SBPDPIO
Source: Santa Barbara Police Department
On January 27, 2022, around 2:00pm, two Santa Barbara Police Officers were working a special detail designed to address ongoing issues with thefts, drugs, and alcohol-related crimes in the north portion of the city.
As the Officers were patrolling the parking lot of 5-Points Shopping Center (3900 block of State Street), they heard a woman screaming loudly for help. Officers observed a male witness chasing another male, later identified as Dale Dion Quinn, a 53-year-old transient, through the parking lot of the shopping center. Officers detained both subjects and learned Quinn had just stolen a wallet from the victim who was screaming for help. The male witness observed the theft and was attempting to stop Quinn from fleeing.
Based on the victim and witness statements, Quinn was placed under arrest and a search of Quinn revealed he was in possession of the victim’s wallet.
The wallet was returned to the victim and Quinn was transported to Santa Barbara County Jail. He was booked on Grand Theft from a Person (felony), and Elder Abuse (felony). His bail is set at $50,000.
Cheers for the person trying to chase the creep down. We need more of this!!
Watch – they’ll let him out because he doesn’t have the means to make bail – free to (continue) to leach off of the world…
It’s from the PD so they’re taking credit. But from reading the article, the male bystander interrupted the theft and the officers happened to be nearby and heard the screaming. I understand the whole “timing of force or fear” aspect, but in my perfect world, if you purse snatch, regardless off the circumstances, it’s automatically Robbery. Because the person wasn’t “in fear” until the purse/wallet was out of their possession shouldn’t matter.
I don’t see anyone “taking credit”. The incident description seems pretty “matter of fact”. The police happened to be on patrol and saw the chase rather than be dispatched there. That doesn’t lessen the outcome.
AHH, the headline takes credit… SHOULD READ:
Citizen helps officers thwart purse-snatching (or similar)
C…SB is correct;
AND until liberals change this also; purse snatching (is) a form of robbery, under California Penal Code (PC) 211.
Right, but I’m pretty sure the Police didn’t write the headline. 😉
SBPD wrote the headline: https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2959&TargetID=76
Blueonion- the laws around purse snatching are interesting. If the victim is unsuspecting when the purse or wallet is snatched from their hand, then it would be more difficult to establish force or fear. Grand theft is an easy on to establish because it just takes a dollar amount. Could have also been the officers taking the easy route knowing the DA won’t do jack squat about it. Easier to write a theft report than a robbery report.
I guess the headline should have been “Police Interrupt Hero Who Stopped Robbery”. Maybe next time. :0
Conservative – IMO, “unsuspecting” or not, (force) is established when an item is “snatched” from a victims hand. What is it, other than force, that creates this exchange? I question what appears to be the immediate release of the wallet (evidence) back to the victim.
0731 – you’re totally missing the point. Think about it.
Doulie- I 100% agree with you. I believe the law should include this type of language. Like “physically taking from a persons physical possession” or something that clearly states you are snatching it from them. And the difficulty for writing a robbery report is clearing that force or fear threshold. Writing a grand theft report is just establishing the worth of the items is more than $950. If you read grand theft reports, many are only about a paragraph long.
Whether “homeless” “vagrant” or “bum” or “transient”, this group of people routinely steals be it opening packages of cheese at Ralphs’s, Ziplock bags at the Dollar Store or going car-to-car in a parking lot, things I have witnessed. They take bikes from homes, make toxic messes and start fires. They have shown repeatedly that a signicifaicant part of them repeatedly victimizes the rest of us. We need humane asylums for the mentally ill, temproary housing, classes & jobs for those down-on-their-luck or incapable/uneducated in basic economics. That would leave the various addicts, career criminals and bums/hobos. The latter should be shooed back to wherever they came from; criminals dealt with legally. Addicts I have no experience with addicts, so no suggestions.
BASIC… if you think about it a tad deeper you might (or not) realize that to a person who lives rough going to jail is actually a workman’s holiday complete with warm cot and 3 squares at day.
SACJON, I believe what you wrote is just a thought experiment, but exile isn’t the answer. Sending homeless criminals elsewhere only exacerbates the problem, albeit not locally. This is a common tactic in conservative areas, but that doesn’t make it right or okay, and I don’t think we should ever stoop to that level even if “but but but other people are doing it!”
This all leads back, once again, to a massive need for mental health care and drug addict treatment for the homeless community. Until that issue is tackled, there is no better solution than “catch and release”.
10:33 – You’re right, it was really just tongue in cheek and not really a suggestion! It’s a tough problem with no easy answer. Keeping them locked up awaiting trial costs $$, but letting them go reduces the chance they’ll show up in court. Then, what about victim restitution? Homeless people don’t have much, if anything, of value. So what happens? If they show up for court, they might get a short jail sentence and the victim is not made whole again. How does that help anyone?
No need to keep them. Cut off there fingers and set them free!! Barbaric but effective crime deterrent.