Man who set fire to CVS during Baltimore riot gets 4 years

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

BALTIMORE (AP) — A Baltimore man who pleaded guilty to setting fire to a local CVS store during a riot has been sentenced to four years in prison.

Twenty four-year-old Raymon Carter was also ordered to pay restitution of $500,000. Carter was sentenced Tuesday in federal court in Baltimore, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a news release. Carter pleaded guilty to rioting in August.

Carter's court-appointed attorney did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Carter's ability to pay restitution.

Authorities say that after the CVS in the Penn North neighborhood was broken into on April 27, video footage shows Carter trying to move, then open, a pharmaceutical safe. Footage also shows Carter starting a fire in the store. It caused $1.1 million in damage.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1f3e2d08e033433897b4278685ffc341/man-who-set-fire-cvs-during-baltimore-riot-gets-4-years

[Rafale]

1. But

So far cops get nothing for starting the riot based on bogus intelligence reports about gang members, who actually made peace with each other.

[yeoman6987]

2. This really is good news

Maybe the cops will be charged but the story is about this person who destroyed property. 4 years seems light but I wasn't on the jury so who knows what was said.

[cstanleytech]

7. Thats a different topic all together, the topic here is about a guy who decided to commit arson. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. I contrast it with the death sentence given for jaywalking.

[mrmpa]

3. Where the hell is he going to get $500,000??......

I don't know this man's education or skill set. Let's assume he has a Bachelor's degree in a non technical field. I would think the average pay for that education is probably $50,000 a year. If the court attaches 50% of his income before taxes, he will be living on $25.000 gross. Let's just keep everyone poor.

[christx30]

4. If he hadn't of set that building on fire,

he wouldn't have been spending 4 years in prison, and wouldn't have that $500,000 judgement against him. He's damned lucky no one was killed in that fire.
This wasn't an accident. This was a deliberate act, a crime, to which he's paying a substantial penalty. The 4 years seems light, because they probably want him to get to work ASAP to pay for the damage.
I'm sure he'll take up a collection, if you want to contribute.

[Beacool]

6. No one forced him to burn down the CVS store.

The $500K is only half of the cost of the damage that he caused.

[cstanleytech]

8. Ya its to bad he didnt think about all of the consequences before he decided to commit arson. nt

[snooper2]

18. you can start a gofundme

[michreject]

19. What about those that lost their job because of the fire?

You think that they might need the income?

[Sunlei]

5. Arson and rioting are crimes. That's why police stood back and recorded all that low hanging fruit.

[starroute]

9. The question isn't whether he committed a crime

It's about whether half a million dollars in restitution payments is plausible for a potentially unemployable ex-felon to be expected to fork over.

This is part of a larger pattern in which financial constraints are used as a means of social control. It includes student loans, asset forfeiture, the kinds of fines and fees that are disproportionately applied to poor minorities, and the ridiculous financial penalties assessed for copyright violations.

A number of years ago, some kid on a vandalism spree broke our windshield, as well as several others. Some time later we received, as I recall, $75 as our share of his restitution payment. That's reasonable. $500,000 isn't.

[cstanleytech]

10. Hey its just as unreasonable as someone deciding that its ok to burn someone else' property down. nt

[starroute]

13. Except that one is within the realm of reality and the other isn't

The guy had the physical capacity to burn down a drugstore. He will never have the capacity to pay off $500,000. So we are living in the realm of fantasy here.

Go read David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years." It explains how keeping everyone in debt that can never be discharged serves as a means of both political and moral control.

[christx30]

14. I have the physical ability

to commit all sorts of crimes. I don't have the capacity to deal with the consequences. That's one of the reasons I don't commit crimes.
He's very lucky he didn't have to pay more for his crime. Maybe this will serve as an example to others that want to commit useless acts of violence and destruction.
"This act you are about to commit will probably destroy your life. Do you really want to destroy this 7-11?"

[starroute]

16. Should a single hasty act by a 24 year old destroy their life?

The maximum sentence for the vandalism would have been 5 years. He plea bargained that down to 4. But you're saying that he should continue to suffer the consequences for the next 50 or 60 years. And that he's "lucky" he isn't being asked to pay a million or more.

