Is it just that impossible to understand that the crime of committing a burglary is a separate crime from using a weapon while committing a burglary and that both of those crimes carry different punishments but at the end of the day the commission of the crime of burglary remains a felony?
No. It’s not. Armed robbery is an entirely different crime than burglary. Under the memo, armed robbery is to be reduced to Petit Larceny “…if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.”
Can you explain to me the purpose of reducing the weapons charge in the name of second chances, when there already is another felony on the person’s record? I really don’t get it since it won’t reduce the felony charge of the burglary. It’s not going to make the other felony go away. I really don’t see what the point of this is.
My guess is to distinguish between violent and non violent crime since the reduction to a misdemeanor for the weapons charge is predicated on that the weapon was not used in a way that could have posed a threat.
One can make an argument against that idea… I could probably find points of agreement… but this scare tactic of saying that armed robbery will get just a desk appearance ticket is silly.
You are absolutely correct. Of course, there are times when one can be fooled and actually believe someone is misinformed and do their best to provide the actual documentation and facts. But when the person in question continually obfuscates, misrepresents, and deflects, it is time to accept the actual nonsense taking place.
Thanks for reminding me!
JWK
They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Socialist Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist.
The Bragg policy of charging armed robbery (a felony) as Petit Larceny (a misdemeanor) is not predicated on it being the perps first offense. As stated in the memo, the felony act of Robbery in the first degree (PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), is to be charged
“under PL § 155.25 [Petit Larceny] if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm.”
Here is the full quote from the memo:
: "a) An act that could be charged under PL §§ 160.15 (2, 3, or 4), 160.10(2b), or 160.05 that occurs in a commercial setting should be charged under PL § 155.25 if the force or threat of force consists of displaying a dangerous instrument or similar behavior but does not create a genuine risk of physical harm."
Some advice to those living in Manhattan where Alvin Bragg is the DA
.
If you live in Manhattan, where Bragg is the DA, simply move to one of the other four boroughs where criminals are still put in jail for their criminal activities, and you will be safe.
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.