Still doesn't explain exactly
how the robbery took place, but it's a start...
Quote:
|
Dateline: California--A federal appeals court has tossed out the armed robbery conviction of a Los Angeles man after finding that, although the man admitted to robbing a band and to being armed, he had not actually intended to combine the two activities. In 1996, Deshon Rene Odom stuffed a loaded revolver in the waistband of his pants and walked into a Los Angeles-area bank where he and an accomplice proceeded to demand money. Odom did not brandish the weapon and did not mention it while threatening bank employees. A manager for the bank noticed the gun when Odom raised his jacket to tuck away a pillowcase full of stolen cash. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said last Tuesday that Odom should have been convicted of unarmed bank robbery, which carries a lesser prison term, instead of armed robbery. Odom's attorney, Maria Stratton, admitted that the ruling was unlikely to alter her client's sentence, since he was also convicted on two other charges.
|
Source: Alibi.com
Note the last bit in bold font, most of the articles on this subject found on Google ignored it completely.
But apparently they didn't notice the gun until he already
had the money... Which still leaves the question of exactly
how he robbed the Bank. Did he threaten to pull a gun or any other weapon, or exactly how did it occur? Because I definitely think that piece of info matters for this case, and is vital to understand the Ninth Court's decision; plain and simple.
The funny thing is, when I looked for more information on Google on this subject, I pretty much exclusively found either the short version of the article, or the longer version of the article only extended with some rightwing-"outrage"-drivel - but not a single one tried to at least go into details as to
why the Ninth Court ruled as they did. Is it typically American to give only one side of a story, and leave out any bits which may not suit their agendas? (like the bit that the guy won't be released anyways, for example) Many articles were eager to yell how the Ninth Court has "lost its marbles", but not a single one of them tried to give any more insight in the case than just pointing out the silly bits; impressive bit of journalism, very neat. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]
But there was no info available whatsoever on exactly how the robbery actually took place, even though I think it's absolutely important. Because otherwise, purely based on simple logic, I can only agree with Melusine's earlier knife-analogy.
[ 06-23-2003, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]