This is grotesquely punitive, and I can't quite believe I'm seeing it at DU. Is there really that little understanding of the lives of the poor here?

[christx30]

20. That's part of being an adult.

Knowing that your actions have consequences that can and will follow you for the rest of your life, or end it at 24. If he slept with someone and gotten HIV, that would follow him too. At 24 I was in year 5 of a 12 year job at dell. I wasn't burning down buildings because I was angry about things.
And if the person that commited the crime won't pay for the reconstruction, who should? CVS? It wasn't their fault the store was damaged. It was the hasty, stupid act of an adult.
If he's angry about excessive force, protest, write to his state or congressional rep, letter to the newspaper. But he wasn't doing it in protest. He wanted to destroy something.
Yes, excessive force by the police is something that is long past time to be dealt with. The act like a criminal gang most of the time and it makes me sick. But riots and and destruction are counter productive.

[branford]

21. Burning down a building is not simple "vandalism,"

it's arson and a host of other very serious felonies.

Moreover, the $500,000 is not a punitive fine, it's restitution for the individual's actual knowing and intentional acts, and doesn't even cover the full extend of the damage.

So, yes, he's "lucky." He should liable for the all the damages he caused, and spend more time in prison than a maximum of 4 years. Being poor does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions. We all make choices that follow us for most of our lives. Burning down a building would certainly qualify.

I reserve my compassion for those other poor members of his community who lost their jobs or the senior citizens and disabled who no longer have a convenient pharmacy because some violent ass thought is was acceptable to set fire to and destroy store.

Don't be surprised you're reading this a DU. Most of us may be quite liberal, but we still believe in personal responsibility and have little tolerance for arsonists.

[Yo_Mama]

25. It's not vandalism, but arson, a far more serious crime.

He's young. He's lucky to be getting out in a few years, and if he has to pay some portion of his income later in restitution, it seems fair to me.

I think they can only garnish 15%? I don't know the state laws.

[Travelman]

26. Yes.

There used to be a very valid saying, and it still applies: "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

My pity meter is pegged at negative infinity for some reckless arsonist who torched some store in his neighborhood providing jobs and goods that the locals wanted and needed before this fuckstick burned it down.


How many complaints have there been around here and elsewhere about "food deserts" and stores in general either refusing to locate in or moving out of some poor and/or Black neighborhood? And here CVS steps up to the plate, and for their trouble, they get their property burned down and people here defending the arsonist?


Restitution is NOT punitive. It is just what it says it is: restitution. If I steal your $10,000 car, then I can very reasonably be ordered to return $10,000 to you to restore (hence the root of the word "restitution&quot the loss to you. If I steal your car and it costs $100,000, then it's equally as reasonable that I be mandated to restore $100,000 to you. That's not punitive; that's my fault for being an idiot and stealing a very expensive car.

[Angleae]

30. The maximum sentence for 2nd degree arson in Maryland is 20 years.

Intentionally starting a fire is arson, not vandalism.

[cstanleytech]

15. There is a huge difference over someone having health problems and owing on that vs someone

deliberately being a spiteful prick and burning someones property down just because they can.

[JVS]

29. He'll be out of prison at 28 and assuming he retires at 68 it'll cost him $12.5k/year

That's far from impossible. Especially when you consider that 20 or 30 years from now $12.5 K might not be very much.

[LanternWaste]

24. I imagine it's simpler for the undisciplined mind to pretend that justice...

I imagine it's much simpler for the undisciplined mind to pretend that justice is predicated on a lack of reason.

[cigsandcoffee]

12. $75 is to your windshield as $500K is to a burned CVS.

$500K for your windshield would be unreasonable, as would be $75 for a burned CVS.

[brooklynite]

28. I can think of a way to avoid becoming a "potentially unemployable ex-felon"...

...don't become a felon.

[romanic]

17. Fair punishment.

Don't burn shit down, especially if you don't live in said neighborhood.

[geek tragedy]

23. arson is a hell of a crime nt

[Blue_Tires]

27. Fucking idiot...