Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Strike

Judge throws out rape conviction so he doesn't have to impose mandatory sentence.

Recommended Posts

From what I have read some of the rationale offered by the judge is pretty bad....

That being said, the details of what transpired in this case are pretty bad too, like there is little justification for the shift....

OK, with that out of the way i wish they would do this when some poor kid gets his life ruined because his consenting girl friend was a little too young....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

From what I have read some of the rationale offered by the judge is pretty bad....

That being said, the details of what transpired in this case are pretty bad too, like there is little justification for the shift....

OK, with that out of the way i wish they would do this when some poor kid gets his life ruined because his consenting girl friend was a little too young....

Ya think?

Quote

 

"Mr. Clinton has served almost five months in the county jail, 148 days," Adrian said, according to the court transcript of the hearing posted online by local media. "For what happened in this case, that is plenty of punishment. That would be a just sentence."

"There is no way," the judge explained, "for what happened in this case that this teenager should go to the Department of Corrections. I will not do that."

But the judge said if he were to rule that the sentencing statute he was bound to follow was unconstitutional, his decision would be overturned, and Clinton would be ordered to prison. In order to avoid an appeal he believed would be successful, Adrian said what he could do was determine that prosecutors had failed to "prove their case" and dismiss the sexual assault charge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old?

Yeah that's a tough one to send the dude to prison for.  I side with the judge.

Quote

 

During the trial, the judge heard evidence that the girl had told police she'd attended the party, where she drank alcohol and swam in a pool in her underwear before she eventually passed out. She said she woke up to a pillow pushed on her face and Clinton sexually assaulting her.

According to the police report, the teen was able to push Clinton off of her and then told a friend what happened. She later told her father, who called the police.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old?

Yeah that's a tough one to send the dude to prison for.  I side with the judge.

1)  The age of consent in that state is 17.  At the very least he's guilty of statutory rape.

2)  Do you usually hold pillows over the face of girls you have sex with? 

3)  The same judge found him GUILTY.  He then vacated that judgment simply because he felt the mandatory sentence was too harsh.  Whether you agree with the mandatory sentence or not, you should be appalled that a judge would vacate a guilty finding in order to avoid having to impose the state mandated sentence.  That's not how our system is supposed to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

whoops.

Fock that judge for letting the rapist go free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strike said:

1)  The age of consent in that state is 17.  At the very least he's guilty of statutory rape.

2)  Do you usually hold pillows over the face of girls kids you have sex with? 

Fixed

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

18 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old?

Yeah that's a tough one to send the dude to prison for.  I side with the judge.

He was convicted of sexual assault. I don't think it was consensual.  

"She said she woke up to a pillow pushed on her face and Clinton sexually assaulting her."

If that is indeed the case the dude should have given the kid whatever the penalty calls for. 

In cases of an 18 year old guy dating and having sex with a 16 year old, should be thrown out completely. In that case we are talking about 2 years difference in age. Big focking deal. 

All states are different in that law I think. Some of those laws are stupid. Years ago I heard about a 20yo guy who was dating a 17yo girl in Georgia I think it was, and since they had been having sex the dude got prosecuted and thrown in prison for 7 years. That's dumb ass shlt right there. That was a while ago and I think the laws may have changed since then but not sure. 

Laws that that cut and dry are stupid. You can be 20 years 364 days and 23 hours old, and it's illegal for you to drink alcohol. One hour later, you are now mature enough to drink. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strike said:

2)  Do you usually hold pillows over the face of girls you have sex with? 

 

Does putting a bag over yer mom's head count? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny, depending on the age of consent, let's say it's 17. If you are 50 and nail the girl a day before her 17th birthday, you go away for a long time. One day later, you can nail the chick all you like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

It's funny, depending on the age of consent, let's say it's 17. If you are 50 and nail the girl a day before her 17th birthday, you go away for a long time. One day later, you can nail the chick all you like. 

That's why everyone needs an ID!!!!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strike said:

Ya think?

 

 

Quote

Adrian parenthetically said adults at the party were to blame for Vaughan’s assault. He said they abandoned their parental duties and suggested that sexual assault is what happens when parents hold “parties for teenagers, and they allow coeds and female people to swim in their underwear in their swimming pool.”

