[FoRK] Re: Freakin' California...
<jbone at place.org> on
Fri Mar 21 15:19:10 PDT 2008
On Mar 21, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Dave Long wrote:
> 6 months is even more reasonable after one considers that a
> physical court appearance isn't required.
6 months reasonable for what? Failure to appear? Nolo contendre,
counselor. If that was the issue; I don't think it was. Let's
dissect the language in question:
"On Wednesday, a lawyer entered the plea on behalf of Mr LaBeouf who
will appear again on 24 April. If found guilty, he faces up to six
months in jail."
What was it he was pleading not guilty to?
"The 21-year-old Transformers star had failed to appear in a
Californian court on Tuesday to face the charge of lighting up where
The charge was lighting up where he shouldn't, NOT failure to appear.
"Actor Shia LaBeouf has pleaded not guilty in a Californian court to a
charge of breaking a smoking ban."
So: is 6 months in jail reasonable for lighting up a tobacco lead
where you shouldn't? And in the opinion of my esteemed colleagues
from The Golden State, would there be a difference if, say, he was
sparking up a hemp lead instead?
Mmm hmmm. I rest my case.
More information about the FoRK