In Santa Ana, James Anthony Lawlor, 35, was arrested with the help of this hand-drawn picture from a homeless person of the man who kicked him in the face and burned down his tent. It will make for an interesting piece of admissible evidence, though the police have ample evidence against Lawlor including the image below.
Lawlor reportedly demanded that a homeless couple leave the vacant lot around 8:30 am. He told them that he was going for his Glock handgun and when the man inside stuck his face out, Lawlor reportedly kicked him in the face twice. Fifteen minutes later, Lawlor reportedly returned in his black pickup truck, poured gasoline on the tent, and set it on fire.
Santa Ana Police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna told CBS2 News taht Lawlor was “fed up” with homeless people.
It is beyond me how anyone could abuse these people who are struggling and are not living on the streets by choice. Many people find themselves in desperate situations and rather than emphasize, some people like Lawlor treat them as vermin.
It will be interesting how Lawlor is sentenced. He would be wise to plead guilty because the situation could not be worse for him. He committed a premeditated act that could have killed these people. The viciousness of the crime and its premeditation would put the aggravating elements high on the sentencing scheme.
This Lawlor is such a Luddite! He should have used a robot to do this! Like in San Francisco!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl reporter
OMG!!! Some homeless guy in San Francisco was also attacked, and drew this picture of his attacker!!!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUvB29UVoAA3dPZ.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The homeless guy can look at him in the courtroom and say he is the one. Put him in a lineup with a gang of 8 and then let homeless guy have a gander.
A more recent phenomenon many are unaware is accepting that the definition of a dwelling includes tents and crude structures where homeless live. I remember in the 1980s most in the criminal justice system refused to recognize a tent as having the same legal standing as a house if both are used for residence. This applied to both being protected from unreasonable search and seizure to use as an aggravating circumstance against those who commit crimes against the dwelling or within its confines. In fact I remember having that argument often and it wasn’t until the courts began agreeing with this new line of thinking before my position was taken seriously by others.
The crime of entering someone’s house unlawfully and assaulting them, compared to finding them on a sidewalk and punching them in the stomach shows this contrast. The law considers a person’s dwelling to be of a more sacred location than a sidewalk and for assaulting a person inside their house raises the crime from a simple assault (street crime) to an aggravated assault with the inclusion of an aggravated burglary. Yet with a tent, it is treated the same as constructed house.
Darren Smith – thanks for the explanation.
Jon Turley says “The viciousness of the crime and its premeditation would put the aggravating elements high on the sentencing scheme.” Turley is, not surprisingly, wrong. He seems to forget that this crime took place in California and California not only tolerates criminal behavior, but it applauds and rewards such behavior. That’s the way the Leftist California judges operate. They will find an excuse to let Lawlor off the hook. They will say, for example, that he suffered from UCSD (unhappy childhood stress disorder) and that this situation constituted extenuating circumstances.
Dude should ve given a job ujp in Seattle teaching the homeless to draw.
I wish I could draw that well. Unless I am attacked by a stick figure or a pile of poop, my drawings will be of no help.
Now that’s funny. Thanks for the chuckle Ash. ::)
He does match the sketch.