Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on October 08, 2004, 09:48:50 AM
-
source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63478-2004Sep30.html)
D.C. Jail Stay Ends in Death For Quadriplegic Md. Man
Care Provided by Hospital, Corrections Dept. in Question
By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page B01
Jonathan Magbie, a 27-year-old Mitchellville man, was sent to jail in the District last week for 10 days for marijuana possession.
He never made it home.
Paralyzed as a child and unable to even breathe on his own, Magbie died last Friday after being shuttled between the D.C. jail complex and Greater Southeast Community Hospital.
At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate.
An investigation is underway, but that is little solace to his family, which marched on the courthouse this week with signs accusing the judge of killing Magbie.
"I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been punished, because he did smoke the marijuana," his mother, Mary Scott, said yesterday, a day after burying her son. "I just don't think it should have cost him his life."
By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.
But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.
Police, she pointed out, found a gun and cocaine in the vehicle in which Magbie was stopped in April 2003. And, despite pleading guilty to the marijuana charge, Magbie told pre-sentence investigators that he would continue using the drug, which he said made him feel better.
"Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
Details about Magbie's death were first reported by WJLA-TV. Magbie was struck by a drunk driver when he was 4 years old; he was paralyzed from the neck down, and his growth was stunted. Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds, he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.
In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family."
Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.
"I certainly would not say they killed him or any conclusion like that," Fornaci said. "But it certainly seems likely that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't gone to jail."
There are so many things wrong here, it's hard to pick a starting point. While there was a gun found in the car, and that appears to be the Judges motivation, did she honestly believe the gun belonged to a quadriplegic and he was a threat to public safety? My guess is the fact he smoked marijuana for medicinal purposes and was unrepentant was her driving force. That and a "tough on dopers" sentencing record to brag about during elections.
-
Terrible story but ya I think we can all agree the gun was probably not his.. Its hard for me too understand the self rightous motivation that made the judge hand down such a worthless sentence. Keep in mind this happening during a time of pro football players having thier jail time pushed forward till after the season..
!amazed
-
Police, she pointed out, found a gun and cocaine in the vehicle in which Magbie was stopped in April 2003. And, despite pleading guilty to the marijuana charge, Magbie told pre-sentence investigators that he would continue using the drug, which he said made him feel better.
Maybe show a little remorse and sound judgment and you might have got off w/ a slap on the wrist.
Paralyzed or not he still broke the law. Tards!
-
Sorry Gunslinger, I can't buy into that. Not in this case. The Judge was clearly pushing a private agenda.
By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.
But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.
-
Such a fuss over some plants that have real medicinal benefits (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3058610a12,00.html)
-
Curval, there are no medical uses for marijuana. It's only use is to fund terrorism. The US government tells me so.
-
The Judge should be tried for manslauter, and hung out to dry! :mad:
-
Originally posted by rpm
Curval, there are no medical uses for marijuana. It's only use is to fund terrorism. The US government tells me so.
lol.
:aok
-
I am with you on this one RPM.
She should be in the can herself, I thought when you pleade guilty to a lessor charge they can not bring up the other stuff as part of the deal?
on top of that how the hell is was this kid going to use a gun? It is scary sad this women is a judge.
-
After reading the article it seems it wasn't the marijuanna that got him the jail time, it was the mere presence of a firearm in the vehicle. Funny the cocaine wasn't even mentioned by the judge. I could see the angle of cocaine would make things worse but it was the presence of a firearm that wigged out the judge. Since the guy was totally paralyzed and therefore unable to use the weapon, this is hardly relevant to the sentence handed out.
I'd be interested in knowing who the gun belongs to if this guy is incapable of using his arms and legs as per the article. BTW who drove the car???
Quote: "Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
on top of that how the hell is was this kid going to use a gun?
He can smoke marijuana and use cocaine but can't pull a trigger?
-
Originally posted by myelo
He can smoke marijuana and use cocaine but can't pull a trigger?
Yeah and he can do all that while apparently not being able to breath on his own.
Sounds like a lot BS to me.
The guy copped a plea to the pot to avoid the gun/coke charge expecting to get a slap on th wrist.
He only got 10 days, BFD. The article doesnt say what killed him. The Judge sure didn't. Everyone knows the problems DC has with drugs and guns. 10 days is nothing.
Anyone know what his cause of death was?
-
myelo
He drove the wheel chair with Chin movements cause he just couldnt be bothered to use his hands?
Did you read the artical?
Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds, he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.
Maybe He can pull the trigger with his chin?
-
Maybe He can pull the trigger with his chin?
lol or his tonge perhaps?? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/thedudeDVant/2gunsfiring.gif) :rofl
-
Man, i'm really wondering, how the **** did he do this?
Unfortunate that he died, **** happens.
But how?!?!?
-
Unless he had magical telepathy powers, he had no business being incarcerated. He was a quad, with no ability to harm anyone. He required an intense amount of supervision just to stay alive. Of course the "rent-a-cops" at the private jail had better things to do than suction the mucus out of his lungs constantly.
The Judge ought to be disbarred.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Unless he had magical telepathy powers, he had no business being incarcerated. He was a quad, with no ability to harm anyone. He required an intense amount of supervision just to stay alive. Of course the "rent-a-cops" at the private jail had better things to do than suction the mucus out of his lungs constantly.
The Judge ought to be disbarred.
Agreed
-
Originally posted by rpm
Unless he had magical telepathy powers, he had no business being incarcerated. He was a quad, with no ability to harm anyone. He required an intense amount of supervision just to stay alive. Of course the "rent-a-cops" at the private jail had better things to do than suction the mucus out of his lungs constantly.
The Judge ought to be disbarred.
He
Broke
The
Law.
-
Jamal Lewis
If he can recieve special treatment, why not this wheelchair bound person? Justice is not Justice anymore...
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Jamal Lewis
If he can recieve special treatment, why not this wheelchair bound person? Justice is not Justice anymore...
That's a seperate discussion. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
-
So only one of them broke the law?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
So only one of them broke the law?
I am unaware of a conviction for Jamal.
Even if there were, again, it's irrelevant.
-
In my Community he would be allowed to smoke marijuana without fear of arrest. He'd also be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, with a permit...although I doubt it would do him much good, what with him being a paraplegic and all.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
In my Community he would be allowed to smoke marijuana without fear of arrest. He'd also be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, with a permit...although I doubt it would do him much good, what with him being a paraplegic and all.
Do you mean in your "ideal" community, or where you live that is allowed now?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Do you mean in your "ideal" community, or where you live that is allowed now?
Where I live now. (Mendocino County, California)
Cultivation of up to 25 plants is allowed with a Dr.'s recomendation- the letters sell for about 150.00, and are given for everything from cancer to warts. A Dr's not isn't really necessary, however, cause the Sheriff won't arrest mom and pop growers and the DA won't prosicute.
Also CWPs are given for the asking.
-
Sure sounds like the judge has an anti-gun vendeta going to me. Sad story but I can't resist, guns don't kill people, anti-gun judges do.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Where I live now. (Mendocino County, California)
Cultivation of up to 25 plants is allowed with a Dr.'s recomendation- the letters sell for about 150.00, and are given for everything from cancer to warts.
Now that's ridiculous. I wouldn't trust my life on those "Dr's"
Have you ever given any thought, why you have the highest levels of drug usage in the world, despite the generally severe penalties?
-
Originally posted by mora
Now that's ridiculous. I wouldn't trust my life on those "Dr's"
Have you ever given any thought, why you have the highest levels of drug usage in the world, despite the generally severe penalties?
Because prohibition only serves to create criminals out of ordinary law abiding citizens. Prohibition creates a Black Market. Prohibition attempts to force one groups morality upon another.
See: U S History Circa 1920-1933
-
Originally posted by Martlet
He
Broke
The
Law.
is that really what our founding fathers had in mind, cause and effect execution for minor crimes? the jail is the one who is responsible for not taking care of him. if you have ever had anything to do with Quadriplegic you would know that a lot depends on how far the break is. so what was the point of sending him to jail anyway? to protect the comunity from him? to punish him by resricting his movement?
-
Glad to see that tax dollars and law enforcement manpower is being used to put away the really dangerous criminals!
-
Originally posted by bigsky
is that really what our founding fathers had in mind, cause and effect execution for minor crimes? the jail is the one who is responsible for not taking care of him. if you have ever had anything to do with Quadriplegic you would know that a lot depends on how far the break is. so what was the point of sending him to jail anyway? to protect the comunity from him? to punish him by resricting his movement?
