Only in America, CLassic.

@moonbus said
If the thieves had stolen the same items from a private home, the value assessed (for example by an insurance company) would not be what the owners actually paid for them, but the cost to replace them. Hence, having bought them on sale would be irrelevant. Same should apply to stealing from a store.

The cost to the shop of replacing the items would most likely be LESS than the sale price.

@torunn said
A parallel maybe: if I kill someone - even if it was not my intention - it is still murder unless it was self-defense.

There's murder and there's manslaughter.

And in the U.S. they have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-degree murders.

@fmf said
There's murder and there's manslaughter.

And in the U.S. they have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-degree murders.

From the interwebz...

"Second degree murder is not currently an offence in UK law. A three-tier system has previously been proposed, dividing murder into first, second and third degrees, each of which would depend on the circumstances of the offence, the state of mind of the perpetrator at the time and any evidence of premeditation. However, this legislation has not been passed as at the current time."

@fmf said
There's murder and there's manslaughter.

And in the U.S. they have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-degree murders.

The problem is often the defense attorneys. Instead of taking the opportunity of encouraging young criminals to be honest and face the consequences, they try to find all sorts of excuses and loopholes, teaching them only tactics.

-Removed-

I know, I learned a lot from reading Geir Lippestad - Det vi kan stå för - (What we can stand behind). He was the defense attorney of Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 68 people at Utöya, Norway. His book is worth reading.

@fmf said
The cost to the shop of replacing the items would most likely be LESS than the sale price.

Irrelevant what the store paid for them or would pay to replace them at wholesale or trade prices.

-Removed-

Almost correct. Their job is to collect the highest possible fee for a tenuously plausible argument or precedent. 😆

@fmf said
"Under Colorado law, theft less than $2,000 is a misdemeanor offense, while theft between $2,000 and $5,000 is a felony — prosecutors valued the items stolen by the duo at just under $2,095."

The items were valued at less than $2,000 when the offence was committed, so the attorneys argued that it was a misdemeanor and not a felony.

If I were Michael Green and Byron ...[text shortened]... ould have argued that it was a misdemeanor and not a felony, would you have not done the same thing?

Yes, I would have done the same. It's an aspect I did not take into consideration because I was laughing to hard 🙂

@moonbus said
Irrelevant what the store paid for them or would pay to replace them at wholesale or trade prices.

I beg to differ. It is not "irrelevant" under Colorado law.

@moonbus said
Almost correct. Their job is to collect the highest possible fee for a tenuously plausible argument or precedent.

a tenuously plausible argument

How is it "tenuously plausible"?

@moonbus said
Almost correct. Their job is to collect the highest possible fee for a tenuously plausible argument or precedent.

While your cynicism might have been well-founded if we'd been talking about private practice, it is my understanding that the attorneys for Michael Green and Byron Bolden were public defenders appointed by the court who draw a salary rather than being remunerated with "fees".

@torunn said
The problem is often the defense attorneys. Instead of taking the opportunity of encouraging young criminals to be honest and face the consequences, they try to find all sorts of excuses and loopholes, teaching them only tactics.

Given what Colorado law says, what was "dishonest" about the argument that the defence attorneys [and the people they were defending] made in court?