Rink

 

I have an issue with him accusing the parents, making this THEIR fault...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gladiators said:

That's why everyone needs an ID!!!!

Well, any of the 18 year olds I nailed in the past were white and had no problems figuring out how to get an ID. Sooo....:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DonS said:

Does putting a bag over yer mom's head count? 

Nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory sentences are absurd. Brought to you politicians who campaign to be "tough on crime" and moronic voters who elect them.

It's insane to pass a sentence without ever hearing the facts and merits of the case. That's what judges are for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GobbleDog said:

Mandatory sentences are absurd. Brought to you politicians who campaign to be "tough on crime" and moronic voters who elect them.

It's insane to pass a sentence without ever hearing the facts and merits of the case. That's what judges are for.

Wat?  You don't impose a sentence until AFTER you've heard the facts and merits of the case.  That's how our judicial system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GobbleDog said:

Mandatory sentences are absurd. Brought to you politicians who campaign to be "tough on crime" and moronic voters who elect them.

It's insane to pass a sentence without ever hearing the facts and merits of the case. That's what judges are for.

The problem is judges weren’t passing fair sentences. Blame them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The problem is judges weren’t passing fair sentences. Blame them. 

Then vote them out. But don't make blanket sentences for cases that haven't even been heard yet.

It's so disgustingly unjust that it's surprising it actually happens in the U.S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GobbleDog said:

Then vote them out. But don't make blanket sentences for cases that haven't even been heard yet.

It's so disgustingly unjust that it's surprising it actually happens in the U.S. 

Again, I have to say WAT?????  This case was heard.  He was found guilty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Again, I have to say WAT?????  This case was heard.  He was found guilty. 

Mandatory sentences are made by politicians for future cases. None of those cases have been heard yet.  If a defendant is found guilty of a certain crime, the minimum sentence has already been determined by a politician. That's ridiculous.

"After listening to the facts and merits of this case, I think the fair and just thing to do is sentence you to 2 years in prison. Unfortunately for you, a politician who was running on a "get tough on crime" campaign years ago, passed a law requiring me to sentence you to at least 50 years. Sorry. "

That's American justice?  That's sickening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Mandatory sentences are made by politicians for future cases. None of those cases have been heard yet.  If a defendant is found guilty of a certain crime, the minimum sentence has already been determined by a politician. That's ridiculous.

"After listening to the facts and merits of this case, I think the fair and just thing to do is sentence you to 2 years in prison. Unfortunately for you, a politician who was running on a "get tough on crime" campaign years ago, passed a law requiring me to sentence you to at least 50 years. Sorry. "

That's American justice?  That's sickening.

Then vote the politicians out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

Mandatory sentences are made by politicians for future cases. None of those cases have been heard yet.  If a defendant is found guilty of a certain crime, the minimum sentence has already been determined by a politician. That's ridiculous.

"After listening to the facts and merits of this case, I think the fair and just thing to do is sentence you to 2 years in prison. Unfortunately for you, a politician who was running on a "get tough on crime" campaign years ago, passed a law requiring me to sentence you to at least 50 years. Sorry. "

That's American justice?  That's sickening.

Don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Then vote the politicians out. 

The point is judges should determine sentences, not politicians.  Let people who actually heard the case decide. 

The "3 strikes" law sounds good to voters tired of crime, but they don't realize the unintended consequences. There's numerous cases where people got life sentences for rather petty crimes.  That's not justice, it's not an efficient use of resources, and it doesn't help society.

Strike is the perfect example of voters who don't get that. He's "tough on crime" regardless of the reality.  American justice is supposed to be fair and just. Not cater to the whims of power hungry politicians and ignorant voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GobbleDog said:

The point is judges should determine sentences, not politicians.  Let people who actually heard the case decide. 

The "3 strikes" law sounds good to voters tired of crime, but they don't realize the unintended consequences. There's numerous cases where people got life sentences for rather petty crimes.  That's not justice, it's not an efficient use of resources, and it doesn't help society.