Exactly. The jail is responsible. It's hardly an execution, though.
The point of sending him to jail was to punish him for breaking the law. You don't think people should be tried and sentenced for breaking the law anymore?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Jamal Lewis
If he can recieve special treatment, why not this wheelchair bound person? Justice is not Justice anymore...
Judges facilitate to people with jobs all of the time by allowing them to serve out there time at night and on the weekends.
maybe it was this rolling bag a ****s time to go. any one thought of that?
-
Anyone figure out how he smokes pot without being able to breath on his own.
I want his bong!:D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Maybe show a little remorse and sound judgment and you might have got off w/ a slap on the wrist.
Paralyzed or not he still broke the law. Tards!
Remorse for doing something that made him feel better?
Tell ya what.
Some 11 years ago I had to undergo 6 months of outpatient Chemo.
an interesting experiance but not one I would reccomend for everyone LOL
Even the most powerful anti nausia medication did nothing for me. I was puking right in the docs office.
After my treatments I would go home and wouldnt feel like moveing or eating for 4-5 days at a time
I would get my Chemo on thursdays and literally wouldnt eat again till sunday night.
Cola tasted like wet cardboard. simple foods like Eggs tasted and felt like big blobs of snot in my mouth.
my entire nutritional intake for those 4 days consisted of beer and powdered ice tea mix ( the only two things that tasted normal and was able to keep down)
Concenred and after trying all available legal options my doc told me "im not supposed to be telling you this and I cant perscribe or get it for you but there are studies that show that smoking pot can often help with the nausia and your ability to function)
fortunately I still knew enough of potheads that were only too happy to give me the stuff.
It helps it really does. Do not ever let anyone tell you it doesnt. I dont care what kind of crap the pharmaceutical companies spew about it. I am living breathing and eating proof it DOES help.
Afterwards I felt well enough to at least get up and move around and stay active (the one thing Docs always reccomend) It improved my appetite significantly and reduced my puking episodes to the point of being almost non existant
So I see no reason for him to feel or have to express any remorse whatsoever.
Did I break the law?
Your damn right I did.
If faced with the same thing I'd gladly do it again.
If I know someone that needs it I will also Gladly help them get it if I can and PROUDLY serve the jail time if caught.
This is a law that is just plain wrong and needs to be changed.
Probably isnt because the pharmaceutical Co.s cant make much money on it.
Kinda hard to do that when your local neighborhood grower can grow a more superiour quality product in his closet at less money then they can in their labs
-
Originally posted by Martlet
He
Broke
The
Law.
He
Sure
Did.
Thank god the public was saved from this menace.
-
Jail isn't to save the public. It's punishment for breaking the law.
-
And obviously, the punishment fit the crime.
-
Hey, interesting side thread about chemo Drediock, had a similar issue with chemo myself. More about that in a second...
On the issue of the quad gangsta, Ive heard some idiotic actions taken by judges, but that is pretty stupid. Shows what a tiny, fugged up world the prostitute judge is living in. When it is the judges' time to be judged (by a higher authority), by the only true measurer of our time on earth, what do you think will happen?
I had some interesting times with chemo. I had a bad time, but honestly, not as bad as yours I would say Drediock. I had 3 months worth of human tissue WMDs, the one thing that I remember was the arrogance and impetulance of the fugging stunninghunk doctors at the hospital....may they contract the same illness and go through the same treatment, it is only fair.
rod64 = rude64
BTW, if you see me in the MA, make sure you tell me to piss off, I'll feel much better :-)
-
Originally posted by rod64
Hey, interesting side thread about chemo Drediock, had a similar issue with chemo myself. More about that in a second...
On the issue of the quad gangsta, Ive heard some idiotic actions taken by judges, but that is pretty stupid. Shows what a tiny, fugged up world the prostitute judge is living in. When it is the judges' time to be judged (by a higher authority), by the only true measurer of our time on earth, what do you think will happen?
I had some interesting times with chemo. I had a bad time, but honestly, not as bad as yours I would say Drediock. I had 3 months worth of human tissue WMDs, the one thing that I remember was the arrogance and impetulance of the fugging stunninghunk doctors at the hospital....may they contract the same illness and go through the same treatment, it is only fair.
rod64 = rude64
BTW, if you see me in the MA, make sure you tell me to piss off, I'll feel much better :-)
He was also out of the hospital I worked at at the time.
I gotta say my Doc was/is fantastic. not an ounce of complaint about him. You knew he truely cared and you werent just an insurance policy # to him.
I literally saw him breakdown and cry when one of his patients finally died
And he isnt beyond suggesting promising alternatives if what he is doing isnt helping (my case inpoint)
I can respect that.
There is another Doc at the same hospital I cant say that about.
who is one of the most aggorant POS I've ever met with the bedside manner of Oscar the grouch.
wouldnt reccomend him to my worst enemy
I do reccomend the same treatment you percribed for him though.X3
Actually while my time was Bad it improved quite a bit after I started with the pot.
Its the funcionability that was the worst mentally for me. Once I was able to function, feel like getting up and moving around I was alot better and one seemed to feed of the other.
Getting up and moving around made me feel better which in turn improved my disposition and so on and so forth.
Fortunately this was only about a month into my 6 month stint.
LOL in the end it owrked otu rather well.
Doc didnt want me working at the hospital because my immune system was weakened from the Chemo. so I got alot of things done around the house.
Easily had the best looking yard in the neighborhood
actually it hasnt looked that good again since.
but I'll take that tradeoff
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Jail isn't to save the public. It's punishment for breaking the law.
There are other punishments, Martlet, especially for first time misdemeanors. Especially for a defendant that obviously couldn't use the firearm that supposedly presented a threat to the public by being in his possesion. Fines come to mind.
Judges are supposedly part of the system to insure lack of bias in the court system and to assure fair sentencing (without taking sides or exhibiting undue prejudice). This certainly doesn't seem the case here.
And yes ... disability where incarceration presents a threat to life SHOULD be a factor considered by the bench when it comes to exploring the MANY options of sentence handed down.
Most of the towns on the east coast only have stocks as a public historical display now. If everything was black and white in relation to right and wrong, then we're all due immediate execution.
But the litmus paper will be whether or not that community/social and government leaders take measures to prevent such in the future. If so, it certainly implies guilt, for if the judge and system truly isn't at fault, why should anything be changed? Let's bust down some old folk home doors.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Remorse for doing something that made him feel better?
Everyone who smokes marijuana does it to "feel better". Same with cocaine.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Everyone who smokes marijuana does it to "feel better". Same with cocaine.
We should suffocate them all to death. Then when we run out of that sort of judicial fun ... we should kneecap all the jaywalkers and pour acid in their ears.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
We should suffocate them all to death. Then when we run out of that sort of judicial fun ... we should kneecap all the jaywalkers and pour acid in their ears.
dang Arlo its a bit early to be out of bed in Lubbock isnt it :)
-
It's the early bird who catches the jaywalkers and dumps acid on their heads! ;)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
dang Arlo its a bit early to be out of bed in Lubbock isnt it :)
Dallas suddenly shift timezones itself? :D
-
And obviously, the punishment fit the crime.
It did. The punishment was within the sentencing guidelines. If people have a problem with those, they need to work to change the law.
There are other punishments, Martlet, especially for first time misdemeanors.
I'm not saying there aren't. I'm saying that he broke the law and was sentenced accordingly. Whether or not the laws are correct and the sentences too harsh is a completely different topic. He chose to break the law.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Everyone who smokes marijuana does it to "feel better". Same with cocaine.
He was smoking it to make him feel better due to his condition.
Not just to get high. like one does alcohol
bit of a difference.
Get REALLY sick sometime and your'll see what I mean.
nothing personal but
Untill that time comes.
You havent even the beginning of a clue
-
Originally posted by myelo
Everyone who smokes marijuana does it to "feel better". Same with cocaine.
What about alcohol? Why do people drink?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm not saying there aren't. I'm saying that he broke the law and was sentenced accordingly. Whether or not the laws are correct and the sentences too harsh is a completely different topic. He chose to break the law.
Which is not the point of this topic whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Which is not the point of this topic whatsoever.
Um, did you forget to read the topic before you started yapping?
There are so many things wrong here, it's hard to pick a starting point. While there was a gun found in the car, and that appears to be the Judges motivation, did she honestly believe the gun belonged to a quadriplegic and he was a threat to public safety? My guess is the fact he smoked marijuana for medicinal purposes and was unrepentant was her driving force. That and a "tough on dopers" sentencing record to brag about during elections.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Um, did you forget to read the topic before you started yapping?
