• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« D.C. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Estate of Late Taiwanese Billionaire Y.C. Wang | Main | Warren Communications Files $19.5M Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Newsletter Copies »

January 30, 2012



Robbing a bank by any means -- even with a clever note and charming smile -- should minimally warrant 30 years in the slam. (Personally, I'd prefer summary execution.)

After all, we're not talking about the unarmed stealing a loaf of bread to feed a child. We're talking about robbing a bank with a big gun. That any tax dollars at all are being expended in entertaining this low-life violent criminal's appeal speaks volumes about our bleeding-heart judiciary.


"There's always a risk," the government will argue, that you're breaking the law. Lose your license for a year for first-offense speeding 10 miles over the limit ... if your engine has more than 300 cubic inches? Ten years for giving a hitchhiker a ride ... if they're under 16? Who knew? Guilt is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt, not "always a risk."

Next we'll have enhanced penalties for robbery if the plastic gun *looks like* a machine gun instead of a military rifle.

I just don't buy that that should be justice.

Jay Dee

Well, it would also depend on whose definition of machine gun is used. The BATFE has declared a shoe string to be a machine gun. If anyone possessed a shoe string on the date of the crime then the law would apply.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad