72761680ef4eccf400df…

other anti-social people may just decide they want to mess with Fox reporters, too

and subsequent miscreants will most likely try to up the ante each time.

Opportunist!

naliaka on June 29, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Hey, I’m merely comforting a damsel in distress, that’s all. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it. :D

The line to console Laura Engle forms on the right.

ReubenJCogburn on June 29, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Opportunist!

FLLaw33870 on June 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Thanks for pulling up all that.
The Left has made it a hate sport to go after Fox; this guy’s actions may encourage others to disrupt Fox broadcasts. Ugly. Also, as a few others have mentioned, the lurkers that appeared afterwards didn’t appear friendly at all. Hope Fox demands that the book be thrown at the guy who made the assault – and let everyone know – because other anti-social people may just decide they want to mess with Fox reporters, too.

If I’m not mistaken, he said “Gimmie that F*ing mic” as he grabbed it and “Don’t F*ing mess with me” as he walked away.

I heard it too. Yup. Must be another liberal trying to assert his version of free speech.

When the news chick said “we’re gonna need more security” she wasn’t kidding.

Whoa.

Freelancer on June 29, 2007 at 7:58 PM

If it is the same case, I didn’t remember the assault and possession angle. But if those were involved, I’d guess that third strike didn’t have much trouble being upheld. Thanks Freelancer and FLLaw33870.

Also not a lawyer, but I remember a few years ago some guy got a third strike and life in prison (CA, I think – don’t know if it was upheld) for snatching a kid’s Coke in a mall food court. I remember the angle in the report was that, in that jurisdiction, you take something directly from a person, it’s “robbery”.

Could be wrong, Treach.

eeyore on June 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM

That happened at a San Diego McDonald’s, I do believe. And there was much more than simply snatching a softdrink, the incident involved assault and battery. Guy slaps a kid to the ground, takes his food, and runs right into police taking their meal break, who discovered that he had a gun. Even if he never used it or brandished it, he was a convicted felon who wasn’t supposed to have a firearm.

The third strike can be ANY felony if the first two were violent crimes.

Was that guy’s third felony conviction for a fairly minor crime? Yes, but knowing he was under the three strikes conditions he still couldn’t control himself, and committed another crime. That is substantially proof that the provision is sound, this guy would never become an acceptable member of society.

(I’d also charge simple assault and theft.)

The caselaw on that kind of crime is clear. He’ll be doing a state sentence for that one.

You know, once again, criminals prove how stupid they usually are and just how they have an impulse control problem.

My apologies to Jim Treacher. He is right according to New York law that is is NOT an assault. But a crime was committed.

No question there was a crime, just maybe not the crime of the century.

I remember the angle in the report was that, in that jurisdiction, you take something directly from a person, it’s “robbery”.

Could be wrong, Treach.

Or not! Robbery sounds plausible. He did take something that didn’t belong to him.

Yeah… ya think? :P

Well here we go:
Iphone: $500 dollers
Iphone/ATT plan, $2000 yearly.
Personalized Microphone, 150-300
Walking into camera view, stealing the mic instead of the expensive new phone, while f-bombing the reporter for no good reason and proving your a complete loser and jack@$$, then arrested and thrown in jail on national Television: Priceless

Great questions and/or observations: YES sounds like a Robbery of the Third Degree which is a Class D Felony to me too!

Can get upto Seven years on a Class D felony in N.Y.

New York Law:

§ 160.00 Robbery; defined.
Robbery is forcible stealing. A person forcibly steals property and
commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or
threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for
the purpose of:
1. Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property
or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or
2. Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver
up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the
commission of the larceny.

§ 160.05 Robbery in the third degree.
A person is guilty of robbery in the third degree when he forcibly steals property.
Robbery in the third degree is a class D felony.

§ 155.05 Larceny; defined.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.
2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of
another’s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of
this section, committed in any of the following ways:
(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law larceny by
trespassory taking, common law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or
obtaining property by false pretenses;
(b) By acquiring lost property.
A person acquires lost property when he exercises control over
property of another which he knows to have been lost or mislaid, or to
have been delivered under a mistake as to the identity of the recipient
or the nature or amount of the property, without taking reasonable
measures to return such property to the owner;
(c) By committing the crime of issuing a bad check, as defined in
section 190.05;
(d) By false promise.
A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme
to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation,
express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage
in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such
conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person
intends to engage in such conduct.
In any prosecution for larceny based upon a false promise, the
defendant’s intention or belief that the promise would not be performed
may not be established by or inferred from the fact alone that such
promise was not performed. Such a finding may be based only upon
evidence establishing that the facts and circumstances of the case are
wholly consistent with guilty intent or belief and wholly inconsistent
with innocent intent or belief, and excluding to a moral certainty every
hypothesis except that of the defendant’s intention or belief that the
promise would not be performed;
(e) By extortion.
A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces
another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person
by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so
delivered, the actor or another will:
(i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or
(ii) Cause damage to property; or
(iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
(iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be
instituted against him; or
(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or
false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;
or
(vi) Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action
injurious to some person’s business; except that such a threat shall not
be deemed extortion when the property is demanded or received for the
benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
(vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or
information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense; or
(viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing
some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or
refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some
person adversely; or

(ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially
benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person
materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling,
career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.