Real interesting. To catch a thief on rural property.

[dodge man]

My gut reaction is the video is real but lije already said edited. A prosecutor doesn’t have to get a victim’s permission to prosecute. It just helps if they are needed as a witness.

I shared a short story on how my daughters bank card was stolen and the person was caught and prosecuted. I can’t remember the amount but around $500. A couple of things surprised me which actually gives me hope for our legal system. They immediately caught the person and prosecuted them. We received letters during the court process telling us what was going on. I can’t remember exactly how the letters read but more or less saying if we wouldn’t be happy with the outcome let them know.

 

[JDZ735M]

Sobolewski had twice in the past 10 years been charged with theft, once for not paying for a tank of gas and another time for stealing a pair of shoes from a store. Under Pennsylvania's three-strikes law, a third theft charge must be a felony, regardless of the amount or value involved. He faced up to seven years in prison.

You might think he would learn by now. He is probably borderline non compis mentis.

 

[MossRoad]

Pointing out the ridiculous doesn't really qualify as a valid argument. What you cited is a singular exception to common sense. A 1st year law student could get that removed from a three strikes count.

The point is, if you have stringent 3-strikes rules, there's no way for a judge or jury to provide common sense sentencing. That's why 3-strike laws are reserved for violent crimes.

 

[MossRoad]

You might think he would learn by now. He is probably borderline non compis mentis.

He OVERPAID for a Mountain Dew and faced a felony for it.

 

[JDZ735M]

He OVERPAID for a Mountain Dew and faced a felony for it.

In August, Sobolewski went into an Exxon in Duncannon and saw a sign advertising two 20-ounce Mountain Dew bottles for $3, he said. He took one bottle, slapped $2 on the counter for what he thought was a $1.50 soda and walked out, not realizing the discount did not apply to a single bottle.

The bottle really cost $2.29, so including tax, he owed the store 43 cents.

State police found Sobolewski and arrested him on a felony charge. A judge ordered him held on $50,000 cash-only bond. He was in jail for seven days before his public defender successfully argued for his release, the newspaper reported.

Sobolewski had twice in the past 10 years been charged with theft, once for not paying for a tank of gas and another time for stealing a pair of shoes from a store. Under Pennsylvania's three-strikes law, a third theft charge must be a felony, regardless of the amount or value involved. He faced up to seven years in prison.

How did he overpay?

This is one of those egregious examples of where a law seems unduly harsh and therefore in the view of many people should be repealed.

Guess they could modify the statute to place a threshold value on the amount before the 'three strikes' factor kicks in. You know, like you can steal up to $950 in value in Cali before you will be subject to arrest. That is working out well for the thieves isn't it? I read where they are carrying calculators with them so they make sure okee their thefts below the threshold.

 

[JDZ735M]

I don't think I wrote write that; at least, hopefully not. Of course the judge does not intrude into the job of the other parties. But a judge *does* sign search warrants. Which tangles the judge into a certain amount of involvement.

I agree there seems to be misunderstanding about contents of a search warrant. And misunderstanding that a judge's involvement often continues even after signing.

A warrant interferes with and lessens a citizen's rights. That is serious. So warrants include specific instructions about what to do if/when evidence is found.

From Wikipedia:

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

A judge is at atop the food chain. Patrol deputies close to the bottom. Messing with a judge can have long term consequences. LEO's don't do that. They need good relations with judges to do their job.

To believe the video requires: a) officers obtained a warrant, b) found evidence of a crime, c) chose not to make an arrest (their exact job), d) thumbed their nose at the judge's authority by not confiscating the items they were authorized to search for, and, e) let the YouTube star control the outcome instead. All of those things while the cameras were rolling.

The last part of the Wikipedia description noted a search warrant cannot be used to aid a civil process. A "victim" and "perp" standing together to negotiate is a civil process. So LEO's let the victim enter the perp's property (a mistake) then let the YouTube star override their warrant and criminal process to engage a civil process instead? Really? Ignoring a judge to elevate a YouTube star into control? While they are standing their holding evidence of a crime?

I know nothing about this individual. Maybe he's a great guy. But the entire video seems focused on making the hero/video star look good-- rising above deputies, detectives, and even a judge to make a heroic, benevolent decision for the camera.

Since I didn't go to the prestigious Wikipedia School of Law I guess you win this case.

de minimis non curat lex (the law is not concerned with small or trifling matters)

 

[MoMower]

How did he overpay?

This is one of those egregious examples of where a law seems unduly harsh and therefore in the view of many people should be repealed.

Guess they could modify the statute to place a threshold value on the amount before the 'three strikes' factor kicks in. You know, like you can steal up to $950 in value in Cali before you will be subject to arrest. That is working out well for the thieves isn't it? I read where they are carrying calculators with them so they make sure okee their thefts below the threshold.

See above, article is almost wholly incorrect….it’s not a “3 strikes” law, lol.

 

[MoMower]

The point is, if you have stringent 3-strikes rules, there's no way for a judge or jury to provide common sense sentencing. That's why 3-strike laws are reserved for violent crimes.

See above, incorrect article, not a “3 strikes law” stringent or otherwise.

 

[old and tired]

So, the video has 11,035,670 views - quick search says that's = $33,000. If the guy went to jail, my guess is that we would not be talking about this now. Sad how click bait works so well...

Yea, I'm jealous!?!?!

 

[Deere Dude]

I find it interesting that the culprit in the video has a big motorhome in his garage at the 9;55 mark. probably needed some gas money from the pawn shop.

I think the video star is blowing smoke when he says he is offering $250K as a reward for a 20K skidsteer. You never see that happen.