25 PM  

Treygreen13: Tatsuma: ... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.


He was homeless in Wyoming on New Years Eve. All that cold probably got him thinking he'll either pull this off or he'll get caught and get warm a cell. Win-win for him. All this Robin Hood stuff is just bullshiat anyway. He knows he's caught and he wanted to make himself look as good as he can.
 
2013-05-01 07:18:47 PM  

sgnilward: If I were on the jury, I certainly would be going for nullification on this one.


So, what you're saying is if someone were to come into your place of business with a gun, corale you and your customers into a corner while his friends take all the cash and valuables they could find, that you would be okay with it, as long as you worked for in industry that had been vilified in popular media.
You are messed up.
 
2013-05-01 07:23:13 PM  

Tatsuma: They work for banks, they should be mistreated. Part of the problem and all that.


You are either a pretty lousy troll, or a horribly lousy human.  I hope someday you get the pleasure of working in an unpopular company struggling to make ends meet.
Some years you take the paychecks that you can get.
 
2013-05-01 07:23:14 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
does not approve of these shenanigans
 
2013-05-01 07:24:54 PM  

rolladuck: Tatsuma: They work for banks, they should be mistreated. Part of the problem and all that.

You are either a pretty lousy troll, or a horribly lousy human.  I hope someday you get the pleasure of working in an unpopular company struggling to make ends meet.
Some years you take the paychecks that you can get.


They live in [insert disliked country here], they should be mistreated. Part of the problem and all that.

May as well push a bad metaphor as far as you possibly can.
 
2013-05-01 07:26:21 PM  

Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.


I never thought I'd see a person who loves authority more than authority does, but here we are :/
 
2013-05-01 07:28:11 PM  

titwrench: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

It sounds as though the judge is saying kind of tounge in cheek that he can argue the legality but he is not able to admit whether or not he feels the robber was justified. A take it as a wink and a nod to the robber even though he has to do his job and upstand the law.


Even if he appeals, he's not going to be able to use that argument.  That's essentially requesting to use jury nullification as a defence.  I think only one state allows that.  If anyone could use that, I think there would be a lot less convictions.  "Yes, I had weed but it should be legal," or on the other side "Yes I hit my wife, but the biatch had it coming."  If you get 1 juror to agree with you, you've got it made.
 
2013-05-01 07:32:40 PM  

Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.


I know you're an old timer here, but I think you still deserve a "welcome to fark" on this one.

You're actually surprised that there are morons here defending bank robbers?
 
2013-05-01 07:34:22 PM  

jayphat: OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand.  I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards.  And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.

You know what's more disturbing? The fact no-one feels the need to hold the politicians who voted for it accountable because they are a member of the party they favor. The just pisses me right off.


Voted for what?
 
2013-05-01 07:40:53 PM  

mongbiohazard: The prosecutor in that case should be happy I'm not on the jury.


Add me to this.
 
2013-05-01 07:42:21 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jayphat: OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand.  I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards.  And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.

You know what's more disturbing? The fact no-one feels the need to hold the politicians who voted for it accountable because they are a member of the party they favor. The just pisses me right off.

Voted for what?


That pesky TARP.
 
2013-05-01 07:45:09 PM  
Oodilolly oodilolly golly what a day.
 
2013-05-01 07:48:49 PM  
I'll take another moment to recommend everyone read this book:

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

When the rich and powerful aren't even prosecuted for bank fraud so extreme that it takes down the global economy, I see no reason why anyone else should be convicted of crimes involving banks.

Equal justice under the law is a very old American concept.
 
2013-05-01 07:48:53 PM  

rolladuck: You are either a pretty lousy troll, or a horribly lousy human. I hope someday you get the pleasure of working in an unpopular company struggling to make ends meet.
Some years you take the paychecks that you can get.


... read the rest of the thread.
 
2013-05-01 07:50:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I know you're an old timer here, but I think you still deserve a "welcome to fark" on this one.

You're actually surprised that there are morons here defending bank robbers?


I've spent most of the last two years away from fark and with nice and decent folk in an almost Pleasantville setting. It's been a bit of a shock, being back here.
 
2013-05-01 07:52:00 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


Actually, the world would be a better place if we had a much larger number of banks.
 
2013-05-01 07:53:07 PM  
Anytime a bank corporation or even a rich guy is stolen from it should be seen as a good thing.

because none of the above got there without stealing screwing or theiving from someone along the way
 
2013-05-01 07:53:50 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.

The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.


Yep.

I've been called for jury duty this summer.  If I get a bank robbery, I'm voting innocent unless someone got hurt.

I won't admit that during selection, though.
 
2013-05-01 07:53:58 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Voted for what?


Voted for the guy who put a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of the Department of Justice right after bank fraud brought down the global economy. Oddly, the millionaire Wall Street defense attorney didn't even bother to prosecute any of the clients he will go back to working for when he's back in the private sector in a couple of years.

Hell, just today Obama appointed a major lobbyist for the Cable and Telecommunications industries (as well as a major Obama fundraiser) to be in charge of regulating the Cable and Telecommunications industries at the FCC.
 
2013-05-01 07:59:31 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people.

Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.

Can I go out and start murdering them? It is, after all, comeuppance.

Communist_Manifesto: the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

Gangbangers in America are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drive-by, can I just walk up to any gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.


I doubt anyone would complain to much if you did.
for that matter I doubt anyone would care that much at all.

Ive always thought. If one is a member of an outlaw group.
IE. Hells angles bloods crips mafia. Why are they given the same legal protection as anyone else. By definition they belong to an organization bent on breaking law.

who cares if john Q public goes all charles bronson on them?
theyve got it coming
 
2013-05-01 07:59:48 PM  
Wonder how much of that defense is actually true and how much is shiat he made up to play on a jury's sympathies.
 
2013-05-01 08:06:36 PM  

rolladuck: sgnilward: If I were on the jury, I certainly would be going for nullification on this one.

So, what you're saying is if someone were to come into your place of business with a gun, corale you and your customers into a corner while his friends take all the cash and valuables they could find, that you would be okay with it, as long as you worked for in industry that had been vilified in popular media.
You are messed up.


