The Ding-Dongs in the 9th circus court (US) are at it again

[Arvon]

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the "armed robbery" conviction of Deshon Rene Odom in May, saying that even though Odom had a gun in his waistband, he hadn't meant for anyone at the bank he was robbing to see it, and therefore that he was not legally "armed." The court said that the federal law speaks only of using a gun, not carrying one; on the other hand, the court acknowledged that if Odom had waved around a toy gun that looked real, that would be enough for "armed" robbery. [Reuters, 5-21-03]

[Melusine]

Maybe I misunderstand but isn't that sort of logical? If the gun was concealed and he didn't use it during the robbery, then it *wasn't* armed robbery was it? I mean, if you punch someone in the face and/or get into a fistfight while you are carrying a knife in your pocket (which you don't use during the fight, of course), you wouldn't get charged with "armed assault" or anything like that, correct? In that case I don't see why he should be charged with armed robbery, although I have no idea how anyone would intend to rob a bank unarmed... [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Albromor]

Wait a minute here! This guy comes in to rob you. He doesn't draw the gun that you see, so the logical outcome on the tellers part is conclude that he never intended to use it??? Then why give him the cash?! Afterall, its there for decorative purposes. The 9th Circuit Court U.S. Court of Appeals continues to be the universes' biggest clowns.

[Arvon]

Originally posted by Melusine: Maybe I misunderstand but isn't that sort of logical? If the gun was concealed and he didn't use it during the robbery, then it *wasn't* armed robbery was it? I mean, if you punch someone in the face and/or get into a fistfight while you are carrying a knife in your pocket (which you don't use during the fight, of course), you wouldn't get charged with "armed assault" or anything like that, correct? In that case I don't see why he should be charged with armed robbery, although I have no idea how anyone would intend to rob a bank unarmed... [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

I don't think it was necessarily 'concealed'. If it were visible to those being robbed, they may not be sure he won't pull it. No I'm sorry, you don't pack iron unless you intend to use it. BTW the 9th circus court is noted for some real winners in the past. They get a lot of them (cases) overturned.

[Grojlach]

But isn't there any detailed information on exactly how he robbed the Bank?
Arvon, those articles of yours are nice and all, but perhaps you should try to give a little bit more information than you're doing now. There's simply too little information to be sure whether this Court decision is really as "silly" as you make it out to be. Could you come up with some more info, like how the robbery actually took place? I mean, there has to be some justification for the Court of Appeals to overturn the conviction, other than the rather unconvincing bit of information already given in that article. There has to be more to this case than just this.

[Grojlach]

Still doesn't explain exactly how the robbery took place, but it's a start...

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 ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Albromor: Wait a minute here! This guy comes in to rob you. He doesn't draw the gun that you see, so the logical outcome on the tellers part is conclude that he never intended to use it??? Then why give him the cash?! Afterall, its there for decorative purposes. The 9th Circuit Court U.S. Court of Appeals continues to be the universes' biggest clowns.

But that's just it, the articles report that the Bank employees didn't notice he actually had a gun until after they'd given him the money. Which makes the exact circumstances and events during the robbery beforehand vital to the Ninth Court's decision - how did the robbery take place, how did Deshon Rene Odom get the Bank employees to give him the money in the first place, did he in any way use threats and refer to a hidden gun (the article says no on that last bit); or did the Bank Employees assume he had a gun and because of that ended up giving him the money, in which case I disagree with the Ninth Court's ruling as well.
I'm not necessarily taking his or the Court's side, but too many details, which could very well explain the why of the Ninth Court's ruling, are simply missing; and can't be found whatsoever on the Net either, so far.
As much as the (right-winged) media would love to discredit the Court of Appeals (coincidently, didn't they have a rather unpopular decision about *gasp* gun ownership recently? ), no Court can be as simplistic as the media is trying to make it out to be here - there's got to be more to this case than just this.

[ 06-23-2003, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grojlach: 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]

In reference to the highlighted portion of your post, Grojlach...I don't know that it's "typically American" to give only one side of the story. In fact, I find that accusation rather offensive.

