Judge slams victims for tot's 'black men' fear

a reply to: peck420
That doesn't appear to be what the OP takes issue with.

What social commentary did he inject into the court case?

originally posted by: Greven
What social commentary did he inject into the court case?

The family's endorsement, or non-endorsement, of their daughter's fears are not on trial, nor were they part of the trial. He, as judge, can accept or deny the victim statement. Expressing his opinion of said statement, while sitting as judge, was social commentary above and beyond his jurisdiction.

Did he have the right to deny the victim statement in regard to modifying the sentence? Yes.

Did he have the right to provide social commentary on the victim statement, while sitting as the judge, in that court, for that case? Nope.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Now that little girl knows to fear black judges.

he could have "passed along" the message that a black man brought her and her family justice. Instead they will tell her that these people are back on the street because a black man could not see beyond his own personal feelings and do his job, BLINDLY based on the facts.

Who cares if he is offended. WHY is that part of the record? Is it pertinent to the case? No.

SO, maybe white people should fear racist black people. They should, like black people should fear racist white people.

a reply to: peck420
There was no trial. As the men pleaded guilty, they waived the right to a trial and entered the sentencing phase. The victim impact statements were presented at a sentencing hearing.

He can talk about whatever he wants to - he's the judge in a court of law. Have you not read much from court proceedings? Hell, go look up Scalia's dissents on things, like when the SCOTUS struck down Arizona's immigration law:

“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act,” Scalia said. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

“The issue is a stark one,” he went on. “Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court’s holding?” If this had been the original view of the Framers of the Constitution, “the delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.”

The president had nothing to do with the Arizona law, so I'm quite unsure as to why he brought him up?

As you admit that he can choose to disregard the victim impact statement, you should surely agree that the OP is wrong when it suggests that the sentence given was because of the judge's distaste of the victim impact statement.

You should also agree that it was the parents themselves who characterized the child's behavior as kind-of-racist (male + black), rather than the judge. You should also note that many posts in this thread took at face value claims that are clearly wrong.

a reply to: tadaman

Well done on reading the thread. Again, one of the two robbers went to jail for 10 years after pleading guilty (prior trouble with the law). The other robber got probation because he's got an otherwise spotless record. Also, the victim impact statement failed to convince the judge on a harsher sentence.

a reply to: Greven

I did read the thread. Why is that people have to accuse others of ignorance just because they dont agree.

The fact he read it in court and out it on the record says it all. He COULD have just asked the council to approach the bench and told him to pass along his message. He being OFFENDED has nothing to do with the sentencing. He needs to realize that his responsibility is sacred and must be completely void of personal feelings.

He made a MESS and now brought increased racial tensions, did a disservice to the citizens who trust judges to be impartial and also showed that there is little to trust from our justice system.

Who cares if the guy had a spotless record before. You dont go from law abiding citizen to ARMED HOME INVASION without trial runs. For one, you need to get a gun, two you need to rob people before hand. You dont just jump into gun toting robberies as a first offence. It is the first documented offence.

Also, if he had killed someone, or raped someone his prior record would have no bearing. He committed a freaking felony.

You want to convince people? Get this sentencing overturned and give the guy the time in jail he deserves. You get probation for minor offences. NOT for armed home invasions. This judge just set back the clock. Whatever happens as a result is his fault entirely.

Lets watch this gem of a young man. Lets see if he redeems himself. If he does then ok. That would be a rarity. His next offence, is on this judge.

You can say mass, this is a travesty. Justice was not served. Race became an issue because the law was not blind. You can also say it had no bearing on the decision, that is laughable. Why even bring it up. Go on social media or talk to the family yourself. Making your offence part of the record is blatant.

What would happen if roles were reversed? No need to answer, they have been plenty of times and the injustice served to young black men because of racist judges operating within the law, yet taking clear bias because of their own feelings is well documented, and very justly contested.

Now that the chance to be better is offered, a black judge makes HIS RACE and that of the VICTIMS a point to argue.

Nice way to put this behind us. Nice way to carry the torch that was asked for. Nice way to make things right and move away from bigoted decisions in court.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Greven

I did read the thread. Why is that people have to accuse others of ignorance just because they dont agree.