I don't think your hypothetical is similar to what happened in the news story. There were no weapons involved. He told the bank manager someone else had planted bombs in the snow outside. I'm not condoning his actions, but it seems to me only the bank manager was impacted emotionally by this guy's actions. There was no gun, there was no "coraleing" (I assume you mean corral?) involved.
 
2013-05-01 08:12:48 PM  

links136: Tatsuma: links136: It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters. They had it coming.

No, no it's not. It's not the same thing at all.

Communist_Manifesto: I said nothing about justifying homicide mr. strawman.

Oh so only crimes that might lead to murder, like robbing a bank, are justified, but not straight up murder?

Are you kidding?  Private banks have decayed society to the point of collapse.  Frankly, they should all be charged with treason and have banks nationalized.

Wouldn't mind the french revolution either.


Yes, let's nationalize the banks because if anyone has shown they know how to handle money it's the government.
 
2013-05-01 08:15:38 PM  

titwrench: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

It sounds as though the judge is saying kind of tounge in cheek that he can argue the legality but he is not able to admit whether or not he feels the robber was justified. A take it as a wink and a nod to the robber even though he has to do his job and upstand the law.


Yup. Intending to do really awesome things with what you steal, even if you're stealing from an utterly evil motherf*cker, doesn't justify stealing from said motherf*cker. Every single one of us is an utterly evil motherf*cker in at least one person's eyes, therefore that cannot be an effective legal defense.
 
2013-05-01 08:22:39 PM  

timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?


FDIC insures depositors against bank failures.  It does not cover cash stolen from banks.
 
2013-05-01 08:26:46 PM  

hardinparamedic: So in other words, this guy blatantly confessed to it, and gave the judge every reason to sentence him not only for armed robbery, but to even tack on terrorism charges as well for it being politically motivated.

BRILLIANT.

I bet that defense attorney sat down with a facepalm after he had to tell the jury that.


Robin Hood is defending himself.  Because lawyers are no better than bankers, y'know.
 
2013-05-01 08:29:57 PM  

Tatsuma: I've spent most of the last two years away from fark and with nice and decent folk in an almost Pleasantville setting. It's been a bit of a shock, being back here.


I'm like you.  I stop in every once in a while to check on the freaks in the asylum.  It amazes me to no end the shiat people post on Fark.  Just when you thought you'd read the craziest crap logic here another thread comes along where the robbery of some bank in bumfark, nowhere'sville is championed as putting it to the man.
 
2013-05-01 08:35:28 PM  

radioshack: I'm like you. I stop in every once in a while to check on the freaks in the asylum. It amazes me to no end the shiat people post on Fark. Just when you thought you'd read the craziest crap logic here another thread comes along where the robbery of some bank in bumfark, nowhere'sville is championed as putting it to the man.


Yeah. I mean not going on the internet and being around sane folks, then jumping back it is really scary. I heard about these people, The 'Holmies', or Holmes fanboys/girls.

Now, in my innocence, I thought that these were Sherlock Holmes fans, either from the movies or multiple series on television right now about him as a character. No, discovered a couple of days ago that they are in fact fans of James Holmes, the Aurora shooter and write love letters about him and photoshop his face on porn to wank/shlick to it.

There's apparently a huge Johar Tsaernev fanbase on Tumblr as well. People here are rooting for bank robbers and calling for the death of bankers.

There are a lot of scary individuals in the world.
 
2013-05-01 08:35:29 PM  

Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.
Yes exactly. 

... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

 
2013-05-01 08:35:42 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Ive always thought. If one is a member of an outlaw group.
IE. Hells angles bloods crips mafia. Why are they given the same legal protection as anyone else. By definition they belong to an organization bent on breaking law.


What is your point in relation to this bank robbery.
 
2013-05-01 08:37:44 PM  

jcooli09: The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.


This. One way or the other, the rich in America need to be exposed to the consequences of their enriching themselves by looting the public treasury and taking an ever-larger share of income from the private economy. Nothing will change until that is the case, one only needs to look at recent history.

Roughly 100 years ago there (in a nutshell) was a very legitimate threat from ideological like socialism, communism, and even anarchism. The wiser of the elites realized this existential threat and supported FDR. While he reformed the capitalist system, he did not overthrow the monied interests, and the rich got to stay relatively rich and in power. The elites of today seem much less open to sensible compromise that would aim to keep the capitalist system intact, as the reckless decisions their puppets in the legislature would suggest. There is no foreseeable avenue within the political system to implement reform in a way that would make our crony capitalist economy more equitable while preserving its basic structure.

Things are going to get more and more interesting.
 
2013-05-01 08:40:53 PM  

Tatsuma: People here are rooting for bank robbers and calling for the death of bankers.


It's a bunch of bullshiat.  It's internet tough guy talk.  I guarantee if this bank robber robbed their local bank and stole their $200 in savings they would be calling for his death if it wasn't protected by the FDIC.

That's another thing.  What he stole was insured by the FDIC.  So he really only stole from the government.  These idiots haven't even thought through it that far.  It's really sad.
 
2013-05-01 08:43:54 PM  
Torn between Hero tag and Dumbass tag, a very rare dilemma indeed.
 
2013-05-01 08:44:07 PM  

radioshack: That's another thing. What he stole was insured by the FDIC. So he really only stole from the government. These idiots haven't even thought through it that far. It's really sad.


Yeah he basically stole money from taxpayers for him and his buddies. What a hero!
 
2013-05-01 08:48:38 PM  

Tatsuma: Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.

Can I go out and start murdering them? It is, after all, comeuppance.


Knock yourself out.  Like anyone is going to shed a tear for a dead banker in this country?  Besides the lesser crooks on their payrolls, that is.
 
2013-05-01 08:50:13 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: insertsnarkyusername: What minority owned banks exist?

There has to be one, right?



The Freedom National Bank of Harlem was the only bank deemed not too big to fail during the S&L crisis and depositors were only covered to the FDIC $250k limit.  All the other banks' depositors had their deposits covered above $250k.  Bill Cosby lost a small fortune, so no there doesn't have to be another one.
 