The sad fact is that the majority of news media is no longer "objective". Almost every publication or news network slants the news in one direction or another. Some are more blantant than others obviously (can you say Fox, boys and girls?), but very few media outlets just present facts and allow the viewers or readers to decide for themselves anymore. I think this was especially obvious during the War in Iraq. Every media source cited in every argument in the War Forum put a political slant on their stories in one direction or the other. And there were sources cited from several different countries...so I take exception to the implication that this is a purely American phenomenon.

I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that a thorough Google Search did not turn up a single article containing any left-wing drivel. However, if the decision you mentioned in a different post regarding "{gasp} gun ownership" was favorable towards the 2nd Amendment...then I feel certain that you could find an equitable amount of "left-wing drivel" railing agianst that decision.

I agree that it would be nice to know exactly how Mr. Odom convinced the bank teller to hand over the money without threatening them with bodily harm. I also agree that it IS important to realize that this court ruling will not reduce the man's prison term. Still, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has earned the ire and ridicule it draws from the right wing through a long history of decisions that seem based more on the current Politically Correct climate rather than on the U.S. Constitution. It is a documented fact that the 9th Circuit has more of it's decision overturned than any other Circuit of the Court of Appeals. The "right wing media" is not attacking the entire Court of Appeals...just the one Circuit that has an established history of rendering decisions that do not stand up under closer, legal scrutiny.

Of course, it is equally wrong of the right-wing group to arbitrarily attack ANY decision made by the 9th Circuit based solely on this history, but that's just human nature.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Still, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has earned the ire and ridicule it draws from the right wing through a long history of decisions that seem based more on the current Politically Correct climate rather than on the U.S. Constitution. It is a documented fact that the 9th Circuit has more of it's decision overturned than any other Circuit of the Court of Appeals. The "right wing media" is not attacking the entire Court of Appeals...just the one Circuit that has an established history of rendering decisions that do not stand up under closer, legal scrutiny.

Yep. If there is any one court that truly exemplifies an active judiciary, it would be the 9th Circuit. Remember, these guys are the ones who had a beef with "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegience.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: In reference to the highlighted portion of your post, Grojlach...I don't know that it's "typically American" to give only one side of the story. In fact, I find that accusation rather offensive.

It's more of a sarcastic observation made out of frustration than a factual claim, as this isn't exactly the first time recently that US news-articles seriously lacking in the facts-department are posted on Ironworks... Yes, I know slanted reports are found in every single country in the world; I'm not naive. There's just been a few too many of them recently - especially when people actually seem to believe the things that the slanted articles implied - which inspired me to that remark; my apologies however if I've offended anyone with it.

I do, however, think that some of for example the mainstream British media (Guardian, BBC), are fairer in their way of reporting than some of the mainstream US media (CNN). Too often the reports on CNN are one-sided (like was the case with this article for example, which miraculously enough didn't contain some vital information from the Belgian side of the matter - I'm still wondering whether the revised law was actually ever even mentioned in the mainstream US media ). And no, I don't think they're fairer because they're more "leftwinged" or whatever, but because they tend to highlight both sides of the matter a bit better (like these. Mind you, those two articles come from the very *same* source).

I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that a thorough Google Search did not turn up a single article containing any left-wing drivel. However, if the decision you mentioned in a different post regarding "{gasp} gun ownership" was favorable towards the 2nd Amendment...then I feel certain that you could find an equitable amount of "left-wing drivel" railing agianst that decision.

Mind you, this is *not* a specific left vs right debate; there's as much left-winged drivel out there as right-winged. In this particular case however I find it a somewhat distasteful act of journalism when in half of the articles found on Google the only ones actually asked for a response after the overturned verdict were from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (certainly a bastion of unbiasedness ), and in result contain more insults hurled at the court than that they're actually talking about the case or robbery in details. Do people just *want* to be kept in the dark about the real facts so obviously that they've lost even the tiniest bit of interest in the actual story, as not a single news source seems to provide it?
I'm also wondering why the article is ascribed to Reuters, while none of it can be found on the actual site of Reuters; not sure, perhaps they delete all of their news articles after a while or so. Though I have to admit I checked on Snopes to see if it was actually true, due to the lack of articles on the Internet containing something other than incomplete facts (like the one Arvon posted) or awfully slanted opinions (like the one I mentioned before; you can read an example here; and I was referred to that site by a site called "Spin Free News", I kid you not! ).