No. Did you?
Sorry ... but in your "balck and white/right and wrong" world ... the judge actually screwed up. You can post your arse off defending it but you're not coming out of this sounding like the voice of reason.
Simple. An injustice was carried out by the system in the name of justice. Just because you can't see that doesn't make you the picture perfect model of lady justice ... even if you hold up some scales and put on a dress.
-
Seems that the entire focus of several in this group posting on this is simply the marijuanna. I have to ask a couple questions about the entire situation.
What was he doing with a firearm in the vehicle in DC if he was truly a quadraplegic? Given the marijuanna usage which he claims he would continue only to make himself feel good, not for "medicinal" purposes, where does the cocaine come in? Not indicated in the article was the amount of cocaine either.
Frankly, there is insufficeint information in the one article to support either the Judge's or the quadriplegic's position here. Quite a bit of "rhetoric" has been dumped on the thread without any having even a significant fraction of the information the primary participants had. Lots of conjecture and "blame" without the entire story.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
No. Did you?
Sorry ... but in your "balck and white/right and wrong" world ... the judge actually screwed up. You can post your arse off defending it but you're not coming out of this sounding like the voice of reason.
Simple. An injustice was carried out by the system in the name of justice. Just because you can't see that doesn't make you the picture perfect model of lady justice ... even if you hold up some scales and put on a dress.
No, what's simple is this:
We have laws.
We have punishments for breaking them.
He broke the law.
He was punished in accordance with the law.
It's very simple. Even you can't spin it into something it's not. Keep trying, though.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, what's simple is this:
We have laws.
We have punishments for breaking them.
He broke the law.
He was punished in accordance with the law.
It's very simple. Even you can't spin it into something it's not. Keep trying, though.
No. What's simple is this.
He's a fuggin quadrapalegic that can't fuggin breathe on his own and the fuggin judge put him in jail for ten days then after he died said, "Wuh .. well ... I was informed that our jails are safe for quadrapalegics that have breathing problems. Whoopsie."
Followed by you saying, "System works. Everything's fine. Do do the crime if you can't survive the time."
Don't be obtuse. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
No. What's simple is this.
He's a fuggin quadrapalegic that can't fuggin breathe on his own and the fuggin judge put him in jail for ten days then after he died said, "Wuh .. well ... I was informed that our jails are safe for quadrapalegics that have breathing problems. Whoopsie."
Followed by you saying, "System works. Everything's fine. Do do the crime if you can't survive the time."
Don't be obtuse. :aok
Two completely different topics.
He was sentenced and jailed for breaking the law. What happens after sentencing is not the fault of the judge.
Cripples don't get a "you can break the law" pass.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, what's simple is this:
We have laws.
We have punishments for breaking them.
He broke the law.
He was punished in accordance with the law.
It's very simple. Even you can't spin it into something it's not. Keep trying, though.
exeptions are made even in the enforcement of the law. Happens all the time
The friggen guy was a prisoner of his own skin for christ sakes.
and given his condition
Of what useful purpose was it to send him to jail.
the judge in this case seems like nothing more then a right wing zealot.
Then anyone with any kind of compassion , or common sence for that matter
It is a good thing that the rest of the world doesnt share in your black and white views.
You should only drop down on your knees and pray you dont ever end up in a similar situation.
what goes around tends to come around
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
It is a good thing that the rest of the world doesnt share in your black and white views.
You should only drop down on your knees and pray you dont ever end up in a similar situation.
what goes around tends to come around
I wouldn't break the law.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
I realize you would like to make the merits of pot smoking an issue, but your druggie ideals really have nothing to do with this case.
He broke the law.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Two completely different topics.
He was sentenced and jailed for breaking the law. What happens after sentencing is not the fault of the judge.
Cripples don't get a "you can break the law" pass.
Again .... you're the one who's missing the point and apparently damned proud of it.
The judge screwed the pooch. The judge had more options than sending a severly handicapped person that needed constant attention to a holding facility for 10 days (even if the judge convinced herself that such a sentence was safe in order to justify being able to keep the reputation of being hard-nosed). As a result of the judge's poor judgement, an option of punishment for a misdomeanor was chosen that turned into a death sentence. The judge IS accountable for her actions.
Welcome to America where the system is constantly under scrutiny.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Again .... you're the one who's missing the point and apparently damned proud of it.
The judge screwd the pooch. The judge had more options than sending a severly handicapped person that needed constant attention to a holding facility for 10 days (even if the judge convinced herself that such a sentence was safe in order to justify being able to keep the reputation of being hard-nosed). As a result of the judge's poor judgement, an option of punishment for a misdomeanor was chosen that turned into a death sentence. The judge IS accountable for her actions.
Welcome to America where the system is constantly under scrutiny.
Actually, you're the one missing the point. The judge sentenced within the guidelines of the law.
The man had more options to him than intentionally breaking the law. He chose to ignore them.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, you're the one missing the point. The judge sentenced within the guidelines of the law.
The man had more options to him than intentionally breaking the law. He chose to ignore them.
Actually, you're missing the point. The judge had more options than having someone convicted of a misdemeanor killed. She chose to ignore them. She needs to be disbarred because she purchases her blinders from the same store you do.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Actually, you're missing the point. The judge had more options than having someone convicted of a misdemeanor killed. She chose to ignore them. She needs to be disbarred because she purchases her blinders from the same store you do.
Ahhh, now you're being intellectually dishonest, and meshing two completely seperate issues.
The judge didn't sentence him to death. The judge sentenced him to jail. He broke the law, he was sentenced accordingly.
I understand you mourn the loss of a fellow doper, but you should suggest to your compatriots that they try to change the laws, not cry when they are convicted of breaking them.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I wouldn't break the law.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
I realize you would like to make the merits of pot smoking an issue, but your druggie ideals really have nothing to do with this case.
He broke the law.
Martlet.
I am not a druggie In fact I havent used anything stronger then an advil since I ended my treatments. as I have no further need for it.
We will just have to see how you feel about the nonsence your spewing when its you or someone very close to you that is the one afflicted.
And you get to either feel it for yourself or look over that loved one and because of your half assed ideals on this matter you choose to watch them suffer.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
We will just have to see how you feel about the nonsence your spewing when its you or someone very close to you that is the one afflicted.
And you get to either feel it for yourself or look over that loved one and because of your half assed ideals on this matter you choose to watch them suffer.
The "poor me" act doesn't hold water with me. And don't assume you're the only person in this discussion who is a cancer survivor.
He broke the law. He was sentenced accordingly.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, now you're being intellectually dishonest, and meshing two completely seperate issues.
The judge didn't sentence him to death. The judge sentenced him to jail. He broke the law, he was sentenced accordingly.
I understand you mourn the loss of a fellow doper, but you should suggest to your compatriots that they try to change the laws, not cry when they are convicted of breaking them.
Now you're being intellectually deficient and jumping to conclusions you couldn't buy yourself back out of even if you were to pawn your entire collection of Village People records.
When a judge determines sentence it is their responsibility to determine if the sentence is excessive - especially if there's a chance that it involves a danger to the life of the person being sentenced. Is this really to much of a mental leap for you to make? I'm sure jumping off that cliffside assuming I do drugs was an easier one. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Now you're being intellectually deficient and jumping to conclusions you couldn't buy yourself back out of even if you were to pawn your entire collection of Village People records.
When a judge determines sentence it is their responsibility to determine if the sentence is excessive - especially if there's a chance that it involves a danger to the life of the person being sentenced. Is this really to much of a mental leap for you to make? I'm sure jumping off that cliffside assuming I do drugs was an easier one. ;)
A judge has sentencing guidelines. The sentence was within those guidelines.
He broke the law. He was sentenced accordingly. I'm sorry one of your fellow dopers died. He broke the law.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
A judge has sentencing guidelines. The sentence was within those guidelines.
He broke the law. He was sentenced accordingly. I'm sorry one of your fellow dopers died. He broke the law.
A judge also supposedly has common sense. She failed to use it. I'm sorry you're failing to use yours too.
I don't have fellow dopers. I don't do dope. But I am sorry he died. Genuinely sorry ... not just using that phrase in some sort of pathetic attempt to categorize someone so I can feel better about being stupid ... like that Martlet guy. ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
A judge also supposedly has common sense. She failed to use it. I'm sorry you're failing to use yours too.
I don't have fellow dopers. I don't do dope. But I am sorry he died. Genuinely sorry ... not just using that phrase in some sort of pathetic attempt to categorize someone so I can feel better about being stupid ... like that Martlet guy. ;) :aok
We have laws.
