Many of you are getting off the main idea here. Can you be civil? This guy is the bad guy, okay? It is easy for people to second guess the woman who was car jacked. How many times do people give rides and it is harmless....But I agree I would have drove away quickly, myself. Especially with a child in the car!
*
I hate the idea of plea bargains also, but I know why they exist. Surer chance of conviction, overwhelming case loads for the many DA's working in the DA's office, and an attempt at getting the victims uninvolved in the sometimes ugly trial process. (and more). But I still hate the idea!

Don't pull over for people flagging you down. Call police and alert them someone is needing help at a certin location. If you feel you must pull over, keep your doors locked so someone can't jump in. Keep car in drive with foot on the break so you can take off quickly. I will not pull over for people on the side of the road. It is too bad people can't feel safe trying to help someone. But this is a perfect example of why it is best to stay out of it.

just go away ... Damn some people

justaguy, here's what you wrote:

"wakeup or one day you'll find this guy in your car pointing a gun in your face looking for a ride .... i'd love to see the tears of fear running down your face. WAKEUP"

For all I know, when you wrote "this guy" you were referring to yourself. Coupled with your stated wish to see me crying in fear, I take that as a threat.

JimPI: like I said before "READ WHAT I SAID A BIT CLOSER" you'll find the "CAR JACKER" in your car next to you "NOT ME" now if you keep saying I threatend you here in public I do have a case but I don't sue at the drop of a hat .... now go away please

justaguy, the email merely reiterated what I said in my most recent post, that if you threaten me again, there will be legal repercussions. I sent it to ensure you got the message.

JimP: do you really think i'm going to open an email you send to me? did I hurt your feelings tell you like it is? GET A LIFE

In reading the entry on CCAP, Sims is currently being charged with two offenses.

943.32(1)(b) Robbery with Threat of Force
(1) Whoever, with intent to steal, takes property from the person or presence of the owner by either of the following means is guilty of a Class E felony:
(a) By using force against the person of the owner with intent thereby to overcome his or her physical resistance or physical power of resistance to the taking or carrying away of the property;
or
(b) By threatening the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or of another who is present with intent thereby to compel the owner to acquiesce in the taking or carrying away of the property.


943.23(2) Take and Drive Vehicle w/o Consent
2) Except as provided in sub. (3m), whoever intentionally takes and drives any vehicle without the consent of the owner is guilty of a Class H felony.

Now, in reading those statutes and comparing them to the one previously posted for kidnapping, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to determine which charges are appropriate, given the the scenario outlined in the article.

justaguy: You did indeed threaten me. I can't be faulted for your lack of ability to communicate effectively. In reading what you wrote, it is quite clear to me you wish to see "...tears of fear..." running down my face. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your intention behind that statement. However, should you either explicitly or implicitly threaten me or mine again, I will take any and all legal actions I feel are necessary to protect myself and my family.

At no time have I defended Sims. Rather, I'm trying to help people to understand why he cannot be successfully prosecuted for kidnapping in this case. If he were in fact charged with kidnapping, the case would never get past the preliminary hearing and he'd be out on the streets again. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.

I'm most definitely NOT someone who just stands there and says, as you put it, I'll take what you give me. Instead, I'm someone who will actually do the research and attempt to understand what is going on. You might want to try that sometime.

Bear something in mind, justaguy. You know virtually nothing about me - who I am, what experience and knowledge I possess, nor much of anything else. Before you shoot your mouth off again and get yourself in a boatload of trouble, give that some thought.

JimPI: your really a d@mb a@@, your Ignorance is indeed bliss. Sounds like your one of these people who put their hands in their pockets and say "ok" i'll take what you tell me, if this happened to one of my family members i'd to the best I could to get a kidnapping charge against this guy and hope it sticks, you can take what you get but that's not me.About this threat of bodily harm against you you said i made? "WAKUP AND READ IT CLOSER" I was talking about that worthless guy you sound like your sticking up for ... oneday you'll find "HIM" in your car. Now get lost and go talk with the Joker, you two seem to have about the same amount of wits about you.

justaguy: Again, read the statute. Yes, taking someone against their will is a part of the offense but you're missing the other element of the crime. To be convicted of kidnapping, there must be "...intent to
cause him or her to be secretly confined or imprisoned or to be carried out of this state or to be held to service against his or her will." If that intent cannot be proven, then the defendant cannot be convicted of kidnapping. It really is that simple.

