4merper4mer Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 Real life non-famous guy had a case where he could have potentially won at trial but ran a very significant risk of being convicted of a charge with guidelines that ran up to 8 years. The prosecutor understood that she could lose at trial so she offered a plea deal for a charge with guidelines that run ~1.5-3.5 years. He took the deal and forewent his right to trial to avoid the long sentence. Judge gave him 7 years on a first offense. He has no recourse. It happens all the time. Perhaps you should be less opinionated about topics you are painfully ignorant of. And nowhere did anyone suggest that one judge making one decision about Jared from !@#$ing Subway would be the catalyst that brought the system crumbling down. I'm a little disappointed to see you taking a page out of the book of gator with that dishonest/Dumbass ****. If anyone is going Gatorman it is you. You are in the Jared from ##$$%^ Subway thread bitching about this stuff. If it isn't about Jared's punishment then start another thread. And I am still unclear whether the example you used above, which is not Jared, is real and if so why there is no link.
Rob's House Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) If anyone is going Gatorman it is you. You are in the Jared from ##$$%^ Subway thread bitching about this stuff. If it isn't about Jared's punishment then start another thread. And I am still unclear whether the example you used above, which is not Jared, is real and if so why there is no link. There's no link because it's not something I read about. And it came up in the Jared thread because it happened to Jared. If they took Jared out behind the court and broke his legs with a cro bar I'm guessing you'd be okay with that too and would think it crazy that others were concerned that such treatment, if allowed, might befall others less deserving who somehow ran afoul of the law. Edited November 22, 2015 by Rob's House
4merper4mer Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) There's no link because it's not something I read about. And it came up in the Jared thread because it happened to Jared. If they took Jared out behind the court and broke his legs with a cro bar I'm guessing you'd be okay with that too and would think it crazy that others were concerned that such treatment, if allowed, might befall others less deserving who somehow ran afoul of the law. You're not being rational. It is possible for your overall argument, and/or an argument you're making about a different specific case to be correct and the argument you are making about the Jared case to be incorrect. You do realize that right? And the last part of your argument about the crow bar implies things that are simply not correct. But heck you are trying to win an argument in an irrational way so go ahead and double down, . Edited November 22, 2015 by 4merper4mer
Rob's House Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 You're not being rational. You just hate facts.
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 Me thinks Rob has gotten the shaft from a judge more than once! If you don't want to risk getting screwed by a flawed system, don't commit a crime. It's really not that difficult of an accomplishment.
Rob's House Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 Me thinks Rob has gotten the shaft from a judge more than once! If you don't want to risk getting screwed by a flawed system, don't commit a crime. It's really not that difficult of an accomplishment. I really don't want to be rude but this post is just so incredibly stupid on so many levels. You're so far out of your depth, and you don't even know enough to know how far out of your depth you are. If you had a clue you'd be embarrassed for having said this.
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 It is well known that federal judges retain final authority over sentencing and that they are under no obligation to accept the plea bargain that's been negotiated between felons and prosecutors. I'm quite sure that was explained ad nauseum to Mr. Fogleman, who should consider himself lucky that there's even a chance he ever sees the outside of a jail again. Ya plays the chomo game, ya takes yer chances. I don't think your solutions would change much of anything for the positive (judges already submit written explanations about why the reject sentence recommendations) and would end up taking up even more resources in a system that's already terribly overburdened. Judges are under some obligation, if only a systemic obligation to maintain the integrity of plea deals, lest they become untrusted and a useless tool in investigations. There's no personal or legal obligation otherwise that I can think of.
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 If my first statement is incorrect, I apologize. If it is correct and you were wrongly accused and sentenced for a crime you did not commit, I am very sorry and apologize. I stand by my second statement; if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about. If you are worried about the "flaws" in the system in general, exercise your vote, take up residence elsewhere or find a way to lobby for change. Using the example of a child molester getting a few years added to his "honorable deal" is a pretty poor venue for making the points you are trying to make, regardless of their validity. I stand by my third statement: not committing crimes is not that difficult.