If you break them, there are consequences.
The judge sentenced a law breaker just like she was directed to by the guidelines she must follow.
If you break the law, you pay the price. It isn't a system she set up. It's the system we set up.
Don't want to go to jail? Don't break the law.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
We have laws.
If you break them, there are consequences.
The judge sentenced a law breaker just like she was directed to by the guidelines she must follow.
If you break the law, you pay the price. It isn't a system she set up. It's the system we set up.
Don't want to go to jail? Don't break the law.
He only went to jail because the judge wanted him to. Even the DA wasn't pushing for it. The judge chose to make an example of the worst possible choice she could. His blood's on her hands. That's where sense, morality and judgement link in with the letter of the law. That's what defines a good judge from a bad one.
And just because you haven't been caught and busted yet, don't think that you're above it all. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
He only went to jail because the judge wanted him to. Even the DA wasn't pushing for it. The judge chose to make an example of the worst possible choice she could. His blood's on her hands. That's where sense, morality and judgement link in with the letter of the law. That's what defines a good judge from a bad one.
And just because you haven't been caught and busted yet, don't think that you're above it all. ;)
No, he went to jail because HE BROKE THE LAW. You keep leaving that fact out of your equation.
You break the law, you get caught, you get sentenced.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, he went to jail because HE BROKE THE LAW. You keep leaving that fact out of your equation.
You break the law, you get caught, you get sentenced.
That fact hasn't been disputed by a single person in this thread. I just figured you have to keep reminding yourself of that detail to justify the death.
Well .... when the highway patrol officer hauls you in and locks the cell because you failed the sobriety test (even though you were "sober") and you complain of chest pains and the aspirin he gives you doesn't save your life, just remember - he was just doing his duty within the limit of the law. Your family would do well to thank him. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
That fact hasn't been disputed by a single person in this thread. I just figured you have to keep reminding yourself of that detail to justify the death.
Well .... when the highway patrol officer hauls you in and locks the cell because you failed the sobriety test (even though you were "sober") and you complain of chest pains and the aspirin he gives you doesn't save your life, just remember - he was just doing his duty within the limit of the law. Your family would do well to thank him. ;)
Nope, that's a completely different situation. He is responsible for my care in custody.
The judge has the responsibility to try and sentence in accordance with the law. If you were crying that the guys jailers should be held responsible, I'd whole heartedly agree.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Nope, that's a completely different situation. He is responsible for my care in custody.
The judge has the responsibility to try and sentence in accordance with the law. If you were crying that the guys jailers should be held responsible, I'd whole heartedly agree.
The judge also has the responsibility of reasonable sentencing. He wasn't convicted of trafficing or of a crime that actually involved violence or a threat. As a matter of fact he was only convicted of a misdemeanor. Are you getting this? It was a misdemeanor and he wasn't a threat to the public. The law, in his case (as in many cases), had latitude in sentencing. This is done for a reason.
The reason: Because every case is unique. As is the practical situation dealing with the sentencing of each individual.
This individual was a quadrapalegic that required special care that the judge assumed that the jail facility and staff was capable of giving based on .... assurances?
How many disabled individuals has she sent to jail? Was this the first? How many seconds of deliberation did it take for her to decide that ten days in jail was not a threat to this person's life?
There were other options ... under the law! Are you getting this? Do you really care? What would it take for you to care? What would it have taken for the judge to?
No, man. You can't wave that "broke the law - sentenced accordingly - everything's fine" flag and not expect that something like this doesn't get reviewed and addressed. And it'll certainly be a bizarre turn of events if those who look into this parrot what you've been stuck repeating here.
Now .... just say it again and everything'll be alright. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The judge also has the responsibility of reasonable sentencing. He wasn't convicted of trafficing or of a crime that actually involved violence or a threat. As a matter of fact he was only convicted of a misdemeanor. Are you getting this? It was a misdemeanor and he wasn't a threat to the public. The law, in his case (as in many cases), had latitude in sentencing. This is done for a reason.
The reason: Because every case is unique. As is the practical situation dealing with the sentencing of each individual.
This individual was a quadrapalegic that required special care that the judge assumed that the jail facility and staff was capable of giving based on .... assurances?
How many disabled individuals has she sent to jail? Was this the first? How many seconds of deliberation did it take for her to decide that ten days in jail was not a threat to this person's life?
There were other options ... under the law! Are you getting this? Do you really care? What would it take for you to care? What would it have taken for the judge to?
No, man. You can't wave that "broke the law - sentenced accordingly - everything's fine" flag and not expect that something like this doesn't get reviewed and addressed. And it'll certainly be a bizarre turn of events if those who look into this parrot what you've been stuck repeating here.
Now .... just say it again and everything'll be alright. ;)
The judge used latitude. He didn't get the maximum sentence. He got what the judge felt was fair.
Because he broke the law. If he didn't want to go to jail, he shouldn't have broken the law.
He made his choice.
-
I am Marlet. You have broken the law. You have been sentanced accordingly. You may not question the basis upon which you were convicted or the law that you have been convicted of breaking. Suck it up you big drug addict.
Is it happy hour yet?
-
C'mon dude, it was just a little weed and a handgun. Cut a brother some slack.
If I get caught do I get my bong back? When is "Up in Smoke" on again?
-
I'm dying of cancer. I cannot eat. The doctors keep filling me full of morphine to dull the pain but it makes me feel even sicker. They have tried to stimulate my appetite by pumping me full of a variety of drugs but nothing helps.
No. No. I can't try marijuana. It's ILLEGAL.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The judge used latitude. He didn't get the maximum sentence. He got what the judge felt was fair.
Because he broke the law. If he didn't want to go to jail, he shouldn't have broken the law.
He made his choice.
And the judge made hers. For the first time misdemeanor of possessing an illegal substance the accused is sentenced to death by incarceration. It's within the law. It's a reasonable sentence. All is good.
Next case!
The people versus John Climeehoogan for jaywalking.
(In shuffles a 90 yr old man with a walker and an oxygen bottle)
How do you plead?
(Breathe) ... Guilt ... (Breathe) .. tee ...
12 days hard labor whacking weeds on the side of the highway!
Lawyer: Isn't that a bit excessive given my client's physical state?
Eh .... I've been assured that he can handle it fine. It's within the law.
Next case!
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'm dying of cancer. I cannot eat. The doctors keep filling me full of morphine to dull the pain but it makes me feel even sicker. They have tried to stimulate my appetite by pumping me full of a variety of drugs but nothing helps.
No. No. I can't try marijuana. It's ILLEGAL.
Then get the laws changed. You're just as responsible for the laws on the books as anyone else.
Your defense is poking holes in the validity of the laws. It has nothing to do with the fact that the judge is responsible for sentencing violations of the laws YOU allow to remain in place.
What have you done to change them?
For the first time misdemeanor of possessing an illegal substance the accused is sentenced to death by incarceration.
Could you show me the sentencing that states that? It's an idiotic defense, but one I'm not surprised you take. It's like your mother sending you to school, as the law dictates, then being held responsible because the teacher shoots you.
-
Unfortunately there are too many people out there like yourself who are so wrapped up in the stoned druggie stereotype to want to assist in changing the laws.
-
"By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected."
Here .. let me repeat that a half dozen times in anticipation of Matlet's half-arsed portrayal of Baretta ... a role in which Robert Blake is considering reviving .... from jail.
On second thought ... nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Unfortunately there are too many people out there like yourself who are so wrapped up in the stoned druggie stereotype to want to assist in changing the laws.
Ahhh, so you're arguing based on assumptions. Let me educate you.
I support the legalization of marijuana across the board. Not just for medical reasons.
Originally posted by Arlo
"By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected."
Here .. let me repeat that a half dozen times in anticipation of Matlet's half-arsed portrayal of Baretta ... a role in which Robert Blake is considering reviving .... from jail.
On second thought ... nevermind.
Was it outside the sentencing guidelines for the crime?
If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law.
-
Would this be an issue at all if the man hadn't died?
I'm missing the point of this whole thread. A man that was able to ride around with friends smoking pot dies on the ride to jail... and it's the judges fault for sentancing him.
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely zero sense. The man should have gotten whatever sentance everyone else in the car got (not mentioned in the article?). The county should be held responsible for his death and for providing inadequate medical attention in his transit. Turning it back onto the judge for the sentance and highlighting it as an issue for "the war on drugs" is simply propaganda running rampant.
-
Simple, Martlet. Remember simple?
