I everybody!

My husband was in a car when a armed robbery went down in Virginia. He tried to tell the person who did this not to do it but it happened anyway. He sayed in the car and did not handle the gun. He got sentenced 14 years and 9 mos. That's the maximum under the guidelines. I think he got that much time because he plead not guilty. The victim identified the two guys that robbed him and the tho who was holding the gun. But he said he never saw my husband. I guess that's because he never got out of the car. Why is he considered a violent offender. My Hubbie would'nt hurt a fly!

And Yeah, I LOVE HIM TO DEATH DO US PART! :mad: :confused: :argh

The legal term "violent offender" has very little if anything to do with whether somebody is actually a violent PERSON. There's a thread here called "The words 'violent offender' mean nothing to me" that is just full of ridiculous stories.

I think for the most part if one is involved in any crime that results in injury or death to another person, it is considered by the law as a "violent offense", whether a particular person involved is the one who actually causes the injury or death or not... i.e., if four people are involved in a robbery and one of those four shoots and kills someone, I think under the syntax of the law all four are considered "violent offenders".

Not saying it's right, just saying that's how the judicial system generally classifies it.

In our case nobody was even touched.

In his situation, the victim was not touched either. He gave the guy 40 dollars and refused to give up the wallet and they left without harming him in the least. Violent?

As luck would have it, a post just got posted in the Alabama forum (where we are discussing the potential release of violent offenders along with the non-violent ones, seeing as how Alabama is overcrowded and underbudget) - this post kind of explains the whole "violent offender" description, so I'm going to copy and paste it here:

Originally posted by GSPack
Okay..Let me se if i can convey what as expaine to me buy the lady that is in Charge of the office (Victims notification Unit) that does the paper work for the violent offenders. The difference in some of the violent offnders is that some cases hav victims,whether dirctly involved in the crime such as face to face confrontation ie: robbery, assualt, home invasion, rape ...get the picture so far? or indirectically the victim of burgulary, theft, breaking and entering, stolen property etc. especilly if guns are the stolen property. This office is required by law to notify each victm to let them know that the DOC is considering the release of the person from prison. it is either by mail or phone, and this takes time especially if the vctim has moved and not told the office their new address. Until the victim responds a hearing date cannot be set/held. The victim can either protest the release hearing in writing or be at the hearing to voice their oppnion to theparole board. Or they can just call and tell the VNO they hve no objection to release of the inmate. Due to insufficent staff in this office this has caused such a back log in these elegible inmate hearings. She also said that they cannot go out of order, if someone that is #7 on the list gets all their paperwork in they still can't let his case go on ahead(this is not fair either) until the 6 other before him have all theirs done... Hope this helps everyone to uindrstand the process.


So basically what it says is that if there's a victim at all (whether physically or otherwise), it's considered a violent crime (at least in Alabama) - this might help understand the terms of the law regarding violent offenses some, anyway.

Lys

This is a bit off topic, but I wonder about this.
My boyfriend's original crime was considered violent. He was released after doing a little over 2 years. At that time I am assuming his victim was notified of his release correct?
My question is......now that he is back on a parole violation, they don't have to notify the victim that he is being released or anything do they? His violation was because of using drugs, nothing to do with anyone else at all. SO, the original victim probably doesn't even know that he is back in right?

Hmmm... that's an interesting question Jen, but I would guess not (they don't have to notify them). I would guess the victim was notified then (if indeed Michigan's laws about victim notification are the same). I would guess the victim's involvement ended there. Just a guess tho!!

Hi,
Maybe I can shed a little light. I did time. Plus, I am from Alabama.

Let's say that myself and two others. Go into a convience store.
I hold the gun up to the ladies face and ask for money.
At that time I became a violent offender because that lady was in fear of her life. Even if I had my hand in a paper bag and lead her to believe I had a gun. I would still be a violent offender.
So, what you could say is anytime fear is caused, then that makes the crime a violent crime. And the two people that stands behind while I rob the store are just as quility because they did nothing to stop it. And just them being there caused fear.
Hope this makes since.
Kathy