Novel Way to Get to Law School...T14 perhaps, too! Forum

[sibley]

Was there threat of violence, because I haven't seen any. It's one thing to imply threat of violence, but it's another to actively threaten it. As far as I can tell, he had no intention of using force, but just used an implied threat to his advantage. It's the same thing as holding someone up with a gun shaped object in your pocket, or a fake bomb threat. Are those violent too? There's never an actual threat there, but they use the implied threat to achieve their goals.

I'm sure if he didn't say "I'm going to blow your $%&* head off if you try to stop me" then there was at least a perceived threat. However, I'm willing to bet there was a threat of violence. Do you really think he is going to recite verbatim what went down in the bank after he has done his time and is seeking admission to law school?

There's a difference between a perceived threat and an actual threat. I can perceive your driving as threatening, but if there's no intent to threaten, and very little actual threat, does that make you a violent driver?

It depends if your definition of violence is omnipresent or in the mind of the victim

Harrassment is harrassment so long as the victim feels it is... could easily carry over to this situation.

[starstruck393]

Was there threat of violence, because I haven't seen any. It's one thing to imply threat of violence, but it's another to actively threaten it. As far as I can tell, he had no intention of using force, but just used an implied threat to his advantage. It's the same thing as holding someone up with a gun shaped object in your pocket, or a fake bomb threat. Are those violent too? There's never an actual threat there, but they use the implied threat to achieve their goals.

I'm sure if he didn't say "I'm going to blow your $%&* head off if you try to stop me" then there was at least a perceived threat. However, I'm willing to bet there was a threat of violence. Do you really think he is going to recite verbatim what went down in the bank after he has done his time and is seeking admission to law school?

There's a difference between a perceived threat and an actual threat. I can perceive your driving as threatening, but if there's no intent to threaten, and very little actual threat, does that make you a violent driver?

It depends if your definition of violence is omnipresent or in the mind of the victim

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

[sibley]

I'm sure if he didn't say "I'm going to blow your $%&* head off if you try to stop me" then there was at least a perceived threat. However, I'm willing to bet there was a threat of violence. Do you really think he is going to recite verbatim what went down in the bank after he has done his time and is seeking admission to law school?

There's a difference between a perceived threat and an actual threat. I can perceive your driving as threatening, but if there's no intent to threaten, and very little actual threat, does that make you a violent driver?

It depends if your definition of violence is omnipresent or in the mind of the victim

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

It's not in the mind of one particular victim. It's what would generally be felt by any individual. The (soon-to-be) criminal goes into the event knowing the effect his carrying a weapon will have, and intending to exploit that.

[GATORTIM]

I've been in many situations involving guns. They're not that scary. Do we have any evidence that guns were put in anyones face? All it said was that they walked in with guns, and told people to get down. Actually, I'd bet that the robbers stayed as far away from the people in the bank as they could, lest the situation degrade.

You're completely mis-interpreting the event. Was it scary? Sure. Violent? Absolutely not...

Okay...I'm not talking about that time you and your brother played cowboys and indians. Unless you are Hancock or Clark Kent I have a feeling you would urinate yourself (or at least sprinkle a bit) if a stranger put a gun in your face and you had no idea if they intended to pull the trigger or not.

You're right though, I'm sure that this guy (whos name I have no f'n idea of right now) and his posse strolled into the bank with their weapons pointed in the air and prob had the safety engaged or even a gun-lock on their pistols. How would they stay away from the people in the bank? They had to gain access to the drawers, vault, etc.

GatorTim, multiple times on this thread you have made assumptions that other posters and their loved ones have not been victims of violent crime. I'd point out that often times people whose lives have actually been impacted by real violence, have a more nuanced understanding of crime, criminals, and justice served. You know little about the lives of the people who are writing here, and I'd thank you to not assume you someone how have a deeper understanding of violence. It's offensive to the unfortunate people in this thread who don't have the luxury of your ignorance.

I do not claim to have a deeper understanding of violence versus anybody on this thread. I'd thank you if you could refrain from the bush-league name calling as you know little about my life. I have not implied to know the intelligence of any other poster, but when somebody says they have an "experience with guns" that was not in the least bit scary, it is not illogical for me to assume that their so-called experience does not parallel that of myself (I am a fairly "tough" person, but I was scared shitless), the victims of "this guy" or the multitude of victims of violent crimes involving guns.

[GATORTIM]

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

If I was convicted of murder, rape, extortion, sexual harrassment, theft, forgery, etc. I would imagine that I would have some character flaws.

[sibley]

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

If I was convicted of murder, rape, extortion, sexual harrassment, theft, forgery, etc. I would imagine that I would have some character flaws.

It's not in the mind of one particular victim. It's what would generally be felt by any individual. The (soon-to-be) criminal goes into the event knowing the effect his carrying a weapon will have, and intending to exploit that.

[vanwinkle]

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

If I was convicted of murder, rape, extortion, sexual harrassment, theft, forgery, etc. I would imagine that I would have some character flaws AT THE TIME I COMMITTED THOSE ACTIONS.

FTFY. The entire premise of prison sentences that end is that a person eventually has paid their debt to society and has hopefully learned a lesson from it. If this is not true, why don't we go back to mandatory death sentences for all felonies like we used to have?

[starstruck393]

I've been in many situations involving guns. They're not that scary. Do we have any evidence that guns were put in anyones face? All it said was that they walked in with guns, and told people to get down. Actually, I'd bet that the robbers stayed as far away from the people in the bank as they could, lest the situation degrade.

You're completely mis-interpreting the event. Was it scary? Sure. Violent? Absolutely not...

Okay...I'm not talking about that time you and your brother played cowboys and indians. Unless you are Hancock or Clark Kent I have a feeling you would urinate yourself (or at least sprinkle a bit) if a stranger put a gun in your face and you had no idea if they intended to pull the trigger or not.

You're right though, I'm sure that this guy (whos name I have no f'n idea of right now) and his posse strolled into the bank with their weapons pointed in the air and prob had the safety engaged or even a gun-lock on their pistols. How would they stay away from the people in the bank? They had to gain access to the drawers, vault, etc.

GatorTim, multiple times on this thread you have made assumptions that other posters and their loved ones have not been victims of violent crime. I'd point out that often times people whose lives have actually been impacted by real violence, have a more nuanced understanding of crime, criminals, and justice served. You know little about the lives of the people who are writing here, and I'd thank you to not assume you someone how have a deeper understanding of violence. It's offensive to the unfortunate people in this thread who don't have the luxury of your ignorance.

I do not claim to have a deeper understanding of violence versus anybody on this thread. I'd thank you if you could refrain from the bush-league name calling as you know little about my life. I have not implied to know the intelligence of any other poster, but when somebody says they have an "experience with guns" that was not in the least bit scary, it is not illogical for me to assume that their so-called experience does not parallel that of myself (I am a fairly "tough" person, but I was scared shitless), the victims of "this guy" or the multitude of victims of violent crimes involving guns.

Different things scare different people. I'd venture to say that the majority of these "threats" are bluffs. It's like poker. It's just a show of force, with nothing behind it. A house of cards, so to speak. If I was put in that situation, I'd be inclined to call the bluff, as I believe that more likely than not they'll back down and run. If I'm wrong, then my troubles are over.

[starstruck393]

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

If I was convicted of murder, rape, extortion, sexual harrassment, theft, forgery, etc. I would imagine that I would have some character flaws.

Yea, you weren't smart enough to get away with it

[GATORTIM]

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

If I was convicted of murder, rape, extortion, sexual harrassment, theft, forgery, etc. I would imagine that I would have some character flaws AT THE TIME I COMMITTED THOSE ACTIONS.

FTFY. The entire premise of prison sentences that end is that a person eventually has paid their debt to society and has hopefully learned a lesson from it. If this is not true, why don't we go back to mandatory death sentences for all felonies like we used to have?

I'm no expert in prison sentencing or parole protocol, but I do not think that our criminal justice system claims to only release inmates that have eradicated 100% of character flaws that landed them in prison.

[vanwinkle]

Different things scare different people. I'd venture to say that the majority of these "threats" are bluffs. It's like poker. It's just a show of force, with nothing behind it. A house of cards, so to speak. If I was put in that situation, I'd be inclined to call the bluff, as I believe that more likely than not they'll back down and run. If I'm wrong, then my troubles are over.