Judge screws up and gives excessive sentence to a quadrapeligic for a first time misdemeanor that cost the man his life.
Judge gets robes taken away for good.
Now .... you have a problem with this why again? :D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, so you're arguing based on assumptions. Let me educate you.
I support the legalization of marijuana across the board. Not just for medical reasons.
You support it? But...it's illegal. If you get caught with it you should be sentanced accordingly surely? If you are caught posessing it in Texas, for example, you could be behind bars for a long time. You must support THAT because it is the law, right?
I'm very confused now.
Maybe you should have a pic of Kerry for your avatar.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Simple, Martlet. Remember simple?
Judge screws up and gives excessive sentence to a quadrapeligic for a first time misdemeanor that cost the man his life.
Judge gets robes taken away for good.
Now .... you have a problem with this why again? :D
The judge didn't screw up. What laws did the judge violate? The criminal was sentenced within the limits of the law.
If the quad was concerned with doing jail time, he should have obeyed the law.
Again, what laws did the judge break?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Would this be an issue at all if the man hadn't died?
I'm missing the point of this whole thread. A man that was able to ride around with friends smoking pot dies on the ride to jail... and it's the judges fault for sentancing him.
Yeah ... you missed it by a mile and a half. He died on the ride from the jail to a medical facility because the jail couldn't take care of his medical needs. Apparently he was able to ride in a vehicle and apparently he didn't choose his friends wisely. Such poor judgement on his part may have eventully lead to his death. But the judge didn't have to add her own poor judgement to the formula to speed up the process.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The judge didn't screw up. What laws did the judge violate? The criminal was sentenced within the limits of the law.
If the quad was concerned with doing jail time, he should have obeyed the law.
Again, what laws did the judge break?
What laws does a doctor break when malpractice is involved? Yes ... there's a correlation.
I know I have you backed in a corner here and there's no way you'll admit you're wrong in this.
But who gives a fug? :D
-
Originally posted by Curval
You support it? But...it's illegal. If you get caught with it you should be sentanced accordingly surely? If you are caught posessing it in Texas, for example, you could be behind bars for a long time. You must support THAT because it is the law, right?
I'm very confused now.
Maybe you should have a pic of Kerry for your avatar.
You aren't confused, you just can't read.
I said I support the LEGALIZATION of marijuana. I obviously don't support it's use while it is illegal.
Originally posted by Arlo
What laws does a doctor break when malpractice is involved? Yes ... there's a correlation.
I know I have you backed in a corner here and there's no way you'll admit you're wrong in this.
But who gives a fug? :D
malpractice? HAHAHA. Backed into a corner? HA! You're wrong and you know it. You've changed tack on this topic so many times trying to prove a point you recognize is failed. I understand your need to save face, but it's too late for you now.
Judges are under strict sentencing guidelines. The sentence was within those guidelines.
If you don't like the sentence, don't do the crime.
-
No... I didn't miss the point. Do you think the county is at fault for his death in transit or not?
Why is this coming back on the judge? Why is it the judge is being made out to be the end-all-be-all of responsibility here? The county screwed up bigtime on the transportation. The man screwed up bigtime by getting in the car that was stopped. The judge screwed up for sentancing someone for a crime?
That makes absolutely no sense. The logic only highlights the desire for some to shoehorn events into their own views on society. It's pretty sad, actually.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No... I didn't miss the point. Do you think the county is at fault for his death in transit or not?
Why is this coming back on the judge? Why is it the judge is being made out to be the end-all-be-all of responsibility here? The county screwed up bigtime on the transportation. The man screwed up bigtime by both getting in the car that was stopped. The judge screwed up for sentancing someone for a crime?
That makes absolutely no sense. The logic only highlights the desire for some to shoehorn events into their own views on society. It's pretty sad, actually.
You still think he died being taken to jail. That ... sir .. is a miss. ;)
"Magbie died last Friday after being shuttled between the D.C. jail complex and Greater Southeast Community Hospital.
At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate. "
The sentence was excessive. The facility could not take care of his physical needs. The judge never really bothered to check if it could.
Judge screwed up. Take the robes.
Now who's shoehorning what here? ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You still think he died being taken to jail. That ... sir .. is a miss. ;)
"Magbie died last Friday after being shuttled between the D.C. jail complex and Greater Southeast Community Hospital.
At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate. "
The sentence was excessive. The facility could not take care of his physical needs. The judge never really bothered to check if it could.
Judge screwed up. Take the robes.
Now who's shoehorning what here? ;)
If the sentencing was excessive, then why aren't we working to change the sentencing guidelines? The judge was completely within the guidelines for the crime committed.
I realize you can't get yourself out of this indefensible position and I sympathize.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If the sentencing was excessive, then why aren't we working to change the sentencing guidelines? The judge was completely within the guidelines for the crime committed.
I realize you can't get yourself out of this indefensible position and I sympathize.
Actually you've stubbornly adopted an indefensible position by assuming that anyone here has suggested that the judge be charged with anything more than incompetance and malpractice resulting in her being disbarred. You keep asking over and over what law she broke. Nobody has suggested she broke a law. They've suggested she didn't carry out her responsibilities and that she attempted to make an example out of a case she had no business doing such with.
You merely repeating that over and over that the judge was within the law to apparently justify the death ... justifies nothing. There is no justification.
I know the corner is uncomfortable for you but get used to it. I'm not gonna let you out of it. :D
-
OK, for Martlet's sake let's break this down.
Police, she pointed out, found a gun and cocaine in the vehicle in which Magbie was stopped in April 2003.
While it does not say, it it logical to assume he was a passenger, not the driver. Quadriplegics have trouble driving, something to do with being unable to move their arms and legs. So, let's take the quantum leap that he was only a passenger and someone else was driving the vehicle. Since we took that leap, lets also assume someone else, likely the driver, put the gun and cocaine in the car.
While the law implied possession by everyone in the vehicle if no one claims it, it is logical to assume a quadriplegic did not place these items in the car.
By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.
But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.
By the standards of the court. That's an interesting phrase. It makes it pretty clear this was an extrordinarily harsh sentence, especially if you factor in the extenuating circumstances...like being a quadriplegic.
The judge chose not to factor in the fact he was unable to move any part of his body below his neck and needed constant medical attention. The judge was looking to pad her "tough on crime" record and nothing more.
Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
What logical person would think a quadriplegic could use a gun at all, much less place it in the vehicle. The best he could do is verbally protest the guns presence (if he was aware of it at all), but it is not reasonable to think he could physically do anything to extracate himself from it's presence. To ignore the procecutors recomendation and impose a much harsher sentence in this instance is incompetence. It's effect is unfortunately obvious. D.C. is not a safer place today than it was the day police stopped the car Mr.Magbie was a passenger in.
-
LOL!
OK... so he died going from the jail to the hospital. Yes... there's a big difference there.
What you haven't explained is how this is the judge's fault. Oh... wait... she should have checked to see if they were capable of caring for this person.
"Judge: Can you care for this person?"
"Jail: Sure"
Yes... that was all that was needed.
Crap man... do you even stop and think about this stuff? The judge is responsible for looking at a case and making a sentance. The county is responsible for the care. If the man died, it is the fault of the county. So why is this coming back to the judge? Oh yeah... agenda... shoehorning... that evil judicial branch.
Oh well... let the real issue of inmate care slide... because that doesn't really matter in the whole "war on drugs" ridicule session. That damn judge should have known that a man that rides around in cars smoking pot would have trouble if he went to jail. SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN! Afterall, it's so painfully obvious to everyone now.
Hindsight + agenda = propaganda
Way to fall for the bait arlo. It would be nice if the O'Club didn't turn into such a "twist the story to match your oppinion" wasteland. Sad to see you fall right into line yourself. But, please, call others programmed if it makes you feel better about what you are doing with this "story".
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No... I didn't miss the point. Do you think the county is at fault for his death in transit or not?
Why is this coming back on the judge? Why is it the judge is being made out to be the end-all-be-all of responsibility here? The county screwed up bigtime on the transportation. The man screwed up bigtime by getting in the car that was stopped. The judge screwed up for sentancing someone for a crime?
That makes absolutely no sense. The logic only highlights the desire for some to shoehorn events into their own views on society. It's pretty sad, actually.
I agree with ya Mini D and felt the same way from the start except that he died in transport to the hospital I think which probably means the jail screwed up. I was just taking a cheap shot at the anti-gun bozos.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Way to fall for the bait arlo. It would be nice if the O'Club didn't turn into such a "twist the story to match your oppinion" wasteland. Sad to see you fall right into line yourself. But, please, call others programmed if it makes you feel better about what you are doing with this "story".
