Stolen lottery ticket wins suspect a trip to jail

Badger, that wasn't my point.  Nobody should steal.  I was only responding to the question about the 30 day sentence.  I definitely believe in putting rapists, murderers, child molesters, animal abusers, arsonists and all violent offenders away. I also think people who steal need to pay their dues.  But putting someone who commits a petty crime in prison for a long time with hardened criminals has never proven to deter crime or help society.   30 days isn't very long, but maybe it's his first offense.  Drunk drivers usually get a slap on the wrist the first time they're caught and they cause a lot more harm than someone who rips off a store.  I don't know this man and I'm not defending him, but why all the comments like time*treat's about getting him off the street before he commits a violent crime?  There is nothing at all in this article about a weapon or drugs or anything except that he stole some tickets. 

@jxp: We are all looking at this from the perspective of our local crime blotters and our personal views on crime and punishment, I suppose. Also, the same act will have different punishments, depending on jurisdiction. 

In my area recently, a man went by his dad's house with an acquaintance. The acquaintance returned later to ask for some money from the father. The dad had much more than she asked for, so she decided to hit him in the head with a stone flowerpot and take it all. She went on a little drug binge, while the old man went on to his maker a few days later. She was stupid and greedy. Now, she's up for murder during the commission of a robbery. A flowerpot is not a weapon... usually. She hadn't committed any "violent" crimes before, either. Some states have a "3-strikes" law. Are you willing to be one of those early strikes? Do you think Mark Lunsford is happier with "Jessica's Law" than he would be with Jessica ... at home?

Just for the record, I wouldn't give the ticket thief 30 days to sit on his @$$ and watch TV at taxpayer expense, either.

I don't see the problem between our responses. You mentioned he was needy.  We don't know that either. He may just as well be lazy.  To try and cash a stolen $15 ticket, which is "peanuts" means he's looking for an easy way to get what amounts to "pocket change".  If he has a job, this makes him stupid.  Even a minimum wage job working for one day would make him more money than the $15.00.   If he has no job, almost anyone can pick up a minimum wage job doing labor.  But I think he's looking for "easy"

I'm not getting this either. That statement could be taken a lot of different ways.  Please tell us what you mean.  I think I have an idea of what you ment, but I'm not even going there.....

Don

Looks like my prior comment was "edited"...

Although, I don't know how many ways one could take that statement.

If you say it plainly, rather than masking it in metaphor, then the people who think your comment was racist will clearly understand that it is not.

People are looking for something that isn't there.
Generally, I speak fairly harshly on thieves and other criminals (elected and otherwise). Anyone who has read my comments in the past can see that. I doubt my comment would have been taken as racist, had there been no picture with this story (or if I had made a similar comment in the charity scam story). Some people will cry foul at anything they don't agree with but can't articulate a sound counter-argument against.

If I disagree with HillaryCare, do I hate women, too?

I'll pose this question to everyone: If your car goes missing, are you gonna have a preference on who stole it?

I agree with you, I do not think there is anything the slightest bit racist.  Having been the administrator of this site for eight years now, I have grown quite sensitive to things such as hints of racism, or anything else like that.  I can pick up on it very quickly, and in the case of your comment knew instinctively what you were referring to.

Your comment is similar to the "Darwinism Awards" that also deals with people doing stupid things.

The reason I brought it up is become someone made me aware that at least one person sees it a completely different way. 

"Some people will cry foul at anything they don't agree with but can't articulate a sound counter-argument against."

Baloney, time*treat.  No matter what I think of your opinions, I've never called you stupid, because you're not. In 2008, only a clueless person would fail to recognize that suggesting we need a <snip> is racist.  We all say stupid things we don't mean, but when others are justifiably offended, at least have the good manners to apologize. 

Todd, I don't believe this is a sensitivity issue at all.  The man said what he wanted to say.  I wish you had kept the comment.

   ..and here goes mine....poof!!

Since I'm the one who deleted the rope comment, I made my opinion clear that it coudl be interpreted in the wrong way.  But, I do not believe it was intended in that way, I think it was a poor choice of words.

My previous comment in this thread was not directed at the now-missing rope comment, it was directed at the "Chlorine in the gene pool" comment, which at least one person mis-interpreted as racist.  It is a common phrase, and not racist at all.

I'm the only one who mentioned sensitivity, and I said nothing about this being a "sensitivity issue".  I used the word "sensitive" to say that I am sensitive to racist remarks, and I can sniff them out very easily.  You said that you "don't believe this is a sensitivity issue" — I don't think anyone said it was a sensitivity issue.

Lastly, why the heck would I keep something like a rope comment that has the ability to be interpreted as racist?  I know that it was not intended in that way, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way.  To suggest that I should keep something that some people find deeply offensive in a post — just so you can prove you point, whatever that is — is not something I would give a second thought.