buddy arrested after college football game

[a good dood]

I understand completely.

Everyone comes here for the silver bullet that would make Billy's life magically go back to before he committed multiple felonies.

If we don't provide that magical answer, we must not know what we are talking about.

Billy decided to steal. Billy then ran with the stolen goods. Billy then assaulted the person pursuing him for the stolen goods. Billy then tried to evade the police.

Billy wants to know if he can get a break because he didn't know he was stealing a great deal more than he THOUGHT he was stealing.

Billy is an idiot. Billy just screwed up his whole life to the point where he should drop out of college to stop wasting money. In fact, Billy is going to be lucky if he ever finds a job that doesn't involve a paper hat.

Billy's friend is also an idiot for getting into a pissing match with volunteers that know a heck of a lot more about the legal system than Billy or Billy's friend.

does that cover it?

Both Billy and I are realists as we know that there will be serious consequences for his actions. The goal of posting this was to size up the situation, not to find a way to make things return to pre-incident normalcy.

I never claimed those in a qualified position to give advice don't know what their talking about. Indeed, quite the contrary, I knew there was information to be mined here (good, bad, or neutral news), and was frustrated at the poor yield.

Your third paragraph paraphrases things pretty well, except that Billy never tried to evade the police. And though I didn't mention it before as I should have, Billy's pursuer had reacquired the bag the first time he caught up to Billy. He kept chasing him to haul him to the police.

Billy is an idiot. Billy just screwed up his whole life to the point where he should drop out of college to stop wasting money. In fact, Billy is going to be lucky if he ever finds a job that doesn't involve a paper hat.

This seems like hyperbole, but point taken. He's in a world of excrement of his own doing.

I am an idiot for many reasons, but not for what you've listed here. While the pissing match wasn't pretty, it did eventually yield fruit. I am very grateful to you, and especially to tranquility (not being sarcastic here), for the carefully considered analysis.

 

[a good dood]

But, cyjeff, can't you READ? He's already told us (at least me) that is unwelcome advice. No matter how many may point it out to him, he still wants his questions answered in the manner he deems appropriate.

Um..you shouldn't be talking with Billy about this. You don't have privilege. Anything he says can be used against him. You speak of reading comprehension, but you don't seem to really comprehend. You are not an attorney. People should not talk about criminal acts they are accused of with those who are not attorneys. Goodness gracious, sakes alive, there is NOTHING good which will come of it. And, while the State is not highly likely to care enough to find out about it, if they do, the information you've shared so far is enough to put him away. To keep up my reputation in this thread, my pedantic, petulant, caustic and legally correct analysis of your continued seeking of knowledge conveyed in a way you may understand:

[value of your postings to friend] = 0
[risk of your postings to friend] > 0
Do the math

And, as a final hurrah, let me give you some things to look up. Based on the above formula, don't reply--even if it is in thanks. If you relay it to Billy after looking up the concepts and learning about them, DON'T discuss it. Discussing his story with him gets to the above formula unless the discussion has the goal of "adapting" his story. If that is the goal, YOU are now part of a criminal conspiracy (a felony) and may have committed some direct and inchoate crimes.

Mens rea is the issue. For any larceny (including grand theft and/or robbery), specific intent is required. Intent can be inferred from the circumstances. (Or, by the admission of the accused--review above formula.) One can be so drunk so as to not have the ability to form the intent required for a specific intent crime. The value of the item stolen may, according to the state, affect the level of punishment. (Issue to review with state-specific case law, is the transferred intent of stealing something different from what you planned to steal, also apply to the value and increased penalties?) The difference between grand theft and robbery is the use of force or fear. Both require taking from the presence of another (Grand theft can be either above a certain amount OR from the presence of another. Purse snatching is a grand theft, if the victim tries to hold on, robbery.) What did Billy believe when he used force to escape? What specific intent will be inferred from the surrounding facts? Maybe he was far enough away and just thought someone was beating him up for running through a crowd. Twice. Punching someone in the face will probably also include a battery charge as well. (And, will lead to civil liability for any damage to the other person. Billy should be ready to get sued on top of all this.) The value of the items in the bag is more important to the level of the punishment then the conviction. The value will be argued too, but in reality, the length of the sentence will probably not change too much. A felony conviction for robbery, kinda hurts future employment opportunities and that should be the main concern.

To remain silent and not talk to anyone but his lawyer about this.

Trials are expensive for the State too. Not having to try Billy seems worth something--even though this one could be a slam dunk and prosecutors love to win in court.

Punishment only. This will be mitigating. But, I don't see how a felony conviction in a crime of moral turpitude is not the end result.

See above answer.

How was that for substantive? You got what you wanted. I think you will now do a disservice to your friend (maybe to yourself) and speak with him about it, but, you have been throughly warned.

Final advice. Billy should say nothing about this incident to anyone but his attorney.

This is fantastic. Thank you very much for both the insight and the fair warning. This response was above and beyond my expectations, and for that I give you 10 karma points.

 

[a good dood]

Except for the fact I am still debating over whether to delete my prior post. I do not think my warning will be headed and am a bit embarrassed I finally gave him what he wanted and not what he needed.

For the first time in thousands of posts, I wrote something which I think will legally hurt others. And, I did it because my buttons were pushed and out of petulance. I'm sorry for that and may stop posting for a bit to consider the issue. My only defense is it was correct, what the "client" wanted and not illegal in any way. Still, I am conflicted.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry for my part in this. I appreciate the gravity of your warnings and I won't disregard them. Thanks again.