Then, if you read the thread, why did you write this:

originally posted by: tadaman
Instead they will tell her that these people are back on the street because a black man could not see beyond his own personal feelings and do his job, BLINDLY based on the facts.

Because "they" aren't back on the street, and the judge was already going to sentence the one who is to probation before the statement was written. Therefore, all of this is inaccurate and led me to the conclusion that you simply did not read the thread.

a reply to: Greven

oh my god, I made it plural.

I dont care....at all. grow up.

My argument doesnt hinge on that absurdity. Yours does. I did see the video also where only the one was present.

My god---I must have nothing to say.....

originally posted by: Greven
There was no trial. As the men pleaded guilty, they waived the right to a trial and entered the sentencing phase. The victim impact statements were presented at a sentencing hearing.

Then the judge had even less right to inject social commentary onto the statement.

He can talk about whatever he wants to - he's the judge in a court of law. Have you not read much from court proceedings?

Incorrect.

This is a myth perpetuated by TV. Judges do have limitations and codes of conduct that they are supposed to adhere to. This judge chose to ignore that code of conduct.

Hell, go look up Scalia's dissents on things, like when the SCOTUS...

Irrelevant to this discussion, and, quite frankly, a very poor attempt at deflection. A Supreme Court Judge has a different jurisdiction than an Circus (Circuit) Court Judge.

As you admit that he can choose to disregard the victim impact statement, you should surely agree that the OP is wrong when it suggests that the sentence given was because of the judge's distaste of the victim impact statement.

Since I made no comment on the veracity of the OP's claim, irrelevant.

You should also agree that it was the parents themselves who characterized the child's behavior as kind-of-racist (male + black), rather than the judge.

Which is their right as the authors/presenters of the Victim's Statement. Victim Statements are allowed to be emotional and irrational. Judges decisions, based on..or in this case, too the Victim Statement are not. He made an emotional choice to inject his OPINION onto this sentencing hearing. By doing so, hes has created a "fact" in all future proceedings involving this family and their child, once she reaches adulthood. Which is precisely why they are not supposed to do it.

You should also note that many posts in this thread took at face value claims that are clearly wrong.

Since I am not any of the persons that made those comments, also irrelevant.

a reply to:tadaman
Maybe I have to spell out the sequence of events:

1. Two black men rob a family.
   
2. They are caught and both plead guilty (bypassing trial).
   
3. One with prior trouble with the law is sentenced to 10 yrs.
   
4. Other with clean record & family support considered for probation.
   
5. Victim Impact Statements given to judge to convince of stronger sentence.
   
6. Judge doesn't like what's in the statements.
   
7. Judge sentences other to (already under consideration) probation.
   

what is wrong with our judges? judges who give lite sentences for sex offenders (yeah i raped my three old daughter and the judge gave me probation because i am rich and would not do well in prison. remember that one?!) and other horrible offenses and now this?

a reply to: Greven

Yes and none of that contests what I said. My argument stands. This judge was not blind unto the law. He was offended.

Bad judge that is not fit to SERVE the public he supposedly is there to protect. Black young men he identifies with, maybe.

a reply to: peck420
So you simply don't care about the gross mischaracterization present throughout this thread but rather this one aspect? If you didn't know - the title of this thread used to read: "Judge Accuses Little Girl of Racism for Fearing Black Men After Armed Robbery" - not the more accurate title it has now.

I don't think he should have said that for the record, and I've never said I did. If you want to reject that judges do give social commentary, then you're wrong but I don't otherwise care. My beef was with the blatantly wrong stuff throughout this thread.

a reply to: tadaman
He didn't change his decision based on the victim impact statement, so what's your problem with his decision?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: peck420
So you simply don't care about the gross mischaracterization present throughout this thread but rather this one aspect? If you didn't know - the title of this thread used to read: "Judge Accuses Little Girl of Racism for Fearing Black Men After Armed Robbery" - not the more accurate title it has now.

Do I care what a bunch of anonymous persons, on a less than credible website (ask Wiki), think about criminal court case? Not really. Enough to post, but that's about it.

Do I care about what an actual judge has submitted into the permanent records, when they had no authority to do so? Yes. Absolutely. The fact that some think that what he did is acceptable is a testament to how far things have fallen.

