Page 224 of 756 FirstFirst ... 124174214220221222223224225226227228234274324724 ... LastLast
Results 3,346 to 3,360 of 11339
  1. #3346
    Peachtree St. Irregular Loren's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    5,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7thangel View Post
    Marissa Alexander has been sentenced to 20 years...
    http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2...nd-your-ground
    From the article: "Circuit Judge James Daniel said Florida’s “10-20-Life” statutes take any discretion he might have afforded her out of his hands."

    This refers to a Florida statute that imposes mandatory minimum sentences in firearm cases. It includes:

    - Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device
    - Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
    - Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed
    Thus, as the Judge pointed out, he had no option BUT to sentence her to 20 years. She was convicted of a crime that involved firing a gun. Twenty years was the LEAST he was allowed to give her.

    This is yet another example of why mandatory minimum sentencing is a bad thing.

  2. #3347
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,772

    Default

    Zimmerman also fired a gun I wonder what that means for him ... Madatory minimum is definelty a bad thing.

  3. #3348
    Idaho Spuds Slam_Bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    16,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kane View Post
    I do not see a wrong behaviour here. In dubio pro reo and innocent until proven guilty are the basics of every normal law system. Zimmerman so far was not proven guilty by a court. Supporting someone who was not proven guilty in a court is okay in my eyes, if you think he needs the money to defend himself. Otherwise you should condemn every person who supports an accused and helps him to defend himself in court.

    Zimmerman has to be seen as an innocent until a court tells us otherwise.
    No. He's not.

    He's innocent in the eyes of the law until proven otherwise. That presumption is only binding on the court and has absolutely nothing to do with the way the public does or should see him.

    According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

  4. #3349
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Where the streets have no name.
    Posts
    25,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loren View Post
    From the article: "Circuit Judge James Daniel said Florida’s “10-20-Life” statutes take any discretion he might have afforded her out of his hands."

    This refers to a Florida statute that imposes mandatory minimum sentences in firearm cases. It includes:



    Thus, as the Judge pointed out, he had no option BUT to sentence her to 20 years. She was convicted of a crime that involved firing a gun. Twenty years was the LEAST he was allowed to give her.

    This is yet another example of why mandatory minimum sentencing is a bad thing.
    So basically anytime someone shoots a gun off they get 20 years no matter what? that's some really fucked up ignorant closed minded thinking.

    How much you wanna bet good ole Florida doesn't impose this law across the board since their jails would be over filled especially with people who are claiming self-defense.

    It's funny to see all the stupid racist excuses "well IF the bullet had ricochet it might have hit one of the poor kids" yeah but it didn't so that kind of speculation is completely out of bounds and just goes to show what kind of excuses they will make to throw a poor black woman in jail.

    I also think it's funny how the judge says that her going back into the house is not "consistent with the mind set of someone who was in fear for her life" really? so what other excuse can you think of why she would run back into the house and fire a warning shot? was she just wanting to get her rocks off or prove she was "gangsta"? admit you know that's what they were thinking.


    Her husband has already been proven and admitted to practicing domestic violence against her and other women so there is no way you can speculate that she wasn't firing the gun to protect herself.


    If you think for a minute that these mandatory minimum sentences only apply to black people or people of colour then i would like to see the proof that white people get the same treatment.

  5. #3350
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slam_Bradley View Post
    No. He's not.

    He's innocent in the eyes of the law until proven otherwise. That presumption is only binding on the court and has absolutely nothing to do with the way the public does or should see him.

    According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.
    This might be, I am not an US-American lawyer, so I cannot comment on your statement regarding the supreme court and the implications of the judgement. I also did not want to say, that the innocent until proven guilty rule has to apply outside the court, I just wanted to say that in my opinion it should (not by enforcing it by law, but because I think it is a good rule, which people should use also outside the court voluntarily). I do not share the opinion that supporting a person accused of a crime in a legal way is somehow wrong, because in my eyes the defendant has every right to take support and other people have the right to support him, without a prejudgement on the accused or a bad opinion on the supporter. This said I stated my opinion, which other people do not share and so the best way in such a sensible topic is just to agree to disagree.
    Three armed cops and a writer makes four. You’re under arrest, so get on the floor.

