It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defend your daughter? 20 years in prison

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


BS. The jurors could have dismissed the case. Nullified the case. Jury nullification, learn what that is.




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I think the problem with this case is that the BF didn't have a weapon.
Had he a knife or gun or some other lethal weapon then the guy would of been within his rights to protect his property.

Personally I would of shot the guy in the head and then said I was in fear for the life of my family and myself.

This case is BS. If I were on the jury I would of nullified.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Remember thyis when the Law and Order politicians demand mandatory minimum sentencing -- the judge in this case said his hands were tied because the L&O groupies have decided the judges are grown-up enough to do good judging.

This is usually what the code for "small government" means.
edit on 12-6-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Lessoned learned, aim to kill. If someone was threatening anyone in my family in anyway, and they were inside the house, they'd be dead. One warning, "Get out or you're dead." they ignore that, they get a hole in the head. Hope he gets help and the kid gets thrown to the wolves in his place.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Well, thank all those 'tough on crime' politicians for those mandatory minimums!


why didnt the guy call the cops when the perp was in his home, punching walls and his daughter?
edit on 12-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Bait them in with whinning or insults then kill them by hand.It's their fault they attacked ,no weapon involved.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by Reprobation
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Another example of the corrupt so called justice system...stupid jururs.


Jurors do not get to write their own laws you know. There were specific crimes laid out before them (read them above) and they do not have the option of looking at things outside the scope of that. Every law presented them was a no-brainer as to what their decision was with no wiggle room whatsoever.

The jurors could not have decided differently if they wanted too. The issue isn't that he broke the laws though it's more about the mandatory sentence which does not allow a judge to look at other evidence as to the reasons why a crime was committed. In this case neither the jurors or the judge could do anything to help this man out.

The law had effectively tied their hands.


The judge had the power to overturn it completely. This "mandatory minimum" crap is crap.

Also, the jury had the right of jury nullification. Unfortunately, the court is not required to tell them they have that right.

This guy was railroaded, pure and simple. [snip]ping anti-gun wingnuts are going to get us all killed.

/TOA
edit on 12-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Amazing. When courts fail to uphold justice a society stops believing in the institutions of governance. One more warning sign of a declining society, Good men can only stay silent for so long.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by Reprobation
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Another example of the corrupt so called justice system...stupid jururs.


Jurors do not get to write their own laws you know. There were specific crimes laid out before them (read them above) and they do not have the option of looking at things outside the scope of that. Every law presented them was a no-brainer as to what their decision was with no wiggle room whatsoever.

The jurors could not have decided differently if they wanted too. The issue isn't that he broke the laws though it's more about the mandatory sentence which does not allow a judge to look at other evidence as to the reasons why a crime was committed. In this case neither the jurors or the judge could do anything to help this man out.

The law had effectively tied their hands.



BS! - that is why it is a jury of you peers, so that it needs to pass the commonsense test - they were at fault for being complete sheep - if they knew in their gut thst this was an injustice there is no-way they should have convicted, likewise the Judge! even if it meant having to explain himself in front of a commitee.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Mandatory minimums need to go away.

They've destroyed enough lives while proving they're useless to fulfilling their promised goals.

Abolish mandatory minimums across the board. They don't do any good for anybody.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
oj got off by a jury of his peers and he killed someone.

the jury of peers here are as stupid as a boxes of rocks.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
What do you want to bet the girlfriend is still with the idiot abusive boyfriend!
Nothing surprises me anymore.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


In instances like this, it should be the responsibility of lawful citizens to raid the jailhouse and free this man from being incarcerated without committing a crime! Why in the world do we allow our corrupt judicial system destroy the lives of innocent people, while striving to protect the rights and lives of those truly guilty of heinous crimes?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


alright i will eat crow on this one cause i am in error but the usual suspects hate guns.

10-20-life back in 1998 rampant gun crimes led to this and jeb bush with the support of local legislation passed the law.

use a gun and your gone
during a crime

pull a gun-10 years
fire a gun-20 years
shot someone 25 to life

www.dc.state.fl.us...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Gotta have mandatory sentencing minimums to show each other how "tough on crime" we are, you know. Ever campaign, harsher sentences, so we can thump out chests about how macho and tough we're going to be on "those criminals" - of course, "those criminals" are just people, they're not a separate species from the rest of us, as this case shows.

Zero tolerance doesn't work in schools and mandatory minimums don't work in the courts. People need to learn how to be adults already.
edit on 12/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
honestly you know who write gun control laws if they cant ban guns outright

this is the flip side of the arguement.

own a gun go to jail if it s not on a list that we tell you that you can own.

use a gun but only if we deem it to be a lawful act or else you go to jail.

not to make this partisan but you know what party wrote that manditory bs.


Yes, the Republican tough on crime politicians did. Glad you noticed.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


with the left all to happy to oblige.




top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join