Bingo.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL!
OK... so he died going from the jail to the hospital. Yes... there's a big difference there.
What you haven't explained is how this is the judge's fault. Oh... wait... she should have checked to see if they were capable of caring for this person.
"Judge: Can you care for this person?"
"Jail: Sure"
Yes... that was all that was needed.
Crap man... do you even stop and think about this stuff? The judge is responsible for looking at a case and making a sentance. The county is responsible for the care. If the man died, it is the fault of the county. So why is this coming back to the judge? Oh yeah... agenda... shoehorning... that evil judicial branch.
Oh well... let the real issue of inmate care slide... because that doesn't really matter in the whole "war on drugs" ridicule session. That damn judge should have known that a man that rides around in cars smoking pot would have trouble if he went to jail. SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN! Afterall, it's so painfully obvious to everyone now.
Hindsight + agenda = propaganda
Way to fall for the bait arlo. It would be nice if the O'Club didn't turn into such a "twist the story to match your oppinion" wasteland. Sad to see you fall right into line yourself. But, please, call others programmed if it makes you feel better about what you are doing with this "story".
WTF? I seriously suggest you read that article again. And do so with the knowledge that Martlet advocates the legalization of marijuana while I don't. Pay particular attention to the part where everyone in the legal system there thinks the judge's sentencing was unusually excessive. Then come back here with that political agenda spin again. :lol
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The "poor me" act doesn't hold water with me. And don't assume you're the only person in this discussion who is a cancer survivor.
He broke the law. He was sentenced accordingly.
I couldnt give a rats behind what holds water with you.
Particularly after seeing your views which remind more of that of a klingon then any human being I have ever come across.
and im not assuming that at all.
Maybe you did. Maybe someone inyour family did.
And if you did i dont know the extent of your suffering.
maybe the meds the doc gave you worked, wonderful. that should always be yor first choice.
But when nothing else works.what are you supposed to do do?
Keep suffering or watch someone else suffer because the one thing that might help is illegal?
That line of thinking is utterly mindless
Furthermore. It is not uncommon at all to make exeptions to the laws. It does happen all the time.
The health and wellbeing of the convicted is also to be taken into account whenever sentencing is placed.
A Fact that Im sure will come out during what most most certainly will be a civil trial
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What you haven't explained is how this is the judge's fault. Oh... wait... she should have checked to see if they were capable of caring for this person.
"Judge: Can you care for this person?"
"Jail: Sure"
Yes... that was all that was needed.
Crap man... do you even stop and think about this stuff?
Scenario:
Truck driver comes to a drawbridge. He asks the bridgekeeper if it's safe to cross in a truck. The bridgekeeper says "Yes". The truck enters then falls thru the bridge. Bridgekeeper says "You didn't tell me you were 20,000lbs over the weight limit".
-
Originally posted by Arlo
WTF? I seriously suggest you read that article again. And do so with the knowledge that Martlet advocates the legalization of marijuana while I don't. Pay particular attention to the part where everyone in the legal system there thinks the judge's sentencing was unusually excessive. Then come back here with that political agenda spin again. :lol
Who cares? So it was "excessive"? It was within the guidelines. If you don't want judges to be able to impose "excessive" sentences, then change the guidelines.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I couldnt give a rats behind what holds water with you.
Particularly after seeing your views which remind more of that of a klingon then any human being I have ever come across.
and im not assuming that at all.
Maybe you did. Maybe someone inyour family did.
And if you did i dont know the extent of your suffering.
maybe the meds the doc gave you worked, wonderful. that should always be yor first choice.
But when nothing else works.what are you supposed to do do?
Keep suffering or watch someone else suffer because the one thing that might help is illegal?
That line of thinking is utterly mindless
Furthermore. It is not uncommon at all to make exeptions to the laws. It does happen all the time.
The health and wellbeing of the convicted is also to be taken into account whenever sentencing is placed.
A Fact that Im sure will come out during what most most certainly will be a civil trial
PSSSST. Klingons don't exist. Your argument is flawed on almost too many levels to address.
If you want to give someone dope to ease their suffering, go for it. Just don't cry when you get busted. If you don't want to get busted, then work to change the laws. I'm sorry you're too lazy to do that. It obviously doesn't mean that much to you.
While exceptions are made to laws at times, it's by no means required. The judge did nothing wrong.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Who cares? So it was "excessive"? It was within the guidelines. If you don't want judges to be able to impose "excessive" sentences, then change the guidelines.
So you're gonna blame the guidelines? Do you even have an inkling about how stupid that sounds? You want flexible guidelines, Einstein! Why? Because there are all sorts of people and all sorts of crimes and for the punishment to fit the crime the judge needs to consider all the extenuating cricumstances.
This man's extenuating circumstance was that he could not survive ten days in jail. The fact that he died as a result of the jail facilities and personel not being able to take care of his specific physical needs proves that extenuating circumstance. Are you gonna try to say, here and now, that there was no way the judge could have forsaw this particular complication as a result of her excessive sentence for a first time misdemeanor based on her direct observation of his physical handicap alone?
Are ... you ... really ... this ... stupid? :D
-
He was a paraplegic who definitely smoked some dope. The gun is irrelevant, since he couldn't possibly have used it. The judge made a bad decision, period. I believe that to be the case now, and I'd believe that to be the case if the guy was still alive. The punishment didn't fit the crime or the criminal.
By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Who cares? So it was "excessive"? It was within the guidelines. If you don't want judges to be able to impose "excessive" sentences, then change the guidelines.
PSSSST. Klingons don't exist. Your argument is flawed on almost too many levels to address.
If you want to give someone dope to ease their suffering, go for it. Just don't cry when you get busted. If you don't want to get busted, then work to change the laws. I'm sorry you're too lazy to do that. It obviously doesn't mean that much to you.
While exceptions are made to laws at times, it's by no means required. The judge did nothing wrong.
On Klingons. somehow I think you got my point
I dont think my arguement is flawed at all. But you are entitled to your opinion.
I've already said I would proudly serve the jail time if caught.
Considering you dont personally know me at all.
You havent a clue if I work for the change or not. Or anything else I do for that matter.
Technically your right. she didnt do anything wrong.
Technically
-
Originally posted by Arlo
So you're gonna blame the guidelines? Do you even have an inkling about how stupid that sounds? You want flexible guidelines, Einstein! Why? Because there are all sorts of people and all sorts of crimes and for the punishment to fit the crime the judge needs to consider all the extenuating cricumstances.
This man's extenuating circumstance was that he could not survive ten days in jail. The fact that he died as a result of the jail facilities and personel not being able to take care of his specific physical needs proves that extenuating circumstance. Are you gonna try to say, here and now, that there was no way the judge could have forsaw this particular complication as a result of her excessive sentence for a first time misdemeanor based on her direct observation of his physical handicap alone?
Are ... you ... really ... this ... stupid? :D
They were within the guidelines. What part of that don't you understand? HE BROKE THE LAW. If he couldn't survive 10 days in jail, then he shouldn't have broken the law. If you don't want quads in jail, then change the guidelines to forbid quads from doing jail time.
It's obvious YOU really ARE that stupid. THE JUDGE DID NOTHING WRONG.
Crying about it over and over doesn't change that.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
On Klingons. somehow I think you got my point
I dont think my arguement is flawed at all. But you are entitled to your opinion.
I've already said I would proudly serve the jail time if caught.
Considering you dont personally know me at all.
You havent a clue if I work for the change or not. Or anything else I do for that matter.
Technically your right. she didnt do anything wrong.
Technically
Of course you don't think your argument is flawed. That doesn't change the fact that it is.
Enlighten me then. What do you do to change the laws you don't agree with?
Of course I'm right. She did do nothing wrong. Why are you still arguing it then?
-
When the discussion degrades to the infintile level of namecalling the discussion ends..
have a good day
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
When the discussion degrades to the infintile level of namecalling the discussion ends..
have a good day
I'm surprised you didn't say that after your klingon comment.
Hypocrite.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
They were within the guidelines. What part of that don't you understand? HE BROKE THE LAW. If he couldn't survive 10 days in jail, then he shouldn't have broken the law. If you don't want quads in jail, then change the guidelines to forbid quads from doing jail time.
It's obvious YOU really ARE that stupid. THE JUDGE DID NOTHING WRONG.
Crying about it over and over doesn't change that.
Of course you don't think your argument is flawed. That doesn't change the fact that it is.