"...one day you'll find this guy in your car pointing a gun in your face looking for a ride .... i'd love to see the tears of fear running down your face." Um yeah, good luck with that. In all seriousness, what you wrote could be construed as a threat of bodily harm against me. I'd be careful about that if I were you.

"you made nothing clear other than you like to try to tell people they shouldn't have their word on how they feel about this." All I've tried to do here is explain a bit about the law and show why in this case the defendant should not be charged with kidnapping. Say what you want, think what you want. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

JimPI: you made nothing clear other than you like to try to tell people they shouldn't have their word on how they feel about this and that you really do need to wakeup, taking people in a car against their will is kidnapping and your trying to tell us we need to figure out the laws? wakeup or one day you'll find this guy in your car pointing a gun in your face looking for a ride .... i'd love to see the tears of fear running down your face. WAKEUP

justaguy, I'm not a law maker at all. However, I am fully able to read the statute. Did you read it? He CAN'T be charged with kidnapping as all the elements of the offense weren't met. C'mon, this isn't that hard.

I wouldn't want him charged with kidnapping as he'd never get convicted of it. Were I or one of my loved ones the victim, I'd want him charged with the appropriate crime so the defendant could be found guilty of it.

I thought I'd made it quite clear in a previous post in this discussion that I'm all for defendants doing the time if they do the crime. But, I'm also enough of a realist to know that not all defendants are going to do max time. We just don't have the resources for that to happen.

To JimPI: He took these people against their will, he should be charged with kidnapping and if it was a member of your family taken like that you might be painting a different picture yourself.Someone could have been hurt or worse in any of these cases, to me you sound like one of these "law makers" that benefit the bad guy more then the people.Maybe if you read the story on this guy a bit closer and what this person in doing in our town and pay attention yourself you'd wakeup .... maybe you'd like this guy to get a slap on the wrist and given another chance? for the 10th time.

Well, with regards to the possible kidnapping offense you folks keep mentioning, there's a reason he's not been charged with that offense. Can anyone read the statute below and figure it out? Let's see who's paying attention.

Wisconsin State Statute:

940.31 Kidnapping. (1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class C felony:
(a) By force or threat of imminent force carries another from one place to another without his or her consent and with intent to
cause him or her to be secretly confined or imprisoned or to be carried out of this state or to be held to service against his or her will;
or
(b) By force or threat of imminent force seizes or confines another without his or her consent and with intent to cause him or
her to be secretly confined or imprisoned or to be carried out of this state or to be held to service against his or her will;
or
(c) By deceit induces another to go from one place to another with intent to cause him or her to be secretly confined or imprisoned
or to be carried out of this state or to be held to service against his or her will.
(2) (a) Except as provided in par. (b), whoever violates sub. (1) with intent to cause another to transfer property in order to
obtain the release of the victim is guilty of a Class B felony

If he was convicted of kidnapping the first time, he wouldn't have been on the street to commit this one.

ljs64, prime offense is just a term I use to refer to the "main crime" committed. It isn't a legal term or anything like that, just something I use myself.

Example: Defendant is pulled over for speeding. He's clocked at doing 82 in a 65. The officer then determines the driver's vehicle has inoperable turn signals. What I refer to as the prime offense would be the speeding ticket. The inoperable turn signal would be a secondary offense that might just be tossed. Make sense? It is kind of a poor example but I'm tired this evening. Sorry.

ljs64: Still got your trailer home?

Roadmaster: This is not a federal crime, so your comment makes no sense.

momof5: Plea bargins DO NOT guarantee the defendant will do time. Get a clue.

Apparently, there are a lot of trailer parks with computers.

JimPl: What is the Prime Offense?

Wow, shel1! I'm glad you and your son were not injured! Did he pay any restitution to you? I know I could look it up on ccap, but how long did he serve for this? How many felonies does he have now? Wouldn't he "qualify" for the 3 strikes and you're out award??