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 If my first statement is incorrect, I apologize. If it is correct and you were wrongly accused and sentenced for a crime you did not commit, I am very sorry and apologize. I stand by my second statement; if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about. If you are worried about the "flaws" in the system in general, exercise your vote, take up residence elsewhere or find a way to lobby for change. Using the example of a child molester getting a few years added to his "honorable deal" is a pretty poor venue for making the points you are trying to make, regardless of their validity. I stand by my third statement: not committing crimes is not that difficult. You can't reconcile your first and second points. "If you were wrongly accused and sentenced for a crime you did not commit..." and "...if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about?"
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) You can't reconcile your first and second points. "If you were wrongly accused and sentenced for a crime you did not commit..." and "...if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about?" I can't help you, you're an idiot. 😇(I was responding to a specific poster by referencing statements I made in an earlier post) Edited November 22, 2015 by WotAGuy
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 I can't help you, you're an idiot. (I was responding to a specific poster by referencing statements I made in an earlier post) Yes, and your response contradicts itself. You can't admit the possibility of an innocent person being convicted and sentenced, then turn around and say "If you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about." That makes so little sense that calling you an idiot would be redundant. It actually demonstrates that you have no business discussing anything with anyone, as you can't string together two sentences into a coherent argument.
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 Yes, and your response contradicts itself. You can't admit the possibility of an innocent person being convicted and sentenced, then turn around and say "If you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about." That makes so little sense that calling you an idiot would be redundant. It actually demonstrates that you have no business discussing anything with anyone, as you can't string together two sentences into a coherent argument. "I really don't want to be rude but this post is just so incredibly stupid on so many levels. You're so far out of your depth, and you don't even know enough to know how far out of your depth you are. If you had a clue you'd be embarrassed for having said this." See what I did there? Never mind......
bbb Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 You can't reconcile your first and second points. "If you were wrongly accused and sentenced for a crime you did not commit..." and "...if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about?" He still doesn't get this
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 He still doesn't get this I know, right? I'd try to connect the dots for Tom, but I'm trying to watch a football game here.
Rob's House Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) If my first statement is incorrect, I apologize. If it is correct and you were wrongly accused and sentenced for a crime you did not commit, I am very sorry and apologize. I stand by my second statement; if you don't commit a crime you have nothing to worry about. If you are worried about the "flaws" in the system in general, exercise your vote, take up residence elsewhere or find a way to lobby for change. Using the example of a child molester getting a few years added to his "honorable deal" is a pretty poor venue for making the points you are trying to make, regardless of their validity. I stand by my third statement: not committing crimes is not that difficult. You don't need to apologize for anything other than making presumptuous ad hominem attack, but that's ok. I forgive you for that. It's actually the points you stand by that I find most ridiculous. No offense, plenty of people I care about have similar opinions as yours, so I'm not going to judge you as a person for saying that, but I have no respect for those opinions. I see your point that it doesn't matter how you treat someone who has committed a crime as primitive and a disturbing combination of naivety, self-rightousness, and ignorance. Unfortunately that's fairly common, even among otherwise reasonable people. You've stated that anything less than 100% adherence to the rules set forth collectively by mouth-whore politicians rightfully subjects one to whatever fate political judicial officers cast upon them. I couldn't disagree more. You're obviously unaware that virtually everyone could be charged with felonies with great regularity if the right person with the right information felt inclined to bring those charges. I'm guessing if we had unfettered access to the archives of your life we could put you away for a while. And even though most people who are charged with crimes are technically guilty, the number of completely innocent people who are falsely accused, particularly of domestic violence and sex crimes, is not insignificant. And plenty of other people commit "crimes" that most objective observers would understand, or at least sympathize with. God knows how many people who struggle with addiction are serving long prison sentences because it wasn't as easy for them as it is for you to stay sober. God forbid you ever had a roommate who you shoved after he intentionally defecated in your laundry. Because once you've shoved him you've forgone your right to self defense, so if he fights back causing you to have to take the fight where you never intended it to go and he gets hurt, that's your ass. Because now you've committed a crime that you may spend the better