Posted on 07/06/2018 6:27:29 PM PDT by Snickering Hound
SAN ANTONIO - The San Antonio Police Department has received numerous calls from people demanding more severe charges be levied against a man at the center of a viral video at a Whataburger, a police spokesman said.
Kino Jimenez, 30, was arrested Thursday night on a charge of theft of person.
Jimenez is accused of launching an attack on a teenager at a Northeast Side Whataburger restaurant that was caught on camera.
According to an arrest warrant affidavit, police received several tips identifying Jimenez as the man in the video.
The affidavit said the owner of the hat who was splashed with soda is a 16-year-old boy.
The teen told investigators that Jimenez approached his table inside the Nacogdoches Road restaurant around 2 a.m. on July Fourth and asked why he was wearing the hat.
The teen replied that he was supporting the president, the affidavit said.
What happened next was caught on video, the report said.
After investigating, police took Jimenez into custody. On his way out of jail early Friday morning, he tried at first to avoid a KSAT 12 News camera.
Once the camera was turned off, he spoke briefly, saying what happened was a lapse in judgment that was out of character for him.
Jimenez said seeing the hat had the same effect on him that a Ku Klux Klan hood would have had.
He said since the video went viral, he and his family have been receiving threats.
Officer Carlos Ortiz, a police spokesman, said SAPD has heard from a number of people who believe Jimenez should have been charged with assault rather than theft.
A felony theft charge is unusual in a case like this, Ortiz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksat.com ...
Conservatives also pride themselves on the proper use of grammar and punctuation. Try writing like an adult and not some illiterate teenager texting her BFF.
He has been charged with Robbery in accordance with the law
They cannot charge him with anything else as the elements is a crime beyond robbery are not there
Robbery is a charge
The other two do not exist in the state of Texas
So a MAGA hat scares this cat same as a hooded KKK....
But everyone else is criticized for crossing the street to avoid oncoming groups of black or Latino males.....
Got it
I guess that you are addressing that little remark to about 35 of the other 39 posts on this thread, as well.
Have a nice life.
Stop
Stop this moronic shit
You have no idea what you are talking about
You are spouting off a bunch of gibberish and words you heard on tv shows just like a liberal
Stop
He has been charged in accordance with the laws of the state of Texas.
Not the law of the fever swamp of your mind
Conservatives pride themselves on logic, reason, and the rule of law
Please use them. You are on a pure emotional rant
Kinda like a liberal
Just stop
He has beeen charged in accordance with the laws of the state of Texas
The rest of your rant do not apply as they do not exist
Robbery as charged is a state jail felony
Up to two years in prison
No. They could not have shot him as the elements needed for a use of deadly force were not present
Just stop ranting and use your head
Jimenez was actually charged with felony theft, not robbery.
Doesn’t make much sense because the value of the property doesn’t rise to the level of it being felony theft but his act does fall under the definition of robbery.
Just not aggravated robbery.
Sec. 29.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “In the course of committing theft” means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.
(2) “Property” means:
(A) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or
(B) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(c) In this section, “disabled person” means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.
It appears he has had numerous lapses of judgement based on the multiple mugshots I have seen so far.
Good info
I will see if I can find out the specific charge
Other than theft and what they call assault by contact, this is kinda weak. I have a feeling they made the arrest to send a message to everyone and it s gonna get pled down
Just the way system works
Thanks
Jimenez menaced the kid and tossed his drink in his face and took his MAGA cap. They looked scared.
29.02 (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
Got it on video too.
If he had left the cap, it would just be assault.
There have been assault charges and even domestic battery from just pouring a drink on someone else.
Drunk girls in bars need to stop watching 'Melrose Place' reruns.
“I bet a felony charge would be forthcoming if an adult Trump supporter threw a drink in a scrawny 16 year old Prog’s face.”
There sadly is an idiot on here who would be demanding that.
"Rule number one. No blasphemy."
Agreed
But I know how the system works
It will probably get pled down
I hope it doesn’t
This dude needs to get real consequences
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.