Strike is the perfect example of voters who don't get that. He's "tough on crime" regardless of the reality.  American justice is supposed to be fair and just. Not cater to the whims of power hungry politicians and ignorant voters.

If a judge runs for office isn’t he a politician? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GobbleDog said:

The point is judges should determine sentences, not politicians.  Let people who actually heard the case decide. 

The "3 strikes" law sounds good to voters tired of crime, but they don't realize the unintended consequences. There's numerous cases where people got life sentences for rather petty crimes.  That's not justice, it's not an efficient use of resources, and it doesn't help society.

Strike is the perfect example of voters who don't get that. He's "tough on crime" regardless of the reality.  American justice is supposed to be fair and just. Not cater to the whims of power hungry politicians and ignorant voters.

There's nothing wrong with having a minimum sentence.  Funny thing is the libs like you are the ones who always complained about POC getting harsher sentences than whitey.  One of the results of these types of laws is a more uniform sentence for similar crimes.  I have no problem with that.

But, your tangent notwithstanding, I have ZERO problem with a four year sentence for an 18 year old adult raping a 16 year old unconscious child, putting a pillow over her face to mute her screams.  It's pretty disgusting that you think that is not appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

There's nothing wrong with having a minimum sentence.  Funny thing is the libs like you are the ones who always complained about POC getting harsher sentences than whitey.  One of the results of these types of laws is a more uniform sentence for similar crimes.  I have no problem with that.

But, your tangent notwithstanding, I have ZERO problem with a four year sentence for an 18 year old adult raping a 16 year old unconscious child, putting a pillow over her face to mute her screams.  It's pretty disgusting that you think that is not appropriate.

There's a lot wrong with minimum sentences as stated - the main problem being it isn't justice.

The "you're a lib" doesn't fit, as I mostly vote Republican. You should've said "you're too open minded and don't blindly agree with everything Republicans believe like I do." That would be true.

As for this particular case... I didn't even read it. But I'll go with whatever the judge thinks is appropriate. After all, he's heard all the facts and merits of the case. I haven't. Have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GobbleDog said:

There's a lot wrong with minimum sentences as stated - the main problem being it isn't justice.

The "you're a lib" doesn't fit, as I mostly vote Republican. You should've said "you're too open minded and don't blindly agree with everything Republicans believe like I do." That would be true.

As for this particular case... I didn't even read it. But I'll go with whatever the judge thinks is appropriate. After all, he's heard all the facts and merits of the case. I haven't. Have you?

Sure you do. Just like Timmy Hack.  I've read enough about this case.  I know the judge ruled that the guy was guilty of raping the girl.  He just disagreed with the mandatory sentence.  But that's not in his job description.  Regardless of whether you think the minimum sentence is too harsh, and I don't, you should be appalled that a judge would vacate a guilty verdict because of the minimum sentence he is required to impose.  We have mechanisms for dealing with laws we don't like.  Circumventing them isn't one.  I suspect this judge will be run out of town or lose his next election, as he should.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to need to know the race of the perp and the victim in this case before I can pass judgment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NorthernVike said:

I'm going to need to know the race of the perp and the victim in this case before I can pass judgment. 

Both white for this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Both white for this one.

Is she cute?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Utilit99 said:

Laws that that cut and dry are stupid. You can be 20 years 364 days and 23 hours old, and it's illegal for you to drink alcohol. One hour later, you are now mature enough to drink. 

This reminds me of a hilarious & true story I once read.

A 20.5 year old 'kid' got caught drinking.

His defense ? 

Told the judge he believes life begins at conception so he was actually 21.4 years old........he lost

Have to give him credit for coming up with that though!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the rapist face, I have to place a little more blame on the victim.  One look at that focker and you know he's a raper, you can't go to sleep in an area where he's around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it happened the way she described, yeah, he should definitely do some hard time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

After seeing the rapist face, I have to place a little more blame on the victim.  One look at that focker and you know he's a raper, you can't go to sleep in an area where he's around.

Looked him up on Google images & you're right, there's definitely something off about him.

Almost looks like he's wearing red lipstick. Wondering if 'he' isn't in trans-mission :)

https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME6DOKG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strike said:

Fock him.  He deserves four years in jail.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×