2013-05-01 08:50:46 PM  
The Robin Hood charity:

5 dollars of every hundred for the poor and 95 dollars out of every hundred for himself.

Hey, that's still better than most charities in this country!
 
2013-05-01 08:51:37 PM  

titwrench: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

It sounds as though the judge is saying kind of tounge in cheek that he can argue the legality but he is not able to admit whether or not he feels the robber was justified. A take it as a wink and a nod to the robber even though he has to do his job and upstand the law.


Sounded less tongue in cheek and more "permanent ban on that line of questioning" to me, actually.
 
2013-05-01 08:52:17 PM  
US Bank?

where's the HERO tag?
 
2013-05-01 08:52:49 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: titwrench: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

It sounds as though the judge is saying kind of tounge in cheek that he can argue the legality but he is not able to admit whether or not he feels the robber was justified. A take it as a wink and a nod to the robber even though he has to do his job and upstand the law.

Yup. Intending to do really awesome things with what you steal, even if you're stealing from an utterly evil motherf*cker, doesn't justify stealing from said motherf*cker. Every single one of us is an utterly evil motherf*cker in at least one person's eyes, therefore that cannot be an effective legal defense.


Doesn't it go to mens rea, ie, bad intent?  or did they do away with that?

/been a long time since Crim 101.
 
2013-05-01 08:55:13 PM  

jayphat: Debeo Summa Credo: jayphat: OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated, I say his actions were reasonable.

Yes, he robbed a bank for a couple of hundred thousand.  I'm more concerned with the billions robbed by politically protected rich bastards.  And I'm a libertarian who never goes the "fark the rich bastard" route.

You know what's more disturbing? The fact no-one feels the need to hold the politicians who voted for it accountable because they are a member of the party they favor. The just pisses me right off.

Voted for what?

That pesky TARP.


Oh, yeah, the thing that saved millions and millions of American jobs? The thing that despite any real or perceived faults they may have, both Bush and Obama can justifiably take credit for and point to as an example of where they unequivocally and objectively did right for their country? That pesky thing?
 
2013-05-01 08:55:48 PM  
Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified.

This legal defense is only available to the banks.
 
2013-05-01 08:56:34 PM  

2farknfunny: The Freedom National Bank of Harlem was the only bank deemed not too big to fail during the S&L crisis and depositors were only covered to the FDIC $250k limit.  All the other banks' depositors had their deposits covered above $250k.



Total lie.
 
2013-05-01 08:57:41 PM  
If I was on that jury, I'd make damned sure it was a 'hung' jury, if I couldn't otherwise convince my fellow jurors that he should be judged "not guilty". Period.
 
2013-05-01 09:02:19 PM  
redistributed wealth that goes up is a-ok but redistributed wealth that goes down is for libs and socialisms

too bad libs
 
2013-05-01 09:05:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?

FDIC insures depositors against bank failures.  It does not cover cash stolen from banks.


Thanks.  I knew it covered depositors, but didn't know if it also insured the bank as a whole.  A banker's blanket bond is apparently what covers losses like these.  So... he really just farked over an insurance company, they bank'll get paid... Still having a hard time hating this guy.
 
2013-05-01 09:08:37 PM  
Look, let's cut the sh*t about "conservatives" and "libs".  They don't exist.  There's just the scerwers and the people who cheer lead for them because they think they're gonna get in the back door as "one of the good ones", and the screwees who are about 3 clicks shy of building guillotines and, historically, pretty much on schedule.  But let's stop pretending that those emperors cloaks add up to anything like a useful definition for any ideology within a political system that got dismantled and thrown under a train 40 years ago.
 
2013-05-01 09:19:41 PM  

timujin: Still having a hard time hating this guy.


The guy robbed a bank.  Because his stated intentions, which I seriously doubt, jive with your political beliefs you give him a pass?  That's some farked up shiat.
 
2013-05-01 09:21:07 PM  
My God.

What does it mean when Tats is the only rational person in a thread?
 
2013-05-01 09:22:32 PM  

Swiftstone2012: If I was on that jury, I'd make damned sure it was a 'hung' jury, if I couldn't otherwise convince my fellow jurors that he should be judged "not guilty". Period.


Which is why the prosecution would immediately exclude you.  And I bet you'd give off such a vibe that they'd do it on sight.
 
2013-05-01 09:23:17 PM  
Fact is he broke a couple of laws.

Right or wrong he will have his day in court.

I doubt he can disprove breaking the law.
 
2013-05-01 09:24:09 PM  

timujin: BarkingUnicorn: timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?

FDIC insures depositors against bank failures.  It does not cover cash stolen from banks.

Thanks.  I knew it covered depositors, but didn't know if it also insured the bank as a whole.  A banker's blanket bond is apparently what covers losses like these.  So... he really just farked over an insurance company, they bank'll get paid... Still having a hard time hating this guy.


There's no reason for you to hate him.  He did nothing to you or anything you care about.  You're in no position to do anything about him.  Hatred would merely shorten your life in this case.
 
2013-05-01 09:24:26 PM  

Zeno-25: jcooli09: The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

This. One way or the other, the rich in America need to be exposed to the consequences of their enriching themselves by looting the public treasury and taking an ever-larger share of income from the private economy. Nothing will change until that is the case, one only needs to look at recent history.

Roughly 100 years ago there (in a nutshell) was a very legitimate threat from ideological like socialism, communism, and even anarchism. The wiser of the elites realized this existential threat and supported FDR. While he reformed the capitalist system, he did not overthrow the monied interests, and the rich got to stay relatively rich and in power. The elites of today seem much less open to sensible compromise that would aim to keep the capitalist system intact, as the reckless decisions their puppets in the legislature would suggest. There is no foreseeable avenue within the political system to implement reform in a way that would make our crony capitalist economy more equitable while preserving its basic structure.

Things are going to get more and more interesting.


I think it's cute when liberals think there is going to be a revolution or uprising. The revolutionaries you hold up as heroes of 1917 Russia or 1789 France would puke in your faces if they were here, saw how you lived, and then heard you compare yourselves to them.

The poor in this country are very very comfortable compared the poor of previous revolutionary generations. Revolutions aren't built on envy, they're built on desperation.
 
2013-05-01 09:29:58 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.


That's a really weird sentiment to shove into the conversation.
 
2013-05-01 09:42:24 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: insertsnarkyusername: What minority owned banks exist?

There has to be one, right?


I always thought Jews were a minority - don't they own ALL the banks?

dr_blasto: The Stealth Hippopotamus: timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.

That's a really weird sentiment to shove into the conversation.


He just doesn't want us to forget the REAL victims of racism.
 
2013-05-01 10:03:48 PM  

radioshack: timujin: Still having a hard time hating this guy.

The guy robbed a bank.  Because his stated intentions, which I seriously doubt, jive with your political beliefs you give him a pass?  That's some farked up shiat.


Never said I'd give him a pass, just that I didn't hate him.

BarkingUnicorn: There's no reason for you to hate him. He did nothing to you or anything you care about. You're in no position to do anything about him. Hatred would merely shorten your life in this case.


meh... true, hate is a strong word, but it was only meant to make a point... the word is often used this way in the modern vernacular and not meant to indicate actual "hatred".  Don't hate on me, bro.
 
2013-05-01 10:05:07 PM  
jso2897:
He just doesn't want us to forget the REAL victims of racism.

That's my guess.
 
2013-05-01 10:09:02 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: The Stealth Hippopotamus: timujin: I'd say this is an excellent case for jury nullification, but he's not allowed to discuss his motives. Also, what's up with that shiat? If he'd killed some dude because he was sleeping with his wife, the prosecution could use that motivation as evidence.

I guarantee you that if he was robbing minority owned banks cause he didn't like "darkies" having banks he would be facing a new bunch of new charges.

What minority owned banks exist?


www.shescribes.com
I'm not saying anyone likes them, but...
 
2013-05-01 10:09:10 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Anytime a bank corporation or even a rich guy is stolen from it should be seen as a good thing.

because none of the above got there without stealing screwing or theiving from someone along the way


What about the honest, hardworking, down on his luck guy who happened to pick up the $125M lottery ticket? Is he fair game?
 
2013-05-01 10:16:10 PM  

bunner: Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified.

This legal defense is only available to the banks.


Parties to criminal prosecutions and civil litigation are not allowed to confuse the issues and mislead the jury. Right or wrong, the defense of "Justification" is a legal term of art with limited application, refined through over a century of statutory and case law.  You can argue your commission of homicide was justifiable because that person had broken into your house and was threatening to shoot your toddler.  You cannot argue your bank robbery was justifiable because you're robin hood.  Why not? Because legislatures and courts haven't been convinced by the logic of decriminalizing bank robbery because poor people exist. For some strange reason.
 
2013-05-01 10:21:23 PM  

Tatsuma: Communist_Manifesto: I never condoned his actions. You apparently don't know what the word empathy means. So I guess if you're not a troll you're just a straight up moron. Don't bother responding, I'm not going to respond to someone who doesn't even understand the concept of empathy.

You said 'may not be right', 'might not agree', you did not in any way say that you actually disagreed or agreed with his actions. And if your name was not 'Communist Manifesto' I probably would have given you a lot more leeway on this. So answer:

Do you agree with what he did, or do you think he should be sent to prison?


You're a farking moron is all I think. OMG Your screen name obviously means something! HUUURRRRDUURRRR Let me lie and put words in your mouth. DIAF
 
2013-05-01 10:26:55 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: You're a farking moron is all I think. OMG Your screen name obviously means something! HUUURRRRDUURRRR Let me lie and put words in your mouth. DIAF


Your screen name, when discussing this, is in fact relevant, because Communists certainly hated banks and only believed in centralized, government banking. There were a lot of terror attacks on bankers before 1917 and well, we know what they did during the revolution.

 If your screenname was 'The Turner Diaries' and you made a comment about African-Americans shrouded in 'might's and 'can see's, I'd sure as shiat want to ascertain why you chose that name.

So do you want to answer the question: Was this man justified, or should he go to jail?
 
2013-05-01 10:54:21 PM  

another cultural observer: Because legislatures and courts haven't been convinced by the logic of decriminalizing bank robbery because poor people exist. For some strange reason.


I absitively agree.  I am curious, however, as to how they managed to arrive at the notion that investment bankers colluding to obliterate entire market sectors, not only with impunity, but a fat bonus for their efforts, IS justifiable.  The legal system just gets curiouser and curiouser.
 
2013-05-01 11:06:13 PM  

bunner: another cultural observer: Because legislatures and courts haven't been convinced by the logic of decriminalizing bank robbery because poor people exist. For some strange reason.

I absitively agree.  I am curious, however, as to how they managed to arrive at the notion that investment bankers colluding to obliterate entire market sectors, not only with impunity, but a fat bonus for their efforts, IS justifiable.  The legal system just gets curiouser and curiouser.


Justification is not a defense to fraud, either.  Sorry.
 
2013-05-01 11:07:00 PM  

another cultural observer: Justification is not a defense to fraud, either.  Sorry.


Apparently "nudge, wink, we're too big to f*ck with" is, though.
 
2013-05-01 11:07:49 PM  

another cultural observer: Sorry.


You seem insincere.   :  )
 
2013-05-01 11:20:28 PM  

bunner: another cultural observer: Sorry.

You seem insincere.   :  )


It was a befuddled Englishman's "sorry", not a used car salesman's "sorry"
 
2013-05-01 11:22:46 PM  

PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?


I'm pretty sure there is no such crime as "justifiable bank robbery." Its not like he HAD to rob the bank or his life would have been in danger. Self-righteousness has never been a legitimate defense in court.
 
2013-05-01 11:26:21 PM  

jndisharif: PunGent: FTA  "Last week, a U.S. District judge told Donaldson he could not argue before the jury that his actions were justified."

I'm a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer...did this guy just get a solid issue for appeal?

I'm pretty sure there is no such crime as "justifiable bank robbery." Its not like he HAD to rob the bank or his life would have been in danger. Self-righteousness has never been a legitimate defense in court.