part of a decade in prison for. God forbid some dickhead cop finds you parked off the side of the road in an odd spot eating fast food and thinks it's suspicious, then starts ordering you to get down on your knees and start picking up trash that isn't yours out of a gutter, despite the fact that he has no legitimate legal authority to do so, and is in fact breaking the law himself, and you exercise your God given (and legal) right to use reasonable force to protect your rights by punching him 3 times and running away. Because if he has a superficial cut, that'll get you 10 years in prison, provided you're in the right state and in front of the right judge. But you're probably one who thinks you should get on your knees and suck the cop's dick if he tells you to, and if you don't take it you deserve what you get. Personally, I don't think that's cool, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as the proper venue goes, this wouldn't be the ideal case to go to the SC to set precedent b/c people want to mold the policy to get the desired outcome without thinking of the broader implications. It is, however, a good time to shine a light on the fact that that's what's happening. And trying to help people understand that you can't throw the rights of one scumbag away without throwing those same rights away for everyone else. Edited November 22, 2015 by Rob's House
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 You don't need to apologize for anything other than making presumptuous ad hominem attack, but that's ok. I forgive you for that. It's actually the points you stand by that I find most ridiculous. No offense, plenty of people I care about have similar opinions as yours, so I'm not going to judge you as a person for saying that, but I have no respect for those opinions. I see your point that it doesn't matter how you treat someone who has committed a crime as primitive and a disturbing combination of naivety, self-rightousness, and ignorance. Unfortunately that's fairly common, even among otherwise reasonable people. You've stated that anything less than 100% adherence to the rules set forth collectively by mouth-whore politicians rightfully subjects one to whatever fate political judicial officers cast upon them. I couldn't disagree more. You're obviously unaware that virtually everyone could be charged with felonies with great regularity if the right person with the right information felt inclined to bring those charges. I'm guessing if we had unfettered access to the archives of your life we could put you away for a while. And even though most people who are charged with crimes are technically guilty, the number of completely innocent people who are falsely accused, particularly of domestic violence and sex crimes, is not insignificant. And plenty of other people commit "crimes" that most objective observers would understand, or at least sympathize with. God knows how many people who struggle with addiction are serving long prison sentences because it wasn't as easy for them as it is for you to stay sober. God forbid you ever had a roommate who you shoved after he intentionally defecated in your laundry. Because once you've shoved him you've forgone your right to self defense, so if he fights back causing you to have to take the fight where you never intended it to go and he gets hurt, that's your ass. Because now you've committed a crime that you may spend the better part of a decade in prison for. God forbid some dickhead cop finds you parked off the side of the road in an odd spot eating fast food and thinks it's suspicious, then starts ordering you to get down on your knees and start picking up trash that isn't yours out of a gutter, despite the fact that he has no legitimate legal authority to do so and is in fact breaking the law himself, so you exercise your God given and legal right to use reasonable force to protect your rights by punching him 3 times and running away. Because if he has a superficial cut that'll get you 10 years in prison if you're in the right state and in front of the right judge. But you're probably one who thinks you should get on your knees and suck the cop's dick if he tells you to, and if you don't take it you deserve what you get. Personally, I don't think that's cool, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as the proper venue goes, this wouldn't be the ideal case to go to the SC to set precedent b/c people want to mold the policy to get the desired outcome without thinking of the broader implications. It is, however, a good time to shine a light on the fact that that's what's happening. And trying to help people understand that you can't throw the rights of one scumbag away without throwing those same rights away for everyone else. Wow. All that because Jared got three extra years? I can see you have many concerns about our system of justice and your post explains many things I did not previously understand about your position on this. So, thanks for taking the time to spell things out. And I appreciate you accepting my apology.
Rob's House Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 Wow. All that because Jared got three extra years? I can see you have many concerns about our system of justice and your post explains many things I did not previously understand about your position on this. So, thanks for taking the time to spell things out. And I appreciate you accepting my apology. That was merely the example that got the conversation going.
4merper4mer Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 That was merely the example that got the conversation going. What was the reasoning in implying That people would be happy if they took Jared behind the courthouse and beat him?
WotAGuy Posted November 22, 2015 Posted November 22, 2015 Because most of your arguments could be used to defend that as well. Jared may have preferred that to what he's likely to experience in prison.
Recommended Posts