Enlighten me then. What do you do to change the laws you don't agree with?
Of course I'm right. She did do nothing wrong. Why are you still arguing it then?
No .... there's no "Of course I'm right" to it. That's just you stubbornly sticking to your guns in your corner because you're too proud to admit you had a brain fart.
The judge did do something wrong and it cost a man his life.
Here .. test the theory (keep it to yourself because you don't wanna embarr-ass yourself in public):
1: What could the JUDGE have done to prevent this tragedy?
(Take a fifteen minute break to rest. Go get a drink of water to replenish fluids lost from sweat and urination)
2: Could the options you've outlined in question one been easily accomplished?
(Take an hour meal break then a walk around the block to mentally get back into the right frame of mind)
3: Was the punitive measure taken neccessary? What did it accomplish?
(You may have to sleep on this one)
4: Does the system already allow a more suitable option? If so, was it within the power of the judge to explore and use them?
(Hint - you can possibly copy what you wrote for your first answer - that being the case you may then proceed directly to question 5)
5: If you were the judge in this case, would you have done anything differetly and if so how?
(Just skip to 6)
6: If you chose not to do things differently, how do you think this may affect your future as a judge? How do you think it should?
(Just make something up)
:aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm surprised you didn't say that after your klingon comment.
Hypocrite.
Not hardly
you might wanna check back on that,
I didnt CALL you anything
I said your mindset reminded me of
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not hardly
you might wanna check back on that,
I didnt CALL you anything
I said your mindset reminded me of
And I didn't CALL YOU anything.
What are you whining about? If you've realized you can't defend your position and want to bail, go for it. Don't make up fake reasons, though.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
No .... there's no "Of course I'm right" to it. That's just you stubbornly sticking to your guns in your corner because you're too proud to admit you had a brain fart.
The judge did do something wrong and it cost a man his life.
Here .. test the theory (keep it to yourself because you don't wanna embarr-ass yourself in public):
1: What could the JUDGE have done to prevent this tragedy?
(Take a fifteen minute break to rest. Go get a drink of water to replenish fluids lost from sweat and urination)
2: Could the options you've outlined in question one been easily accomplished?
(Take an hour meal break then a walk around the block to mentally get back into the right frame of mind)
3: Was the punitive measure taken neccessary? What did it accomplish?
(You may have to sleep on this one)
4: Does the system already allow a more suitable option? If so, was it within the power of the judge to explore and use them?
(Hint - you can possibly copy what you wrote for your first answer - that being the case you may then proceed directly to question 5)
5: If you were the judge in this case, would you have done anything differetly and if so how?
(Just skip to 6)
6: If you chose not to do things differently, how do you think this may affect your future as a judge? How do you think it should?
(Just make something up)
:aok
What an asinine argument. Let's blame the judge. Here's a better idea. What could the quad have done to prevent this tragedy?
Oh yeah.
NOT BREAK THE LAW.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What an asinine argument. Let's blame the judge. Here's a better idea. What could the quad have done to prevent this tragedy?
Oh yeah.
NOT BREAK THE LAW.
of course, not answering his questions makes your argument soo much better.
hmm...
a while back, someone on this boards kid stole a candy bar. the kid broke the law.
do you feel that the child should have gone to jail?
and yes it WAS the judges fault. why?
the judges position was similar to that of someone standing 3 feet behind a bank robber with a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, that person obviously has a choice, he can either fatally shoot the robber or merely disable him, or do nothing
1st option the guy is at best gonna get a manslaughter charge, probably more because HE HAD THE OPTION TO USE NONLETHAL FORCE
2nd option, the cops show up the robber gets arrested, everyones happy.
3rd option and the guy is an accessory to the crime.
-
A candy bar?! Send that little bastard to Gitmo!
-
Originally posted by vorticon
of course, not answering his questions makes your argument soo much better.
hmm...
a while back, someone on this boards kid stole a candy bar. the kid broke the law.
do you feel that the child should have gone to jail?
and yes it WAS the judges fault. why?
the judges position was similar to that of someone standing 3 feet behind a bank robber with a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, that person obviously has a choice, he can either fatally shoot the robber or merely disable him, or do nothing
1st option the guy is at best gonna get a manslaughter charge, probably more because HE HAD THE OPTION TO USE NONLETHAL FORCE
2nd option, the cops show up the robber gets arrested, everyones happy.
3rd option and the guy is an accessory to the crime.
Do I feel he should have gone to jail? No. Could he have gone to jail? I don't know. I'm unsure what the sentencing guidelines are for theft of a 50 cent item. Do you?
What kind of an example is that? You give 3 options. The first and third you say are crimes.
What crime did the judge commit? NONE. The judge passed sentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
The stretches you guys are making now are laughable.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What crime did the judge commit? NONE. The judge passed sentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
i understand it perfectly. the judges decision diretly led to a persons death, that IMO IS A CRIME. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELEIVE THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES INCLUDED PROVISIONS FOR A QUAD. AND THE JUDGE CLEARLY DID NOT TAKE THAT FACT INTO CONSIDERATION, HOW DIFFICULT IS IT FOR THAT TO UNDERSTAND.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i understand it perfectly. the judges decision diretly led to a persons death, that IMO IS A CRIME. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELEIVE THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES INCLUDED PROVISIONS FOR A QUAD. AND THE JUDGE CLEARLY DID NOT TAKE THAT FACT INTO CONSIDERATION, HOW DIFFICULT IS IT FOR THAT TO UNDERSTAND.
Um, no. the criminal's decision to break the law led INDIRECTLY to his death. The judge followed the law, as a judge is required to do. The criminal did not.
You have a child with epilepsy. You chose to send that child to school. The child has a seizure at school and dies. Should you be jailed because you sent your child to school, as the law requires?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You aren't confused, you just can't read.
I said I support the LEGALIZATION of marijuana. I obviously don't support it's use while it is illegal.
lol...I can read just fine thanks.
Way to stick your neck out in support of a cause there Marlet.
I said I support the LEGALIZATION of marijuana.
Flip
I obviously don't support it's use while it is illegal.
Flop.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What an asinine argument. Let's blame the judge. Here's a better idea. What could the quad have done to prevent this tragedy?
Oh yeah.
NOT BREAK THE LAW.
Don't worry. Take your time. Like I said ... you can even keep the answers you don't really want to give to yourself if it'll make you think your little corner is really prime real estate.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Um, no. the criminal's decision to break the law led INDIRECTLY to his death. The judge followed the law, as a judge is required to do. The criminal did not.
You have a child with epilepsy. You chose to send that child to school. The child has a seizure at school and dies. Should you be jailed because you sent your child to school, as the law requires?
Yeah ... let's play stupid correlation vs. sensible one.
You have a child that has epilepsy. You can either send him to a school that is equipped and prepared to handle his special needs or you can send him to military school. You really really want to send him to military school. You call the military school and ask them if they'll accept children with epilepsy and can they handle their needs. The voice on the other end of the line says, "Uh ... yeah." You send him off. He has a seizure and dies. Do you have any business being a parent?
There ya go, Jethro. :D
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol...I can read just fine thanks.
Way to stick your neck out in support of a cause there Marlet.
I said I support the LEGALIZATION of marijuana.
Flip
I obviously don't support it's use while it is illegal.
Flop.
Come back and post again when you've come down off your high. You stopped making sense. I don't support breaking laws. I do support changing the ones I don't agree with. I'm sorry it's above your intellect to understand that.
Originally posted by Arlo
Don't worry. Take your time. Like I said ... you can even keep the answers you don't really want to give to yourself if it'll make you think your little corner is really prime real estate.
:aok
So, you've finally stopped trying to defend your asinine and indefensible argument and just moved right on to blabbering.
Originally posted by Arlo
Yeah ... let's play stupid correlation vs. sensible one.
You have a child that has epilepsy. You can either send him to a school that is equipped and prepared to handle his special needs or you can send him to military school. You really really want to send him to military school. You call the military school and ask them if they'll accept children with epilepsy and can they handle their needs. The voice on the other end of the line says, "Uh ... yeah." You send him off. He has a seizure and dies. Do you have any business being a parent?
There ya go, Jethro. :D
Fun game. I'll stick with my sensible correlation, though. You can keep your stupid one.
-
Wait, why was he in jail again?
Oh yeah.
HE BROKE THE LAW.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So, you've finally stopped trying to defend your asinine and indefensible argument and just moved right on to blabbering.
I'm not arguing anything. You are. Everyone else here knows it was stupid.