I don't think he should have said that for the record, and I've never said I did. If you want to reject that judges do give social commentary, then you're wrong but I don't otherwise care. My beef was with the blatantly wrong stuff throughout this thread.

You claim that but, utilize inaccuracies and mythology to defend his "right" to do so. Interesting. That would make you no more right than the OP.

a reply to: Greven

First degree burglary is a class B felony, and includes knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building (any structure, vehicle, water- or aircraft) with the intent to commit a crime there; and while doing so (or during the immediate flight from the crime) the defendant possessed an explosive or deadly weapon, caused physical injury to another person, or used (or threatened) to use a dangerous instrument against another person.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

A class B felony in Kentucky is:

Class B felonies in Kentucky are punishable by ten to 20 years’ imprisonment. (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 532.020, 532.060.) For example, intentionally shooting someone and causing serious injury (first degree assault) is a Class B felony.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

The sentence the one got of even 10 years is LIGHT. Probation is unheard of when a firearm is involved. It made it a felony just being there for a home invasion. The fact they were armed makes this retarded. They needed to BOTH get 10 years at least, maybe this other "nice family guy" could have gotten 5 or less, but NO TIME IN JAIL?!?! The MINIMUM is 10 years....He set a new standard. Freaking probation where 10 years is the minimum!

That is my problem. Its not normal and just further shows the bias this judge has. He needed to go have a smoke and re think his "being offended".

He did do something based on the victim's statement instead of dismissing it. Maybe the victim statement was just the icing on the cake. He MAY have planned on being VERY lenient anyways. How nice of him to these two armed home invaders.

a reply to: tadaman
If you want to critique the light sentence, that's perfectly fine and I agree that it is quite a light sentence. I'm not sure if this judge was the one who sentenced both men, though. Again, my gripe was with people making this to be a racial issue.

There was an accusation that he reduced the sentence based on the victim impact statement. That is wrong.

There was an accusation that he called the little girl racist. That is also wrong.

Again, the original title of this thread was: "Judge Accuses Little Girl of Racism for Fearing Black Men After Armed Robbery." The source cited in the OP is clearly making crap up. I feel this thread should have been hoax binned and this other, earlier thread should have been used to discuss the light sentencing that you are concerned with.

originally posted by: peck420
You claim that but, utilize inaccuracies and mythology to defend his "right" to do so. Interesting. That would make you no more right than the OP.

Yeah, mythologies like this:

Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh said that while it is not intrinsically wrong for a judge to criticize a victim — such as the instigator of a bar fight — given Stevens' emotional reaction in court and on Facebook, he arguably should have disqualified himself because his impartiality might be questioned.

Again, I'm not saying he was right to enter that into record, but that entering that into record was within his right. I understand why he said what he did, but I also agree that he shouldn't have.

Don't think I'm posting this to be a doomsday messiah. He is demonizing his race for the agenda. History shows what the end result is. They want a race war so bad in the media. They want it in the government or they would address it. I see the macro of it. It's vile and evil. I just wish the people who are going to be the victim of it all could see the trap.

I'm tired of hating. I want to live my life without hearing or living in the bull#. The thing is that I really don't have any choice but to arm myself for protecting my family. I do have the choice of not being part of the hate anymore. I see the police arming for war. I see it all. I see the ignorant spouting the hate speech. Something is coming and it's not going to be very pretty.

You give people a reason to become something they despise. It's not going to work out very well.

a reply to: Greven
Mythologies like using an Indiana based law professor for a Kentucky issue?

That is called grasping.

Per the KENTUCKY Constitution:

Section 112
(5) The Circuit Court shall have original jurisdiction of all justiciable causes not vested in some other court. It shall have such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.

(6) The Supreme Court may designate one or more divisions of Circuit Court within a judicial circuit as a family court division. A Circuit Court division so designated shall retain the general jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and shall have additional jurisdiction as may be provided by the General Assembly.

Was Judge Olu Stevens designated as a family court for this criminal case? Nope.

Does that mean that Judge Olu Stevens overstepped his boundaries, per the Kentucky Constitution, in giving his opinion, in his criminal court, on a matter that pertained to the family courts?