Had he robbed the bank under duress, then he would have a legally cognizable defense.  If some guy had a gun to this robber's wife's head, and said "go rob that bank or I will murder your wife".....he'd be free and clear assuming he could prove it.
 
2013-05-01 11:28:35 PM  

another cultural observer: bunner: another cultural observer: Sorry.

You seem insincere.   :  )

It was a befuddled Englishman's "sorry", not a used car salesman's "sorry"


Context is important, I agree.  Nothing to be befuddled about, really.  He premise I have stated is quite simply that codified theft on a large scale is quite often excused, supported and a granted privilege of those who have access to large financial constructs while penny ante mooks get nailed to a tree.  I'm sort of against both approaches because they're both illegal and designed to deprive people of their property and capital.  And when I see Lehman Bros. execs in stocks, I shall find a modicum of equilibrium in our  criminal justice system.
 
2013-05-01 11:29:17 PM  

timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?



Brilliant. And where do you think the government gets the money to insure the funds? From the magic money hole in Washington DC?
 
2013-05-01 11:34:49 PM  

jndisharif: From the magic money hole in Washington DC?


I don't know if that's where they get it from, however, it is quite obviously where they put it all.
 
2013-05-01 11:40:06 PM  

jndisharif: timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?


Brilliant. And where do you think the government gets the money to insure the funds? From the magic money hole in Washington DC?


He made sure to only steal from bank accounts containing amounts above the FDIC limit, in order to spare the taxpayers.  Otherwise it'd be kind of pointless.  "I'm robbing this bank to give the money back to the taxpayers, who will collectively repay the banks with their own money.  Or I might give it to a tax-coster, who is already being financed by the taxpayers but he needs a little bit more money."
 
2013-05-01 11:42:53 PM  

Matthew Keene: The sad thing is that 140K is a mere burp to the bank.


A burp?  Naw.  A burp might actually be felt.  Whereas this guy actually did something, unlike OWS, what he did might make a footnote in a quarterly report to the bank president.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:59 PM  
This guy is no hero or Robin Hood, though I certainly do not think he is any more of a crook than a lot of bankers and our Senators.

That being said, bad things can happen anytime you wave a gun around. Even if your gun is empty and you never have any intention of harming anyone, you are escalating the situiaton and frightening people. That can cause bad things. It's like speeding in a school zone. Even if you're sober, undestracted and a great driver, you're just asking for trouble. Tempting the fates as the anciet Greeks would say.
 
2013-05-02 12:17:49 AM  

jndisharif: timujin: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Steals from the government (as he sees it) and give to the people


That is actually Robin Hood!

Isn't this stealing from the government? Aren't these funds FDIC insured?


Brilliant. And where do you think the government gets the money to insure the funds? From the magic money hole in Washington DC?


I wasn't making a judgement about whether or not it was sensible, only questioning whether FDIC insurance extended to bank robberies.  It doesn't, this would have been paid out by the banks private insurer.
 
2013-05-02 12:55:57 AM  
"The people" do get bailed out plenty of times. It's called "welfare".
 
2013-05-02 12:58:12 AM  

B.L.Z. Bub: "The people" do get bailed out plenty of times. It's called "welfare".


Really?  Go on.  Let's chat about welfare and scale and who gets what and why.
 
2013-05-02 01:00:09 AM  

super_grass: Communist_Manifesto: Tatsuma: Treygreen13: I'm sure the glowing praise of the anonymous internet cellar-dwellers will comfort this guy as he prepares to go to jail for a decade.

Seriously everyone who posted things like that have to be basically cellar-dwellers with very little impact on society, this is a beyond farked-up mentality to have.

The reason people don't have a problem with stealing from banks is because the banks may have farked up the entire world economy and caused a lot of grief/harm to people. It's called comeuppance and since no governmental authority has done jack shiat to provide said comeuppance, people will tend to look the other way when shiat like this happens regardless if this guys motives were exactly as he said they were. It may not be right, the people at that bank in Wyoming probably had nothing to do with the actions of the bank at large, but I can at least understand both robbing it and being okay with the guy doing it.

This is why I'm okay with people redirecting their anger towards Obama for screwups.

More often than not it's congress, but he's a symbol of government and government has been helping corporations screw us over for the longest time.

THANKS, OBUMMER!


A big THIS is why I blame Obama, and Bush before him. Both have had the power to direct their Justice Dept. to prosecute whatever they so desire to the ends of the Earth, their failure to do so implicates them as well.
 
2013-05-02 01:05:16 AM  

shiattynick: Both have had the power to direct their Justice Dept. to prosecute whatever they so desire to the ends of the Earth, their failure to do so implicates them as well.


So, the "a few bad cops" indicts the ones who ignore them, too" metric works all the way up the chain?
 
2013-05-02 01:27:27 AM  

bunner: shiattynick: Both have had the power to direct their Justice Dept. to prosecute whatever they so desire to the ends of the Earth, their failure to do so implicates them as well.

So, the "a few bad cops" indicts the ones who ignore them, too" metric works all the way up the chain?


Ignore them is far too lenient, if it were just ignore them I might give it a pass. Enable and shield them from prosecution is what has happened, and that gets no pass from me.
 
2013-05-02 01:37:57 AM  

shiattynick: Ignore them is far too lenient, if it were just ignore them I might give it a pass. Enable and shield them from prosecution is what has happened, and that gets no pass from me.


Nor from me.  However,much to their benefit if not ours, they seem to have managed to print their own.  If you make the laws and print the money, you pretty much get to sh*t anywhere you please.
 
2013-05-02 01:41:02 AM  
Regardless of our alleged progress towards a civilized society, the landscape is still largely the roaring and scowling of carnivorous beasts plopping their malodorous scat along the traveled paths as a warning to the smaller animals to tread lightly, and not stick their noses too far out of their warrens.
 
2013-05-02 02:04:06 AM  
Living up to his ancestors standards.
 
2013-05-02 03:00:36 AM  
You can't steal from a thief.

Not guilty!
 
2013-05-02 03:56:35 AM  
I am going to have to join the crowd who are asking WTF is up with the instructions about not discussing motives. That seems wrong. I'm not a lawyer, though. Any lawyers got an explanation for this?

Tatsuma: I've spent most of the last two years away from fark


You've logged in your alt a mighty damn lot.
 
2013-05-02 07:03:02 AM  

unlikely: I am going to have to join the crowd who are asking WTF is up with the instructions about not discussing motives. That seems wrong. I'm not a lawyer, though. Any lawyers got an explanation for this?


Motive is not a defense at trial.  Motive can be a mitigating factor at the sentencing phase.

"Yes, I stole the bread."
"Guilty."
"But I did it to feed my family."
"Sentence suspended."

Prosecutors discuss motive to remove doubt.  "Why would he do such a thing?"
 
2013-05-02 08:27:06 AM  

Tatsuma: links136: It's kinda like when prison guards look the other way while jail-mates beat the shiat out of child molesters. They had it coming.

No, no it's not. It's not the same thing at all.


Actually, it is.

Better yet, it's like the tacit approval of Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison, rape and murder in the cell block that guards will not try particularly hard to stop and which will never get investigated beyond, "who did it?!  All right all you suspects in solitary for a while!"

It's a situation where organizations which have consistently avoided any punishment for systemic criminal or unethical behaviors and received what our sense of justice considers insufficient punishment (often none at all).  It's not right, from a reasoned perspective, and it's questionable from an ethical perspective, but it grabs the attention of emotional appeal like unattended steak draws the attention of your dog.

Realistically, there is a logical argument that "examples need to be made" of the criminal behaviors of the financial industry.  Some execs need to do a perp-walk, some exceedingly wealthy need to see up-close and personal that yes, there ARE laws and there ARE consequences.  A bank robber getting off while the money is returned AND insured AND possibly some is "creatively positioned"(stolen) by the banks is not going to be that.

So no, the people above alternating between "let 'im go!" and "hang the bankers up by their entrails!" are wrong, but you would be wise to understand the emotional reasoning behind it.  It's why we still listen to you after you've gone on "Genocide yay!" tears and frothed about things that got your pathos going.   You don't have to agree to understand.

Also you come off as defending the banks and the bankers, probably not your intent but it's still what you sound like.
 
2013-05-02 08:42:16 AM  

OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.



Well, that's pure horseshiat.
 
2013-05-02 09:02:44 AM  

keypusher: OgreMagi: Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.

If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument.  Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.


Well, that's pure horseshiat.


No, no, it's true. I read it in a fark thread.
 
2013-05-02 10:37:28 AM  

jso2897: I always thought Jews were a minority - don't they own ALL the banks?


They dont own all of them but they are trying their hardest.  Recently obtained the banks of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.  Venezuela, Syria and Iran are next, atleast according to PNAC.
 
2013-05-02 11:59:44 AM  

Tatsuma: Gangbangers in America is are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drone strikedrive-by, can I just walk up to any American gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.


FTFY
 
2013-05-02 12:03:35 PM  

TelemonianAjax: Tatsuma: Gangbangers in America is are responsible for the death of lots of innocents. If I have a relative who dies in a drone strikedrive-by, can I just walk up to any American gang-banger and shoot him in the head? After all, it might not be this individual who is responsible, but well he's in a group responsible for most of these crimes.

FTFY

Guess I should clarify: I mean to say that perhaps if there were no drone strikes or bank-led global catastrophes, people would not feel the urge to pick up a gun and look for their own retributions.  Barring that, perhaps a legal system that would allow for the swift and transparent application of justice to ensure the victims are made whole and faith in the system can be validated.

However, drone strikes and bank-led global catastrophes are happening, and no one is being held accountable for them.  The people making these decisions are getting away scott free, thus giving rise to stuff like this.
 
2013-05-02 12:06:26 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument. Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.


Well, that's pure horseshiat.

No, no, it's true. I read it in a fark thread.


Hell, look at the most recent example:

The bank also moved money for organizations linked to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and for Russian gangsters; helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions; and, in between helping murderers and terrorists and rogue states, aided countless common tax cheats in hiding their cash.

"They violated every goddamn law in the book," says Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate investigator who headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. "They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business."

That nobody from the bank went to jail or paid a dollar in individual fines is nothing new in this era of financial crisis. What is different about this settlement is that the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. "Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, "HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

Banks are literally not even being prosecuted for money laundering for terrorists.
 
2013-05-02 12:10:17 PM  
BullBearMS:

That is the worst thing I have ever read in my life.
g33kp0rn.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-02 01:24:22 PM  

TelemonianAjax: BullBearMS:

That is the worst thing I have ever read in my life.
[g33kp0rn.files.wordpress.com image 640x400]


Hell, read about what became of the revelation that the banks were systematically using completely fraudulent documents to foreclose on people's homes in all 50 states of the nation.

Spoiler: Instead of prosecutors and the FBI investigating criminal wrongdoing, regulators allowed the banks pay contractors at "independent" firms $20,000 per case to review the files looking for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Oddly, the "independent" firms making all the money claimed they saw very little evidence of wrongdoing at JP Morgan Chase, while an investigation by HUD found that nearly every Chase file they examined was completely farked.

Meanwhile, nobody was prosecuted for felony level fraud.

The homeowners who had their homes fraudulently taken from them? Some of them got like $300 bucks for their trouble while those "independent" contractors got $20,000.

Seems legit.
 
2013-05-02 01:31:37 PM  

Tatsuma: This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.


Robbing a bank is certainly better than some of the things you favor, like committing war crimes against civilians.  At least the bank didn't literally lose an arm and a leg.
 
2013-05-02 01:48:26 PM  
BullBearMS:

I'm afraid that someday Matt Tiabbi will be the equivalent of this guy.

WHAT DID I farkING SAY WOULD farkING HAPPEN!?!?
 
2013-05-02 01:59:39 PM  

Tatsuma: Actual bank are merely entities, it's the people who control the banks who did all of these things.


Not according to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-05-02 02:44:12 PM  

keypusher: If the government had gone after even one person in the mortage and banking scandal, I would not be sympathetic to his argument. Since NOT ONE FARKING PERSON was even investigated.