This is kind of naive. Even a bluff is intended to provoke a threatened response. You can't really defend someone against a charge they threatened people by saying "Oh, they were just bluffing." They were still threatening people, and a bluff indicates it was actually intentional and not just something perceived by the threatened party.

[vanwinkle]

You're using violence in the mind of a victim to attack the character of the criminal. That makes no sense.

If I was convicted of murder, rape, extortion, sexual harrassment, theft, forgery, etc. I would imagine that I would have some character flaws AT THE TIME I COMMITTED THOSE ACTIONS.

FTFY. The entire premise of prison sentences that end is that a person eventually has paid their debt to society and has hopefully learned a lesson from it. If this is not true, why don't we go back to mandatory death sentences for all felonies like we used to have?

I'm no expert in prison sentencing or parole protocol, but I do not think that our criminal justice system claims to only release inmates that have eradicated 100% of character flaws that landed them in prison.

No, but this is why they're called second chances, not second guarantees. This guy is still going to have to convince a law school and a state bar that he's reformed enough to make a reputable lawyer now, but he at least deserves that chance now that he's served his time and he's out.

[GATORTIM]

Different things scare different people. I'd venture to say that the majority of these "threats" are bluffs. It's like poker. It's just a show of force, with nothing behind it. A house of cards, so to speak. If I was put in that situation, I'd be inclined to call the bluff, as I believe that more likely than not they'll back down and run. If I'm wrong, then my troubles are over.

okay

[awesomepossum]

I'd be pretty excited if this dude came to Michigan. We're actually trying to get him to come and speak right now.

[starstruck393]

Different things scare different people. I'd venture to say that the majority of these "threats" are bluffs. It's like poker. It's just a show of force, with nothing behind it. A house of cards, so to speak. If I was put in that situation, I'd be inclined to call the bluff, as I believe that more likely than not they'll back down and run. If I'm wrong, then my troubles are over.

This is kind of naive. Even a bluff is intended to provoke a threatened response. You can't really defend someone against a charge they threatened people by saying "Oh, they were just bluffing." They were still threatening people, and a bluff indicates it was actually intentional and not just something perceived by the threatened party.

But if they intended to do harm or merely intended to bluff tells a lot about their character. Sure, the crime in itself was wrong, but bluffing implies someone with at least somewhat of a good heart, who made a mistake, where if you go in with the intention of using force if provoked shows much deeper problems. I'd be perfectly fine with having the former as a classmate, and may very well next year. The latter I would take issue with.

[JTX]

please enjoy Shon Hopwood's wedding. --LinkRemoved--

[GATORTIM]

let me get down to my central thesis of this dead horse....

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Upon paying your debt to society, however, this person should be allowed to secure employment, provide for his family, pursue education at his own expense (self-financed education at a private institution is fine with me).

I do feel he is guilty of a violent crime; however, I do not think he presents a danger to society (hence his release) and I would not mind having him as a neighbor. I would drink beer with this guy without fear of him stealing my tv or wallet. I would loan him my tools and maybe even let him borrow my car.

[sibley]

Different things scare different people. I'd venture to say that the majority of these "threats" are bluffs. It's like poker. It's just a show of force, with nothing behind it. A house of cards, so to speak. If I was put in that situation, I'd be inclined to call the bluff, as I believe that more likely than not they'll back down and run. If I'm wrong, then my troubles are over.

This is kind of naive. Even a bluff is intended to provoke a threatened response. You can't really defend someone against a charge they threatened people by saying "Oh, they were just bluffing." They were still threatening people, and a bluff indicates it was actually intentional and not just something perceived by the threatened party.

But if they intended to do harm or merely intended to bluff tells a lot about their character. Sure, the crime in itself was wrong, but bluffing implies someone with at least somewhat of a good heart, who made a mistake, where if you go in with the intention of using force if provoked shows much deeper problems. I'd be perfectly fine with having the former as a classmate, and may very well next year. The latter I would take issue with.

No. Bluffing suggests that they'd be willing to act violently if the situation escalated (if provoked, as you say). And it shows a complete disrepect for humankind and a lack of appropriate decision-making skills.... eg. it's pretty common knowledge that you can go into a bank and rob them without a weapon. You just say you're doing so and they'll give you 15k (I think that's the amount the tellers are told to give out)

^^I know someone who robbed a bank. She took the LSAT and was planning on going to law school. Then she robbed the bank. She was having problems with drugs, I think, and showed a serious lack of thought-processes as she drove her own car to a bank where tellers knew her, drove it home again, then drove to the airport and bought ROUND TRIP tickets to Chicago for herself and her daughter. When she came back, they arrested her.

[sibley]

let me get down to my central thesis of this dead horse....

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Upon paying your debt to society, however, this person should be allowed to secure employment, provide for his family, pursue education at his own expense (self-financed education at a private institution is fine with me).

I do feel he is guilty of a violent crime; however, I do not think he presents a danger to society (hence his release) and I would not mind having him as a neighbor. I would drink beer with this guy without fear of him stealing my tv or wallet. I would loan him my tools and maybe even let him borrow my car.

Tim, I always find myself agreeing with you in these heated debates. What schools are you looking at right now? I'll look at those too. So we can get married and live happily ever after.


....actually, my boyfriend spent the 2nd half of his high school years in... what do they call it, juvenile reform centers? Not a jail because his parents had the money to send him to private schools and to wilderness camps. But that deals with an adolescent mind, which is not fully developed... so it probably doesn't quite apply.

[GATORTIM]

let me get down to my central thesis of this dead horse....

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Upon paying your debt to society, however, this person should be allowed to secure employment, provide for his family, pursue education at his own expense (self-financed education at a private institution is fine with me).

I do feel he is guilty of a violent crime; however, I do not think he presents a danger to society (hence his release) and I would not mind having him as a neighbor. I would drink beer with this guy without fear of him stealing my tv or wallet. I would loan him my tools and maybe even let him borrow my car.

Tim, I always find myself agreeing with you in these heated debates. What schools are you looking at right now? I'll look at those too. So we can get married and live happily ever after.


....actually, my boyfriend spent the 2nd half of his high school years in... what do they call it, juvenile reform centers? Not a jail because his parents had the money to send him to private schools and to wilderness camps. But that deals with an adolescent mind, which is not fully developed... so it probably doesn't quite apply.

haha, thanks...It's down to FSU (cough, gag, cough) or Stetson. Pretty sure it will be the latter. Best of luck to you

[Zapatero]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

[sibley]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

So we shouldn't give them more money because we already spent a ton jailing them.
Scholarships... maybe. Private loans? Sure. Federal ones, where the govt absorbs the interest while you're in school? No way. Grants? No way.

[GATORTIM]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

Public money used to arrest and imprison somebody is spent protecting the public at large and is not to benefit the criminal.

If you were caught stealing from your company, would you still be allowed to work there or even in that industry? (I know this is not really the same as bank robbery, but all in all had he gotten away with this, the FDIC insures these deposits)

If he does not have the cash to attend school then he does not have to go. Higher education is not an entitlement. Clearly this man is of above average intelligence and I'm sure that he can make his way with or w/o a law degree.

It's not that I do not think he will not repay the loans, but that he should not be allowed to receive them in the first place.

[jks289]

If somebody is found guilty of theft, robbery, embezzelment, etc. of federally insured money, that individual, upon having served their sentence should not be allowed to reap the benefits of public funds upon release (grants, sholarship, student loans, etc.).

Do you realize how much public money it takes to incarcerate somebody? Also, why should he not be entitled to scholarships? This isn't necessarily public money. And loans? You think he has the cash on hand to pay for school out of pocket? Besides, loans are given with the expectation that they'll be repaid.

Public money used to arrest and imprison somebody is spent protecting the public at large and is not to benefit the criminal.

If you were caught stealing from your company, would you still be allowed to work there or even in that industry? (I know this is not really the same as bank robbery, but all in all had he gotten away with this, the FDIC insures these deposits)

If he does not have the cash to attend school then he does not have to go. Higher education is not an entitlement. Clearly this man is of above average intelligence and I'm sure that he can make his way with or w/o a law degree.

It's not that I do not think he will not repay the loans, but that he should not be allowed to receive them in the first place.

Considering the way you have staked out this thread to respond to every single conflicting opinion it is clear you feel really strongly about this guy going to law school. Fortunately, considering your options versus his likely options, it is safe to say the two of you will never cross paths unless you decide to take a SCOTUS tour on the family trip to DC. Is there any point at which you're going to just drop it?

[sibley]

Is there any point at which you're going to just drop it?

Don't be mean.