Reply With Quote
I just love it when Cons utional rights are considered to be "technicalities."
Here is a San Antone/Austin one:
SAN ANTONIO — A man who confessed in group therapy to inappropriately touching a 5-year-old girl, leading to his arrest a week later, was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years deferred adjudication probation.
Richard Maxwell Residor, who turns 28 Wednesday, will not have a conviction on his record for the second-degree felony offense of indecency with a child if he successfully completes his decade of probation.
Residor was initially arrested on a charge of continuous sexual abuse of a child after telling police the touching happened at least three times over several months in 2011 and 2012. However, Residor pleaded guilty in February to the lesser charge as part of an agreement with prosecutors that also capped his possible punishment at 20 years in prison.
The district attorney's office was opposed to probation, according to plea paperwork. Visiting Judge George Godwin decided the sentence.
Residor was in Austin at a three-day therapy and self-help seminar in September 2012 when he made the confession to the group, court records indicate. A Child Protective Services investigator, accompanied by San Antonio police for backup, showed up a week later at his Southwest Side apartment to investigate the anonymous tip that had come from a meeting attendee.
rest of article:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...py-5439713.php
I just love it when Cons utional rights are considered to be "technicalities."
no, but you're saying they're all guilty.
So when one is guilty, but gets off "Cons utionally" you are just fine with that. Wow.
try to have a minute amount of game, FlakeHumper.
i think you're the only one here that thinks you're winning at your game
The Cons ution means what it says or it doesn't.
I guess you think it doesn't really mean what it says.
As said previously, the day may well come (I hope it does not but if it does) where you or one of yours is a victim and you'll change your tune.
Again, the number of cir stances in which those who are convicted of a crime truly "get off" is extremely small for a substantial number of reasons. Even the examples you've posted here are instances in which the accused/convicted were only given new trials and my guess would be that in most of those new trials, the same result -- conviction -- obtained. I don't see it as a trifle that the State be required to dot it's i's and cross it's t's as a predicate to depriving a person of liberty (and, sometimes, life).
Suppose for one second that we had proof that an executed "murderer" (i.e., someone the state has already killed) was not given a fair trial and that had he been given a fair trial, proof that established his innocence would have come in. Are you cool with his execution because someone at some point in time thought he was probably guilty?
Oh i don't think i am, i know i am.
As to me not participating in the SpursTalk Troll contest "Whoever gets the most responses regardless of subject gets to give a rim job to the other trolls" i just ignore. You can keep competing. Most of the SpursTalk "debates" are likely the same poster on opposing sides. IDGAF.
The fact that I don't answer the question the way that you want me to doesn't make my answer indirect or irrelevant. But, as I've said before, I steadfastly agree with the legion of legal scholars who believe that it would be better to let 100 guilty people go than to let 1 innocent person be convicted.
As said previously, the day may well come (I hope it does not but if it does) where you or one of yours is a victim and you'll change your tune.
As for your hypothesis about the certainly of my belief, I can assure you that you're wrong because I believe in both the protections afforded by the Cons ution and the need for the State to adhere to those things. What I couldn't ever countenance is the possibility that someone who is falsely alleged to have victimized someone I care about has been wrongly imprisoned.
lol
"winning" on the internet.
What happened here?
Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club.
Quit worrying about ing Aaron Hernandez. You realize the Spurs are playing tonight? Can you pull up your panties for one goddamn moment and help root the Spurs on to victory?What happened here?
Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club.
I'm not worrying about AH. I want him to die in prison.
it sounds like you're worrying that he won't die in prison.
Anyway, put on your nylons and stilettos, shove in a couple of tampons. And let's get thing started. Gonna be a bumpy ride but the Spurs are going to ring this year.
Are you in? Or are you going to sit there hunkered down in a pool of urine and spilt salsa and hope the boogeyman Aaron Hernandez doesn't find you?
The difference for me and you is that I wasn't competing to begin with; I'm here in this thread for my own edification.Oh i don't think i am, i know i am.
As to me not participating in the SpursTalk Troll contest "Whoever gets the most responses regardless of subject gets to give a rim job to the other trolls" i just ignore. You can keep competing. Most of the SpursTalk "debates" are likely the same poster on opposing sides. IDGAF.
But feel free to go make yourself a trophy if it helps det ego.
They showed a clip of that?Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club.
Ya do?
Okay.
Courtesy of boutons:
more abuse of 1st Amendment which guarantees Freedom of Upskirt Photos
Pervs in Texas Can Still Legally Snap Photos Up Women's Skirts, Court Rules
Ensuring that creeps will still be able to slip their camera phones under unsuspecting women's skirts, snap photos, then plaster them all over the Internet, Texas' highest criminal court struck down part of a law that would have banned “upskirt” photos [3] this week.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that banning "improper photography or visual recording," goes against First Amendment freedom of speech rights. It argued that photos taken without permission in public are protected, and went as far as to say that such a ban was "paternalistic" as it would attempt to regulate photographer's thoughts.
In the court’s 8-1 opinion Judge Sharon Keller wrote:
“The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush. A person’s purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is en led to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.”
http://www.alternet.org/gender/pervs-texas-can-still-legally-snap-photos-womens-skirts-court-rules?akid=12266.187590.tsPiAA&rd=1&src=newsletter 1019995&t=7
holy , TX, and its Repug judges, are really really ed up.
Ironically, those judges are the ones who are most likely to side with your arguments about the conduct of a criminal trial through limiting the relative rights of criminal defendants.
I guess they're brilliant when they rule that way.
Of course Hernadez and co killers missing tennis shoes are pure coincidence.
The prosecution showed before-and-after photos of a closet in Hernandez's home in North Attleboro. One photo from June 2013 showed the sneakers Hernandez wore the night Lloyd was killed. It also showed the shoes Hernandez associate Carlos Ortiz wore the same night. The two pairs of shoes rested on top of a bunch of other shoes.
In the second photo, taken in November 2014, the same closet is seen with all of the shoes except the ones Hernandez and Ortiz were wearing the night of the shooting. They were no longer in the closet or any other part of the house.
Prosecutors wanted to link Jenkins to the disappearance of the shoes. McCauley referred to the defendant's jailhouse comments that "she does what I want," referring to Jenkins.
video.Anyway, did anyone see the chick named Kasey on the stand yesterday? Showed her bumping and grinding on AH at the club.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/21/us/aar...-murder-trial/
Baby Mama looks guilty in about every court photo.
Wonder how much Hernandez paid her / has dirt / bullies threatened her to shut up?
which counts as evidence in the fabbs court system
Bradley, another fine associate of choir boi Hernandez.
Should the prosecution let him testify?
Judge Kuunt has said he cannot comment on Henandez shooting him between the eyes. That would be too relevant.
However if he decides F it, im telling the jury that Hernandez shot me, it's grounds for a mistrial.
The US Injustice system. Lovely.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi...ernandez_trial
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