Well, that's pure horseshiat.


If it's horseshiat, you should be able to list the names of the big money guys who got investigated.  Maybe you can even find a name of one who went to trial, or was fined, or jailed.  I'll settle for anything that wasn't just another corporate handout.
 
2013-05-02 03:02:19 PM  

TelemonianAjax: BullBearMS:

I'm afraid that someday Matt Tiabbi will be the equivalent of this guy.

WHAT DID I farkING SAY WOULD farkING HAPPEN!?!?


Well, Frontline on PBS has been asking the question, "Why haven't any of the fraudulent bankers been prosecuted" as well.

This documentary shows the insiders laying out the facts of the intentional, highly profitable fraud at the root of the financial crisis and the Government's intentional decision not to prosecute their wealthy donor friends in the banking industry.

However, the fact that most of the media always refers to "taking people's homes from them with fraudulent sworn documents submitted to the courts", "robosigning" instead of outright fraud tells you how important the rare journalist like Taibbi who tells the truth about what is going on has become.
 
2013-05-02 05:59:19 PM  

Tatsuma: Calmamity: Good. Fu*k banks.

Oldiron_79: Im ok with this

phlatulence: Hero tag cringing under bank teller desk somewhere?

Ned Stark: Acquit.

ToastTheRabbit: [media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

libranoelrose: He didn't give me any money, but I still support what he did.

Warlordtrooper: I'd like to buy this guy a beer.

AugieDoggyDaddy: Yep,  the world would be better  if we got rid of all the banks.


... what the fark is wrong with you people?

This man robbed a bank, kept tens of thousands of dollars for himself, probably hid away some more, gave thousands to his friends, but because he said 'fark bailouts' and gave some to other homeless people (who happen to be personal friends, as he was himself homeless), suddenly what he did is heroic and justified?

What the fark.


More to the point:  The banks won't be out one thin dime on this guy's behalf.  Federal deposit insurance will see that every penny stolen will be reimbursed by the Federal government.  So this jackhole didn't steal from "teh ebil bankers", he stole from us taxpayers.
 
2013-05-02 06:19:29 PM  

BullBearMS: TelemonianAjax: BullBearMS:

I'm afraid that someday Matt Tiabbi will be the equivalent of this guy.

WHAT DID I farkING SAY WOULD farkING HAPPEN!?!?

Well, Frontline on PBS has been asking the question, "Why haven't any of the fraudulent bankers been prosecuted" as well.

This documentary shows the insiders laying out the facts of the intentional, highly profitable fraud at the root of the financial crisis and the Government's intentional decision not to prosecute their wealthy donor friends in the banking industry.

However, the fact that most of the media always refers to "taking people's homes from them with fraudulent sworn documents submitted to the courts", "robosigning" instead of outright fraud tells you how important the rare journalist like Taibbi who tells the truth about what is going on has become.


Only idiots believe Matt Taibbi. He is a biased hack, who knows he can fool idiots.

The reason people only got $300 in foreclosure checks is because the reason they were foreclosed was because they were 10 farking months late on their mortgage payments. Those very few who were actually not behind on payments got much more in the settlement, and rightfully so.

The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.

You can puke up all the links you want, voice your theories that Obama is part of some grand conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is that there just wasn't as much fraud as you desperately want to believe.
 
2013-05-02 06:49:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.


Fraud is a felony offense every single time the banks submit false documents to steal someone's home and it occurred in every single state of the union with great regularity.

Not one single banker has faced criminal prosecution for their fraud.

Their firm just pays a fine that is a tiny fraction of what their fraud brought in and don't even have to admit guilt.

It's a very obvious two tier system of justice where the rich commit any crime they like without penalty and the poor are put away for life for relatively minor offenses.

Senator Warren (D-Mass.) grills officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya repeatedly. Despite being caught red handed and ordered to stop doing so time after time.

Meanwhile...

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. A teller handed Brown three stacks of bills but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way. In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.
 
2013-05-02 07:13:10 PM  

BullBearMS: Debeo Summa Credo: The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.

Fraud is a felony offense every single time the banks submit false documents to steal someone's home and it occurred in every single state of the union with great regularity.

Not one single banker has faced criminal prosecution for their fraud.

Their firm just pays a fine that is a tiny fraction of what their fraud brought in and don't even have to admit guilt.

It's a very obvious two tier system of justice where the rich commit any crime they like without penalty and the poor are put away for life for relatively minor offenses.

Senator Warren (D-Mass.) grills officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya repeatedly. Despite being caught red handed and ordered to stop doing so time after time.

Meanwhile...

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. A teller handed Brown three stacks of bills but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way. In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.


This is why I have lost all respect for our justice system.  It's not just a loss of respect.  I now feel absolute contempt for it.
 
2013-05-02 07:18:45 PM  

BullBearMS: Debeo Summa Credo: The reason that very few people have gone to jail is because very few crimes were committed.

Fraud is a felony offense every single time the banks submit false documents to steal someone's home and it occurred in every single state of the union with great regularity.

Not one single banker has faced criminal prosecution for their fraud.

Their firm just pays a fine that is a tiny fraction of what their fraud brought in and don't even have to admit guilt.

It's a very obvious two tier system of justice where the rich commit any crime they like without penalty and the poor are put away for life for relatively minor offenses.

Senator Warren (D-Mass.) grills officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about why HSBC wasn't criminally prosecuted and shut down in the U.S. Nor were any individuals from HSBC charged with any crimes, despite the bank confessing to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and rogue regimes like Iran and Libya repeatedly. Despite being caught red handed and ordered to stop doing so time after time.

Meanwhile...

Roy Brown, 54, robbed the Capital One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007. A teller handed Brown three stacks of bills but he only took a single $100 bill and returned the remaining money back to her. He said that he was homeless and hungry and left the bank.

The next day he surrendered to the police voluntarily and told them that his mother didn't raise him that way. In Caddo District Court, he pleaded guilty. The judge sentenced him to 15 years in prison for first degree robbery.


What do you think the game was with the supposedly "stolen houses". Please explain to me, using realistic numbers, how a bank would increase its profitability by foreclosing on a home, during a housing crash, when the borrower was actually paying his mortgage.
 