This same guy car jacked my Grand Am when my son was returning a movie at Slantrax in Janesville. Basically gave him a choice of giving him a ride or taking the car at gunpoint. He was rather mean and jacked up on something, assuming crack. The police saw him as soon as the call came through and after a chase that left my car damaged, he was caught. He went to prison after that.

momo..., it's amazing he wasn't charged with kidnapping or at least unlawful imprisonment.

There use to be something called the Lindberg Law. It made kidnapping a capital offense. The book by Joseph Wambaugh and the movie The Onion Field dealt with a case is California. Two punks kidnapped two cops. Instead of letting the cops go, one of the punks believed that penalty-wise there was no difference between murder and kidnapping. So, he killed the two cops rather than let them go.

What?? Nobody on here wants to blame the economy for what this guy did? Nobody wants to give him a free pass for breaking the law? Maybe he was just trying to better (a Mercedes) his family situation.....Maybe he was just trying to get to his consulate so he could get a free I.D.

to janesvillean ... in 2000 I had my truck stolen and damaged and then used in a robbery. The guy got cought did a plea bargin got a slap on the wrist no jail time and I was left holding the bag for my truck.This guy didn't want to work for his money and didn't care about others, put them all in jail and toss the key away till they pay for their crime, end of story.

Sounds like a thief. Nice neighborhood he lives in. Google got a nice picture of the postal jeep, too. That first article really went bizarre in the comment section. I wonder why there's usually two articles, and the comments aren't connected? This article is better than the first at any rate.

Gfan: that's the word! Thanks! Does anyone know why he wouldn't have been charged? I was once told JPD doesn't generally like "stack charges." Could this be why?

The statute authorizing Federal prosecution for carjacking (18 USC 2119) requires a finding of intent to cause death or serious bodily harm to the victim and provides penalties of up to 25 years for the serious bodily injury to the victim and a possible capital sentence if the victim is killed.

Life.

momo...., I was wondering about the kidnapping too.

And instead of "entrapment", I think you mean unlawful imprisonment.

Someone else asked on another thread: How come he wasn't charged with kidnapping or entrapment?

plea bargains GUARANTEE the defendant will do some time. If the DA rolled the dice and took EVERY case to trial, it would be safe to say that even less justice would be served.

I don't like the degree to which deals are made. But, at the end of the day, I'd rather have someone do some time than none at all!

gq222: Do you ever have anything nice to say?

surprised one of you law experts hasnt said "give him life" or "throw away the key." Idiots.

I guess it depends on the individual plea bargain. I mean, let's say a defendant is charged with x crime and the maximum sentence is 15 years in prison. If he pleads to a lesser charge and receives a sentence of 10 years in prison and 5 years probation, I might be ok with that.

I do have problems with plea bargains that result in a sentence of time served and a year or two of probation, again depending on the original charge(s).

Quite often, a defendant is initially charged with a myriad of different offenses with full knowledge the majority of them will be reduced in a plea bargain. That is done intentionally in hopes the defendant will actually be convicted and sentenced in a realistic way for what might be referred to as the prime offense.

So you keep saying, Janesvillean and as I keep saying, plea bargains are not justice. They rob defendants of justice in that they offer the defendant a choice, an easier, less expensive way out that may include a sentence limited to credit for time served waiting for the judicial system to conclude his case against the prospect of a much longer wait with the outcome at least partly dependant on the skill of the defense attorney. They also rob victims of justice in that defendants need never own up to the full weight of their crimes, escaping the punishment that the guilty may truly deserve. Criminal court is supposed to serve justice, not expediency. So you just keep on defending that practice as I intend to attack it at every opportunity because to me, justice is very important.

billnewbie, a plea bargain is not a failure. Well over 90% of the criminal cases in the US are concluded with a plea bargain. Trials are showy and we've all seen dramatic ones on TV but they carry a risk of acquittal and there are no second chances to prosecute.
.
"Plea bargaining is a necessary element of the United States criminal justice system. Properly negotiated and structured, plea agreements in general benefit defendants, the government, and the judiciary. In addition, the public benefits from plea-bargaining because plea agreements result in the conservation of public resources as well as the quick disposition of criminal cases."
http://chss2.montclair.edu/cca/CHAD%2050...

Well, lets hope that our D.A. declines the usual plea bargains so that this defendant faces the full weight of the crimes he's charged with and, if found guilty as the story implies, goes away for a long time.