Potential Counts for Kidnapping Suspects - UPDATE
Written by Brian on March 3, 2008 – 8:23 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
We here at GOP3 have been following with intense interest the still-developing story about the kidnapping that occurred on campus earlier this week. Tonight, Channel 12 covered the story and provided more detail on what happened, including the fact that the two victims, engineering students, were both punched and kicked before they managed to escape.
Based on the limited information we have now, and assuming that there were two students involved in the 2100 W. Kilbourn attempt, we believe the criminal acts likely fall under all of the following statutes, plus possession of a dangerous weapon enhancer (939.63):
Two counts of Substantial Battery (940.19(2)), a Class I felony.
Two counts of False Imprisonment (940.30), a Class H felony.
Two counts of Taking Hostages (940.305), a Class B felony.
Two counts of Kidnapping (940.31(1)(a), a Class C felony.
Four counts of Brandishing a Firearm (941.20(1)(c)), a Class A misdemeanor.
Four counts of Armed Robbery (942.32(2)), a Class C felony.
Four counts of Threatening Injury (943.30(1)), a Class H felony.
By our math, the total exposure for each of the two perpetrators is 504 years.
Our advice to the DA: throw the book at ‘em.
UPDATE: Daniel here, folks, with an update. Brian and I just returned from the Milwaukee Police Department’s morning press briefing. No news from that end on the case. However, we now know more from the WISN report and this morning’s Tribune. Based on those stories, we’re going to revise down the charges - first, there was only one victim at the 2100 W. Kilbourn robbery, so reduce the courts from four to three. Moreover, there was only one perpetrator there, so the list of counts is for that guy. Second, I think we’d have to drop the two counts of hostage-taking. If the two students were in separate locations and played off one another, then I think there’s a case that it fits the definition. But if they were in the same van the whole time, then that count goes. As for false imprisonment and kidnapping, without Shepardizing, I think locked in a car and being beaten if they raise their heads to see where they are going constitutes “confined” for those two crimes. So the guy can get charged with 400 years rather than 500 - obviously they’ll probably plea deal down for tons lower than that. But nice to know the police have a big number with which to threaten the guy they got.
Last 5 posts by Brian- Simon Harak's September 2003 Speech at Marquette -- And My Official Introduction to Jesuits - June 12th, 2008
- "How Al Gore is Getting Fat off of a Starving World" - June 1st, 2008
- Best column I've read so far on Scott McClellan - May 31st, 2008
- So in other words, you have no leads or suspects at this time? - May 30th, 2008
- RITA GAHAGAN - May 24th, 2008
Posted in Marquette Golden Chickens |
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I’ll repost my comment from here.
As having been a victim of an arm robbery on Marquette’s campus, I’m going to say I’m pleased with how Marquette DPS responded and handle it. To be fair, I wasn’t kidnapped, but a student that gets a hunk steel in his face probably isn’t a good advertisment either.
(And it didn’t affect my tours and my safety talk, either. I was blunt, honest, and I still felt safe after the attack and when I visited the during Christmas break–which I was most certainly on the streets for.)
Are they perfect? No. But this call towards high school parents (which I doubt any read this blog–not that mine receives any attention from parents or otherwise) is a bit over the top and is certainly pandering towards regular readers who lean towards the sensationalist side.
And I think we all can agree that sensationalism is not good, and sillily (we’ll roll with that) over the top.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
You links don’t show up in different colors, apparently. In my first sentence the link is on ‘here’ in the first sentence.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Logan,
To your first point, I wish I would have been aware of how bad the safety situation was prior to arrival. Not being from Milwaukee I had almost no idea. Naive? Maybe. Misled? Absolutely.
To your second point, we’re still trying to figure out the quirks of the redesign, including colors.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Logan,
You’re pleased with being misinformed as a student? Is that how DPS did a good job in responding? Really? I am a student here and absolutely love school here; however, Marquette Administration made a big mistake. Let’s work on laying down all the facts, no holes, and give their student body some “heads up” on campus safety. I am not saying we need to send a letter to prospective students, but let’s at a minimum, notify current students and keep our facts straight for those who ask about safety on campus. There’s no reason to lie to incoming freshman — we live in a city high on crime.
I agree that Marquette does a decent job. The email we received describing the incident was far from the truth, however. It’s sad the regular, seemingly routine emails we receive for such notifications on campus. As Brian said in his post, the issue of campus safety needs to be addressed — both by MU DPS and Milwaukee Police. We pay enough money for tuition — let’s make it a safe place to live as students, first and foremost.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I forgot - we should also add a count of theft of an automobile for stealing the first victim’s truck.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
[...] what I’d like to see. Prosecute these criminals to the fullest. Marquette can’t prevent every crime, and they’ve already blown the transparency and [...]