2013-05-02 07:58:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What do you think the game was with the supposedly "stolen houses". Please explain to me, using realistic numbers, how a bank would increase its profitability by foreclosing on a home, during a housing crash, when the borrower was actually paying his mortgage.


Could you be a more obvious shill for the banks if you tried?

Nobody is complaining about home foreclosures where the banks followed the laws.

It's when the foreclosures involve submitting fraudulent documents directly to the courts time and time again, yet nobody gets prosecuted that piss people off.

Virtually every case of foreclosure in this country involves some form of screwed-up paperwork. "I would say it's pretty close to 100 percent," says Kowalski. An attorney for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid tells me that out of the hundreds of cases she has handled, fewer than five involved no phony paperwork. "The fraud is the norm," she says.

Kowalski's current case before Judge Soud is a perfect example. The Jacksonville couple he represents are being sued for delinquent payments, but the case against them has already been dismissed once before. The first time around, the plaintiff, Bank of New York Mellon, wrote in Paragraph 8 that "plaintiff owns and holds the note" on the house belonging to the couple. But in Paragraph 3 of the same complaint, the bank reported that the note was "lost or destroyed," while in Paragraph 4 it attests that "plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the promissory note because its whereabouts cannot be determined."

The bank, in other words, tried to claim on paper, in court, that it both lost the note and had it, at the same time. Moreover, it claimed that it had included a copy of the note in the file, which it did - the only problem being that the note (a) was not properly endorsed, and (b) was payable not to Bank of New York but to someone else, a company called Novastar.

Now, months after its first pass at foreclosure was dismissed, the bank has refiled the case - and what do you know, it suddenly found the note. And this time, somehow, the note has the proper stamps. "There's a stamp that did not appear on the note that was originally filed," Kowalski tells the judge. (This business about the stamps is hilarious. "You can get them very cheap online," says Chip Parker, an attorney who defends homeowners in Jacksonville.)

The bank's new set of papers also traces ownership of the loan from the original lender, Novastar, to JP Morgan and then to Bank of New York. The bank, in other words, is trying to push through a completely new set of documents in its attempts to foreclose on Kowalski's clients.

There's only one problem: The dates of the transfers are completely farked. According to the documents, JP Morgan transferred the mortgage to Bank of New York on December 9th, 2008. But according to the same documents, JP Morgan didn't even receive the mortgage from Novastar until February 2nd, 2009 - two months after it had supposedly passed the note along to Bank of New York. Such rank incompetence at doctoring legal paperwork is typical of foreclosure actions, where the fraud is laid out in ink in ways that make it impossible for anyone but an overburdened, half-asleep judge to miss. "That's my point about all of this," Kowalski tells me later. "If you're going to lie to me, at least lie well."

The dates aren't the only thing screwy about the new documents submitted by Bank of New York. Having failed in its earlier attempt to claim that it actually had the mortgage note, the bank now tries an all-of-the-above tactic. "Plaintiff owns and holds the note," it claims, "or is a person entitled to enforce the note."

Soud sighs. For Kessler, the plaintiff's lawyer, to come before him with such sloppy documents and make this preposterous argument - that his client either is or is not the note-holder - well, that puts His Honor in a tough spot. The entire concept is a legal absurdity, and he can't sign off on it. With an expression of something very like regret, the judge tells Kessler, "I'm going to have to go ahead and accept [Kowalski's] argument."

Now, one might think that after a bank makes multiple attempts to push phony documents through a courtroom, a judge might be pissed off enough to simply rule against that plaintiff for good. As I witness in court all morning, the defense never gets more than one chance to screw up. But the banks get to keep filing their foreclosures over and over again, no matter how atrocious and deceitful their paperwork is.

Thus, when Soud tells Kessler that he's dismissing the case, he hastens to add: "Of course, I'm not going to dismiss with prejudice." With an emphasis on the words "of course."

Instead, Soud gives Kessler 25 days to come up with better paperwork. Kowalski fully expects the bank to come back with new documents telling a whole new story of the note's ownership. "What they're going to do, I would predict, is produce a note and say Bank of New York is not the original note-holder, but merely the servicer," he says.

This is the dirty secret of the rocket docket: The whole system is set up to enable lenders to commit fraud over and over again, until they figure out a way to reduce the stink enough so some judge like Soud can sign off on the scam. "If the court finds for the defendant, the plaintiffs just refile," says Parker, the local attorney.

Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?

Sounds legit.
 
2013-05-02 08:20:05 PM  

BullBearMS: Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?


I'm wondering why judges are not just tolerating this kind of activity, but also facilitating it.  One mistake, ok.  It happens.  But to allow such obvious fraud to be repeated is something that should have a judge removed from the bench.
 
2013-05-02 08:22:10 PM  
The man is a hero.
 
2013-05-02 08:28:57 PM  

OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?

I'm wondering why judges are not just tolerating this kind of activity, but also facilitating it.  One mistake, ok.  It happens.  But to allow such obvious fraud to be repeated is something that should have a judge removed from the bench.


Interestingly, that particular judge was brought out of retirement by the local Florida politicians just to handle foreclosure proceedings in as speedy a manner as possible. They called it the "rocket docket".

I wonder how politicians could have possibly selected a judge so friendly to the interests of their wealthy donor friends?
 
2013-05-02 08:40:50 PM  

BullBearMS: OgreMagi: BullBearMS: Fraudulent foreclosure documents submitted directly to judges over and over and over, yet nobody is prosecuted for fraud the courts can't help but notice?

I'm wondering why judges are not just tolerating this kind of activity, but also facilitating it.  One mistake, ok.  It happens.  But to allow such obvious fraud to be repeated is something that should have a judge removed from the bench.

Interestingly, that particular judge was brought out of retirement by the local Florida politicians just to handle foreclosure proceedings in as speedy a manner as possible. They called it the "rocket docket".

I wonder how politicians could have possibly selected a judge so friendly to the interests of their wealthy donor friends?


Ah.  That explains everything.  I repeat, I have lost all respect for our justice system.
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report