    Master Yoda on clubbing: "Always two there are, no more, no less: a hot chick and her fat friend."

  6. #3351
    Hardcover addict dupont2005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    16,999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavemold View Post
    Zimmerman also fired a gun I wonder what that means for him ... Madatory minimum is definelty a bad thing.
    Oh, I have a feeling it won't mean 20 years for him
    The Copper Age is my Golden Age
    My 2014 1000 comic progress

  7. #3352
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dupont2005 View Post
    Oh, I have a feeling it won't mean 20 years for him
    He's charged with life.....

  8. #3353
    Hardcover addict dupont2005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    16,999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavemold View Post
    He's charged with life.....
    He's charged with murder, not life.
    The Copper Age is my Golden Age
    My 2014 1000 comic progress

  9. #3354
    I'm not a sidekick Kasper Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,300

    Default

    Since some still don't seem to get it maybe it needs to be stated again:

    George Zimmerman chased down and killed an unarmed teenager, that is a fact.

    From a moral standpoint George Zimmerman is guilty as sin. The entire incident is HIS fault and if he didn't decide to get out of that car and chase that boy down Trayvon would still be alive.

    If the "Stand your ground" defense is thrown out you can bet your ass that regardless of the criminal court decision there'll be a civil suit and Zimmerman will lose.

  10. #3355
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Where the streets have no name.
    Posts
    25,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper Cole View Post
    Since some still don't seem to get it maybe it needs to be stated again:

    George Zimmerman chased down and killed an unarmed teenager, that is a fact.

    From a moral standpoint George Zimmerman is guilty as sin. The entire incident is HIS fault and if he didn't decide to get out of that car and chase that boy down Trayvon would still be alive.

    If the "Stand your ground" defense is thrown out you can bet your ass that regardless of the criminal court decision there'll be a civil suit and Zimmerman will lose.
    But noone compares to a civil suit especially since you can avoid paying for years like O.J.

  11. #3356
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneGold View Post
    It's funny, I'm thinking, that's genius level of marketing. But how dead inside as a human being would I have to be to capitalize on it?
    If you buy into the Scary Negro Predator bit, not very.

    The question is how clueless (at best) or bigoted (fairly likely) to you have to be to buy into the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper Cole View Post
    Since some still don't seem to get it maybe it needs to be stated again:

    George Zimmerman chased down and killed an unarmed teenager, that is a fact.

    From a moral standpoint George Zimmerman is guilty as sin. The entire incident is HIS fault and if he didn't decide to get out of that car and chase that boy down Trayvon would still be alive.
    The claim is repeatedly made that he A) Was justified in tracking the guy due to the crime problem and B) Was returning to his car when attacked out of the blue.

    A) Is arguable, maybe. B) Is rather inconsistent with the recordings of Martin's telephone calls.

  12. #3357
    Peachtree St. Irregular Loren's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    5,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pariah-1972 View Post
    So basically anytime someone shoots a gun off they get 20 years no matter what? that's some really fucked up ignorant closed minded thinking.
    The practice of statutory mandatory minimums began as a way of standardizing sentencing. Really, it was to *avoid* outcomes where it could be alleged that judges had taken things like race into account in their sentencing.

    But the downside of mandatory minimums is that it completely strips the judge of any discretion or leniency. And so when faced with a defendant who meets the letter of the crime but not really the spirit of it, there's no option of imposing a lesser sentence. When there are sympathetic factors, they cannot be taken into account.

    Georgia saw this play out with the case of Genarlow Wilson, who was a 17-year-old who had oral sex with a 15-year-old. The girl said it was consensual. But because of the age difference, and she was not legally old enough to consent, that made it statutory rape, and Wilson was convicted of child molestation. And under Georgia's mandatory minimum system, that got Wilson an automatic 10 years in prison without parole. (That sentence was later overturned as cruel and unusual on appeal, in part because the law he was convicted under was subsequently changed to a misdemeanor.)

