I got a headache trying to comprehend the article.

GPS trackers should be placed inside all merchandise exceeding $950.00 in value to ensure theft recovery and prosecution.

And upon conviction, the thieves should be subject to mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Though robbery is against the law, shouldn't lighter sentencing guidelines be considered by the presiding judge for arrestees who come from marginalized ethnic and environmental backgrounds?

White collar crimes are often prosecuted differently than robberies committed by poor people of color.

Jeanita, this is by far the best and most elaborate article written online about this arrest! Thanks for all the research and reporting.

Lateisha, I hope your comment was written tongue in cheek. Someone who holds another at gunpoint to steal what isn't theirs has forfeited their place in society. I have difficulty believing that anyone would think a "marginalized ethnic background" makes it acceptable to do a takeover robbery of a jewelery store and then flash wads of cash at a casino. Oh yeah, let's not forget the significant amount of methamphetamine. Totally acceptable, right?

The article was well-researched, but I agree with David A. Too much information will lose the reader.

Latisha Stated the following:

"Though robbery is against the law, shouldn't lighter sentencing guidelines be considered by the presiding judge for arrestees who come from marginalized ethnic and environmental backgrounds? White collar crimes are often prosecuted differently than robberies committed by poor people of color."

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution Guarantees Due Process & Equal Protection for All. Your dream of sentencing a criminal based on skin color will never make it passed SCOTUS. But do dream on.

BTW, white collar crime is not violent crime. Stop attempting to equate both.

@Lateisha Wright...sentencing guidelines should not be reduced based on the color of one's skin color or socio-economic background.

If anything, ownership of high-ticket consumer goods (i.e. Rolexes, Hermes handbags, Mercedes Benz/BMW etc.) should be discouraged because these goods are reflective of a shallow society.

Fuquanda made the followed statement:

“If anything, ownership of high-ticket consumer goods (i.e. Rolexes, Hermes handbags, Mercedes Benz/BMW etc.) should be discouraged because these goods are reflective of a shallow.”

Spoken like a true Marxist. We live in a free society. Why should an American citizen be discouraged from from buying what he or she wants? And who are you to discourage what a citizen of this country wants to purchase? It’s none of your business.

Free your mind.

The ownership and personal display of high-ticket material goods in America symbolizes success and good tastes.

This is why people want them, regardless of how they got them.

@Fuquanda...

We are not here to judge but to evolve as human beings.

When I attended Sunday School as a child, our minister emphasized that the coveting of material things was neither spiritual nor the path to salvation.

For those who cherish expensive belongings, that is their prerogative for they have chosen to forsake any vestige of spirituality.

This point was emphasized when Paul wrote his letter to the Philippinos thanking them for their kind gifts.

"For those who cherish expensive belongings, that is their prerogative for they have chosen to forsake any vestige of spirituality."

^ I have never met a materialistic person who was spiritual. The two elements don't go together.

The violence related to these brazen thefts and the possibility of bodily injury to employees and customers alike is especially troubling and problematic.

Perhaps the best course of action is to simply allow the perpetrators to take whatever they want sans any resistance and to let the police handle and pursue the suspects after the occurrence.

That is what the police are trained for paid to do. There is no need for others to risk their lives in the pursuit of law and order.

Justice is supposed to be blind. That means equal justice where race is not a factor.

Gavin Newsome's thugs are at it again. The state Assembly Appropriations Committee advanced Senate Bill 94, which now moves to the next phase of voting. The bill would allow California prison inmates serving a sentence of life without parole (LWOP) for certain crimes to petition for re-sentencing if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, and the completion of at least 25 years of their sentence. 

I thought life without parole was implemented to spare a 1st degree murderer from execution.

While 25 years is a long time to be put away, this resentencing provision makes a mockery out of justice and is a slap in the face to family victims.

@Malcom Hex...if an inmate shows genuine remorse, they should get a second chance to redeem themselves after 25 years of confinement.

No different than my 25 years of marriage.

Dear Malcom Hex,

You are the lone voice of reason in this group of "citizens" voicing their opinions. Two think that Blacks should get a pass because of their skin color, and I suppose they view crimes of this type as justifiable as "reparations." A couple more "Christians" are in saying that people who have "nice things" are somehow not entitled to have them. Then there are those who think it's a fine idea to "pardon" everyone because "they deserve a second chance." And lastly, we have those who are "non-confrontational." They think victims should just submit to being robbed and leave it to the cops and the insurance companies to make them "whole."
So it's easy to see why California is where it is today. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with any of them. But unfortunately they appear to be in the majority here today, so we can look forward to more "progressive legislation" that will further erode our legal protections. It's just too bad most of them will never suffer under the system they promote. I find it very interesting that the two notable attempted robberies in the press today ( the 7-11 in Stockton and the jewelry store in El Monte) that the owners and employees appear to be immigrants. I guess they still believe in the rule of law as a consequence of where they came from and were willing to stand up to the attempts to rob them. Have a good day!

@Finola

What’s you idea of genuine remorse? Ted Buddy ever show remorse. Bundy never once showed guilt or remorse, saying the following after his conviction: "Guilt doesn't solve anything, really. It hurts you. I guess I am in the enviable position of not having to deal with guilt."

Serial offenders who resort to methods like drugging/violence most likely do not feel remorseful. They intentionally created a plan, and have done it numerous times. Better yet, would you trust a pedophile who just completed a lengthy prison sentence around your children? Overall, follow-up studies typically find sexual recidivism rates of 10%-15% after five years, 20% after 10 years, and 30%-40% after 20 years.

Lastly, how can you compare a prison sentence to a bad marriage when you have never been incarcerated ? There are no prison walls to stop you from walking away from a bad marriage.

Prison vs a bad marriage is no comparison.

For those who abhor violence and are in favor of incarceration for crimes committed against society, we must also assume that they are in favor of the harshest long-term punishments for all of the January 6th insurrectionists.

You cannot have it both ways.

@Finiola

Police in Wisconsin's capital have arrested a 26-year-old man in connection with a brutal sidewalk sex assault that left a University of Wisconsin-Madison student with life-threatening injuries early Sunday morning.

A friend of the victim told Milwaukee's WISN-TV that she was found with a broken jaw and had been strangled, beaten and sexually assaulted. An unnamed neighbor said the victim had been abducted off the sidewalk and dragged between two houses.

Would you free the above mentioned violent predator after 25 years if he showed remorse? Not me. This clown, if convicted, should go straight to a firing squad or gas chamber.

The floor is open for your comment.

@Malcom Hex...that was a horrific crime that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

On the other hand, prosecuting non-violent crimes like looting and burglary should be at the discretion of the DA's office.

Since theft below $950.00 in CA is the current law, crimes that fall below this figure can easily be dissolved by the court.

@Wilkens stated the following:

"On the other hand, prosecuting non-violent crimes like looting and burglary should be at the discretion of the DA's office."

My answer: All crimes are at the DA's discretion to prosecute. You're not disclosing anything new here.

@Wilkins stated the following:

"Since theft below $950.00 in CA is the current law, crimes that fall below this figure can easily be dissolved by the court."

My answer: I see. So, any theft below $950 Law and order apparently mean nothing to you; unless the crime happens to you, right?

Bottom line: ALL crime should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But according to you, it's pick and choose.

Typo on the above. Corrected.

My answer: I see. So, any theft below $950 should not be prosecuted unless of course the crime happens to you, right?

The $950.00 ceiling takes inflation into consideration. Many of us oldsters will remember when a $20.00 bill felt like a C-note in terms of its buying power. Not any more.

Some advocates of reducing $950.00 retail theft to a misdemeanor believe that the poor are forced to steal in order to feed their families. Whether this is true or not depends on one's perspective and further case studies.

In Le Miserables, Jean Valjean was sentenced to prison for stealing a loaf bread to feed his family and after he escaped, the gendarme that was relentlessly pursuing him later felt remorse and committed suicide.

While $950.00 may seem like a lot of money under certain circumstances, inflation has reduced its actual consumer purchasing power.

For example, $3.00 in 1915 is worth about $88.00 today while $950.00 in 1915 has the value of $24,000.00 today.

So all things considered, $950.00 is not a lot of money unless you don't have $950.00.

Malcolm Hex voiced my thoughts exactly. "So, any theft below $950 should not be prosecuted unless of course the crime happens to you, right?"

That seems to be the attitude of some folks who I assume haven't been victims of criminal behavior.

@Wentworth

Give it up. Your attempt to illustrate how a crime shouldn’t be a crime is typical left wing garbage. I guess the laws should change year after year to help combat inflation, eh?

Basically, what you don’t understand is that some items that are stolen below $950 may be of great value to the victim. But to a guy like you, sentimental value obviously doesn’t mean much.

Only in Biden’s America.

@Lateisha Wright

Here’s what Lateisha Wright said: “Though robbery is against the law, shouldn't lighter sentencing guidelines be considered by the presiding judge for arrestees who come from marginalized ethnic and environmental backgrounds?”

I see. Just because a violent offender is black he should get special treatment under the law, right? Let me show you an example of a violent offender who is black, and then you can tell me if he should receive special treatment.

Jason Dean Billingsley, a 32-year-old who served less than a third of his 30-year sentence for rape, is accused of bludgeoning Pava Marie LaPere to death in her West Franklin Street apartment building. Less than two weeks ago, Billingsley is suspected of another violent home invasion that nearly killed a local couple. Police allege he broke into a home on Edmondson Avenue and attacked the couple there, raping the woman and nearly killing them both before lighting it on fire with a 5-year-old inside as well.

Billingsley has a violent criminal history stretching back to 2009, when court records show he was convicted of felony assault. He was already on probation at the time.

Playing the excuse maker Ms. Wright, at least in this case, makes me question your sense of justice and equal treatment under the law.

Echoing Malcom Hex as the recent two-day Philadelphia looting spree of Apple iPhones, Nike Air Jordans, and liquor also speaks volumes.

Well stated, Jessie! In fact, your posting makes Wentworth's comment look absolutely ridiculous.

From Wentworth: "So all things considered, $950.00 is not a lot of money unless you don't have $950.00."

Hey Wentworth, the loss of $950 multiplied by 50 looters is $47,000. I guess that's a trivial amount of money, right? More to the point: after enough looting, that store will close and move elsewhere. That sound like a bargain to you?