Laws For the rich and the rest of us

[WIMUSKY]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

whether or not we agree with his sentence, this I would absolutely disagree with. a judge made the decision. we trust him to make the decision, it's why he was put there. otherwise why not have angry mobs sit outside the courtroom and decide sentencing.

The way our judicial seems to work more times than not, a mob may not be a bad idea... Ex. trying the combatants at GITMO in a civilian court. But that's a whole new thread.....

 

[avenger79]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

The way our judicial seems to work more times than not, a mob may not be a bad idea... Ex. trying the combatants at GITMO in a civilian court. But that's a whole new thread.....

oh don't get me started, we could so have that one locked in minutes.

 

[DayCruiser]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

whether or not we agree with his sentence, this I would absolutely disagree with. a judge made the decision. we trust him to make the decision, it's why he was put there. otherwise why not have angry mobs sit outside the courtroom and decide sentencing.

We are not talking Mob justice here. The prosecutor is just pursuing legal avenues to ask the Judge to reconsider. Very common practice. One article states that is more common for the defense to try this route. Judges are subject to checks and balances too. One problem with this case is we are talking about a retired Judge who answers to no one

 

[avenger79]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

We are not talking Mob justice here. The prosecutor is just pursuing legal avenues to ask the Judge to reconsider. Very common practice. One article states that is more common for the defense to try this route. Judges are subject to checks and balances too. One problem with this case is we are talking about a retired Judge who answers to no one

of course the prosecuter is persuing the legal avenues to do this, as he is the only one with the proper channels to do so, BUT why is he doing it?

because of PUBLIC OUTCRY, and OUTRAGED MASSES per your article.

 

[DayCruiser]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

of course the prosecuter is persuing the legal avenues to do this, as he is the only one with the proper channels to do so, BUT why is he doing it?

because of PUBLIC OUTCRY, and OUTRAGED MASSES per your article.

The Prosecutor also states he was shocked at the sentence. He charged the defendant with Murder. I mean really. The defendant drove at a high rate of speed over 300 yards after he left the Highway. Then he went down an embankment. Why didn't he just put on the brakes? A high dollar auto like that probably has good brakes that will stop within 300 feet

 

[avenger79]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

i take it you've never gone through a field on accident? you have two choices, stay on the loud pedal and get out the other side, (most common choice) or try to hit the brakes and slide until whenever where ever, sloppy fields are like ice. of course it helps if you are smart enough to come out on the other side on a road not through someone's house.

 

[DayCruiser]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

i take it you've never gone through a field on accident? you have two choices, stay on the loud pedal and get out the other side, (most common choice) or try to hit the brakes and slide until whenever where ever, sloppy fields are like ice. of course it helps if you are smart enough to come out on the other side on a road not through someone's house.

300 yards is the length of a football field. If he just took his foot off the gas it would have slowed to a stop. Then he could have turned around and went back the way he came. He chose to act like he was on the Dukes of Hazard TV show. I know all about fields and cut enough fields with my tractor. I don't see myself blindly going through a field at 100 mph. If he had slowed down he would have probably just landed in the guys back yard and not went threw his home and land in the front yard(That is if he just had continued on that path).
He plead guilty to Reckless Homicide. SO he is stating he was reckless. He is saying his recklessness lead to the death of a innocent person. What if you were sitting in your home way off the highway and a car flies through it and kills your wife and/or kids? Would "sorry" be good enough? You would go through agony/grief for years

 

[avenger79]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

in your orig post you asked for people's opinions. if you didn't want them or were not willing to allow them to have their own opinion you shouldn't have asked for it.

 

[ezmobee]

Re: Laws For the rich and the rest of us

^^^That's been my opinion of this thread since early on. Closed.