  13. #3358
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Where the streets have no name.
    Posts
    25,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loren View Post
    The practice of statutory mandatory minimums began as a way of standardizing sentencing. Really, it was to *avoid* outcomes where it could be alleged that judges had taken things like race into account in their sentencing.

    But the downside of mandatory minimums is that it completely strips the judge of any discretion or leniency. And so when faced with a defendant who meets the letter of the crime but not really the spirit of it, there's no option of imposing a lesser sentence. When there are sympathetic factors, they cannot be taken into account.

    Georgia saw this play out with the case of Genarlow Wilson, who was a 17-year-old who had oral sex with a 15-year-old. The girl said it was consensual. But because of the age difference, and she was not legally old enough to consent, that made it statutory rape, and Wilson was convicted of child molestation. And under Georgia's mandatory minimum system, that got Wilson an automatic 10 years in prison without parole. (That sentence was later overturned as cruel and unusual on appeal, in part because the law he was convicted under was subsequently changed to a misdemeanor.)
    I think i heard about this but i just can't understand why anyone thinks there is something wrong with a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old consensually since they are both under-age (i think 17 is under-age but it seems to change depending on the state i guess?) but they are both teenagers so what law does it violate? i mean 17 and 15 year olds hook up all the time right? how is this considered a crime.

    oh wait the 17 year old was black right?

  14. #3359
    Goblin Cult wc662's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Algren View Post
    ‘Trayvon Martin’ gun range targets sold out in two days

    Photos of the item, which was titled “10 Pack Trayvon Martin Targets,” showed crosshairs over a hoodie similar to the one Trayvon Martin was wearing when he was shot by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in February. The figure has a bag of Skittle in his pocket and is holding what appears to be a can of iced tea, similar to what Martin had purchased before being gunned down. The pack of 10 targets was being sold for $8.

    “Everyone knows the story of Zimmerman and Martin,” a description on the targets reads. “Obviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug. Each target is printed on thick, high quality poster paper with a matte finish! The dimensions are 12″x18″ ( The same as Darkotic Zombie Targets) This is a Ten Pack of Targets.”

    The seller’s ID was listed as “hillerarmco” from Virginia Beach, Virginia. A website by the same name is registered to Hiller Armament Company in Virginia Beach, but the associated phone number had been disconnected.



    Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara told WKMG that this type of “hatred” just makes his client’s defense even more problematic.

    “This is the highest level of disgust and the lowest level of civility,” O’Mara said. “It’s this type of hatred — that’s what this is, it’s hate-mongering — that’s going to make it more difficult to try this case.”

    “I hope there is a crime that we can charge that person who made that with,” he added. “I’m not sure what it is, but we need to come up with one because that’s disgusting.”
    wow, really? some redneck made targets and got rich from this? only in america, wtf

    Since some still don't seem to get it maybe it needs to be stated again:

    George Zimmerman chased down and killed an unarmed teenager, that is a fact.

    From a moral standpoint George Zimmerman is guilty as sin. The entire incident is HIS fault and if he didn't decide to get out of that car and chase that boy down Trayvon would still be alive.

    If the "Stand your ground" defense is thrown out you can bet your ass that regardless of the criminal court decision there'll be a civil suit and Zimmerman will lose.
    On point. I don't think standing your ground applies to chasing and gunning teenagers down though.
    Thing of the naow: Please let Scott Summer die in AVX

  15. #3360
    MXAAGVNIEETRO were right The Black Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    14,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wc662 View Post
    wow, really? some redneck made targets and got rich from this? only in america, wtf
    I wonder if Chuck D could sue for trademark infringement.
    COEXIST | NOEXIST

    ShadowcatMagikДаякѕтая Sto☈mDustMercury MonetRachelCipher
    MagnetoNightcrawlerColossusRockslideBeastXavier

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •