Man gets 17 years for stealing cellphone

[Mosiah]

Man gets 17 years for stealing cellphone

Monday, August 06, 2007


LEROY Wilson, a father of three young children, was last Monday sentenced to 17 years in prison for the August 2006 armed robbery of a woman's V300 Motorola cellular phone valued at $8,500.
Wilson, a 41-year-old gardener of Trinityville District in St Thomas, was found guilty on July 24 of illegal possession of a firearm and robbery with aggravation in the St Thomas Circuit Court.
According to evidence led by the Crown, Wilson held up the woman at gunpoint and robbed her of the device in the parish on August 2, 2006. He was held three days later.
Wilson - who has eight previous convictions for offences such as simple larceny and shop breaking and larceny - was last Monday sentenced to seven years on the charge of illegal possession of firearm and 10 years for robbery with aggravation.
He will, however, serve 10 years behind bars as the sentences are to run concurrently.

[Bricktop]

Idiot headline.

[Mosiah]

I know. Dem sensational, in other words, dem lie!

[Time]

Really?

It seems to me that he got 17 years for illegal possesion of firearm and as usual the police did not have a shred of evidence that he had a firearm.

Man gets 17 years for stealing cellphone

Monday, August 06, 2007


LEROY Wilson, a father of three young children, was last Monday sentenced to 17 years in prison for the August 2006 armed robbery of a woman's V300 Motorola cellular phone valued at $8,500.
Wilson, a 41-year-old gardener of Trinityville District in St Thomas, was found guilty on July 24 of illegal possession of a firearm and robbery with aggravation in the St Thomas Circuit Court.
According to evidence led by the Crown, Wilson held up the woman at gunpoint and robbed her of the device in the parish on August 2, 2006. He was held three days later.
Wilson - who has eight previous convictions for offences such as simple larceny and shop breaking and larceny - was last Monday sentenced to seven years on the charge of illegal possession of firearm and 10 years for robbery with aggravation.
He will, however, serve 10 years behind bars as the sentences are to run concurrently.

[Sickko]

Unfair comment...the Gun court part of the case would have been held in camera meaning the press would not be allowed in plus because of the secrecy act, information from Gun Court is not suposed to be given to the media so the reporter might not have been privy to the details of what went on there.

Based on my experience as a REPORTER in court, the sentence from the Gun Court might have been mentioned in the other trial.

[Mosiah]

I've always found it sad that we have all these rules for certain courts, all this "in camera" crap, yet we can't find a way to protect witnesses from testifying in court.

And the killings continue unabated and no one can be held accountable because witnesses don't show up.

sigh

The other thing is the overall reporting from our courtrooms. Sometimes when you read these articles you are left absolutely flabbergasted and confused. Have you ever read the reports on the same case in each of the popular dailies?

[Sickko]

Dont entirely blame the reports thought I find it interesting that editors still send rookies to court to hone their craft.

Court and parliamentary duties ensure reporters learn to take proper notes and stick to facts as anything else could land them in jail...litterally for contempt.

I agree that some cases must be held in camera, fopr example incest or any sexual abuse, one judge in Mobay used to allow us to stay but I was always uncomnfortable hearing the intimate details of these cases and having to look at the victims there going through the pain all over again and would walk out most times.

Some idiot girl from the western mirror would go and write all the details so the judge started kicking us out again..thankfully

You also must understand the Star is not a paper of record meaning they will go for the sensational over facts while the Gleaner and Observer are mandated to go for accuracy

[Mosiah]

It's clear that everyone is concerned about accuracy in reporting, maybe that why we get nothing from the reports.

My other beef with our media houses is the abuse and overuse of the word "alleged". Every report, especially on CVM, is riddled with that word as they try to protect themselves. That they might be doing, but they also sound uneducated and silly!

For instance, when someone says something then it is no longer "alleged". "The man (eyewitness) reported that the alleged gunman...NONSENSE! You are giving an eyewitness' report. CVM or the Gleaner cannot be held responsible for what the eyewitness saw or thinks he saw.

If someone believes something, then it is no longer "alleged". "The police believe that the man allegedly held up..." MORE CRAP!!!! If the police believe that something happened then that cannot be considered an accusation or some statment of fact that it actually happened.

I could cite more examples but I must take my blood pressure tablets.

[Sickko]

Now here we agree totally...it is called coward journalism. I was reading a paper in Philly in April and had to laugh as there wre a few crime stories and no where was any 'alleged'.

There was a gunman who was held with a gun and arrested and charged...period

[Mosiah]

Please do us a favour and educate those among you who continue to pain us with such crap.

[MdmeX]

I could cite more examples but I must take my blood pressure tablets.

Please Mo - go and take your blood pressure tablets. I do not want it alleged that your health is suffering

[Time]

I never went to law school but isnt these strange?

1) I know a fellow that was charged with illegal possesion of a firearm dispite a firearm was never found and no shots were fired. He was charged based on eyewitness statements. I know that for a fact.

2) The firearm act clearly states that is does not apply to any constable, special constable or special district constable or any member of the JCCF (cadet force) is his capacity as the member of the JCCF.

3) If two persons commit a crime and one has a firearm then both are in possesion of the firearm... That is reasonable based on a common intent and design.

Fact - A Police Officer once gave his gun to Criminal C to hold during a robbery while he robbed the person. The court convicted the officer of illegal possesion of firearm because according to prosecutor and the judge, the firearm act no longer protects the police officer once he gave the firearm to the civilian...

The fact that the firearm act clearly state that only in the case of the JCCF (cadet) members does it only apply in their capacity is totally irrelevant.

4) The law (The JCCF Act?) clearly states that a Custom Officer is a Constable.

Yet custom officers are not considered excempt from the firearm act.

Now if a Custom Officer is a constable and a constable is excempt from the firearm act why is a Custom Officer not exempted from the act?

[Time]

I never went to law school but isnt these strange?

1) I know a fellow that was charged with illegal possesion of a firearm dispite a firearm was never found and no shots were fired. He was charged based on eyewitness statements. I know that for a fact.

2) The firearm act clearly states that is does not apply to any constable, special constable or special district constable or any member of the JCCF (cadet force) is his capacity as the member of the JCCF.

3) If two persons commit a crime and one has a firearm then both are in possesion of the firearm... That is reasonable based on a common intent and design.

Fact - A Police Officer once gave his gun to Criminal C to hold during a robbery while he robbed the person. The court convicted the officer of illegal possesion of firearm because according to prosecutor and the judge, the firearm act no longer protects the police officer once he gave the firearm to the civilian...

The fact that the firearm act clearly state that only in the case of the JCCF (cadet) members does it only apply in their capacity is totally irrelevant.

4) The law (The JCCF Act?) clearly states that a Custom Officer is a Constable.

Yet custom officers are not considered excempt from the firearm act.

Now if a Custom Officer is a constable and a constable is excempt from the firearm act why is a Custom Officer not exempted from the act?

[Time]

I got this one from a friend...2ne hand

The law states that two persons need to be present before the police can charge someone for speeding. A police officer charged a man for speeding and the man's defence was that only the police officer was present therefor the ticket is null and void.

The judge told the man the the radar gun was the other person. The fact that the two person rule is there so that there is witness other that the accuser and the fact the law does not state that a radar gun is a person was totally irrelevant.

[Mosiah]

Our judges can say anything. I have absolutely no respect for any one of them. They are fools!