That's why I told you not to bother answering those oh so difficult questions in public. Even if you could understand them you couldn't figure out how to answer them in a way that helps make you look like you have enough sense to wring the piss outa yer bloomers. :lol
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Wait, why is he dead again?
Oh yeah.
HE BROKE THE LAW.
You're gonna hafta try to come up with something better than that. Oh wait. You can't. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not arguing anything. You are. Everyone else here knows it was stupid.
That's why I told you not to bother answering those oh so difficult questions in public. Even if you could understand them you couldn't figure out how to answer them in a way that helps make you look like you have enough sense to wring the piss outa yer bloomers. :lol
There you go again. I understand you feel bad that now that you've realized what a fool you are.
It's all about the facts.
He broke the law.
He was sentenced accordingly.
If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law. Why do hippies always support the criminals?
Originally posted by Arlo
You're gonna hafta try to come up with something better than that. Oh wait. You can't. :aok
Better? It isn't a matter of what's "better". It's a matter of fact.
Fact: He chose to break the law.
Fact: He was sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.
It's a valuable message to other criminals.
-
Let's assume a man gets caught drinking the day before the repealing of prohibition.
He is too drunk to stand trial that day and sleeps it off in his cell.
The next day drinking is a legal practice and bars across the country are opening for business.
The man stands trial after the repealing of the law.
By your logic Martlet, he should be punnished to the fullest extent of the law.
Or should he?
Sure he broke the law, but the courts determined, through due process, that the law was wrong.
Discuss.
(Preferrably without silly hippie references.)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Let's assume a man gets caught drinking the day before the repealing of prohibition.
He is too drunk to stand trial that day and sleeps it off in his cell.
The next day drinking is a legal practice and bars across the country are opening for business.
The man stands trial after the repealing of the law.
By your logic Martlet, he should be punnished to the fullest extent of the law.
Or should he?
Sure he broke the law, but the courts determined, through due process, that the law was wrong.
Discuss.
(Preferrably without silly hippie references.)
Hmmmmm.
I'd have to say that yes, he should be punished.
Your claim that I believe he should be punishe to the fullest extent of the law is absurd and unfounded, though. There are very few cases when I believe someone should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I'd also like to point out something I'm hoping you already know. This is an off topic question that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.
-
Forget trying to change his mind. He's just argueing because he has nothing better to do. Any person with an IQ of 2 or more can see the Judge screwed up big time.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Forget trying to change his mind. He's just argueing because he has nothing better to do. Any person with an IQ of 2 or more can see the Judge screwed up big time.
what he ^ said !
who are we talking abut btw?
nevernind *burp*
-
If you look at the title of the thread it contains the phrase "War on Drugs". Rpm is using this story about a judge's misdirected bias on the subject to validate an argument that the War isn't going too well. (Correct me if I'm wrong rmp, my assumption.)
Our little discussion may not be directly on topic but it certainly is related.
I think we are still on track.
So you think the man should still be punnished? Pretty harsh for a guy who admits he is all for the legalisation of a drug.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
There you go again. I understand you feel bad that now that you've realized what a fool you are.
It's all about the facts.
He broke the law.
He was sentenced accordingly.
If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law. Why do hippies always support the criminals?
Better? It isn't a matter of what's "better". It's a matter of fact.
Fact: He chose to break the law.
Fact: He was sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.
It's a valuable message to other criminals.
Valuable message to criminals? That's not gonna help you fight your way outa the corner.
We're not talking John Gotti here. We're talking about *sigh* (Arlo shakes his head at having to explain such a basic premise to someone who seems apparently smart enough to log onto the internet by themself) ... a severely handicapped individual that couldn't serve jail time who was found guilty of a misdemeanor that the judge seemed to think was the perfect opportunity to send your .... message to criminals ... via example. An example that resulted in the death of an incarcerated quadrapalegic in a facility that wasn't designed to handle his special needs .... to live.
That's way too stupid a decision to continue to entrust that judge with her duties.
You don't leave a scalpel in the hand of a surgeon who makes poor decisions at the operating table.
You don't leave a gun in the hand of a police officer who makes bad decisions in the street.
And you don't leave a gavel in the hand of a judge that makes poor decisions behind the bench.
But you just can't grasp those particular facts, can you? You pretty well made up your mind when you read the topic line, didn't ya?
Well hell, Martie ... if ya can't be honest with yourself, who am I to expect you to be honest with anyone else? ;)
Why do you like arguing yourself into a corner then parading your forehead into a wall while chanting how dumb everyone else is for not admiring your unique ability to do that time and again?
Stop bruising your forehead and try reading the pertinent facts again:
At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate.
(Kinda hard to argue that they DID ... given the circumstances of his DEATH ... dontcha think?)
"I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been punished, because he did smoke the marijuana," his mother, Mary Scott, said yesterday, a day after burying her son. "I just don't think it should have cost him his life."
(Even the mother agrees that there probably should have been a punishment handed out. She doesn't think it should have cost him his life. Call her up and explain to her how valuable an example her son is to other criminals.)
By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.
(Do you understand what the term "standards" means? Do you understand that the judge went beyond those standards .... even for someone who wasn't severly handicapped? Of course you don't.)
But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.
(Got a rep to maintain, dontcha know.)
"Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
(paraphrase - "Because if I let you get away with running around loose on the streets with your tongue on the trigger of a loaded gun then I'll have to let all the other psychopathic quads in the DC area brought before me for having a loaded tounge gun go free too!")
Details about Magbie's death were first reported by WJLA-TV. Magbie was struck by a drunk driver when he was 4 years old; he was paralyzed from the neck down, and his growth was stunted. Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds, he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.[/size]
(Obvious enough for everyone but Martlet and Judge Judy to grasp.)
In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family."
(Sorry bout that. Next case.)
Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.
(EVEN .. the CTF .... which apparently he wasn't sent to. What's that `ol Forrest Gump bit? Stupid is as stupid does? Well now. Defending it to the death seems `bout near as stupid but hopefully you don't bear a position of responsibility in real life so .. no real threat there, eh?) :D
-
Originally posted by rpm
Forget trying to change his mind. He's just argueing because he has nothing better to do. Any person with an IQ of 2 or more can see the Judge screwed up big time.
Translated as: "Hippies support the pothead!. Lay off the MAN"
Originally posted by Curval
If you look at the title of the thread it contains the phrase "War on Drugs". Rpm is using this story about a judge's misdirected bias on the subject to validate an argument that the War isn't going too well. (Correct me if I'm wrong rmp, my assumption.)
Our little discussion may not be directly on topic but it certainly is related.
I think we are still on track.
So you think the man should still be punnished? Pretty harsh for a guy who admits he is all for the legalisation of a drug.
That wasn't the way I took it. I took it as rpm crying about another pot head being trod on.
I don't think that's harsh at all. I'm for obeying the law. If you break the law, you have to accept the punishment. Whether or not I believe it is a dumb law is irrelevant.
I think the seatbelt law is stupid, too. You won't hear me crying if I get tagged not wearing one.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
There are very few cases when I believe someone should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
What ... quadrapelegics who commit misdemeanors being the exception? heh
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What ... quadrapalegics who commit misdemeanors being the exception? heh
I never said I supported the judges decision. I never said he should receive the maximum penalty.
I said if he was concerned with going to jail, guess what comes next?
HE SHOULDN"T HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I never said I supported the judges decision. I never said he should receive the maximum penalty.
I said if he was concerned with going to jail, guess what comes next?
HE SHOULDN"T HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.
Just say no to trying to give SLO competition for the position of village idiot. Thank you. You may now quitely leave your corner. :D
-
Arlo kinda beat me to it.
The guidelines the judge had in this case surely ranged from letting the kid go with probationary caviats to...what...the electric chair?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Just say no to trying to give SLO competition for the position of village idiot. Thank you. You may now quitely leave your corner. :D
Excellent response. I guess if you can't successfully defend your idiotic position you can just ignore it and cast insults.
How could he be alive today?
Oh yeah.
IF HE HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW
Originally posted by Curval
Arlo kinda beat me to it.
The guidelines the judge had in this case surely ranged from letting the kid go with probationary caviats to...what...the electric chair?
I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are. I'd have to guess the chair is outside them, though.
Very intelligent comment, by the way. Appropriate for an argument professing criminals shouldn't be punished, though.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I think the seatbelt law is stupid, too. You won't hear me crying if I get in a wreck and end up a quadrapelegic for not wearing one but the judge thinks I deserve a week in the pokie, as well even though I can't breathe on my own ... and I die because there was inadequate care. You won't hear it because I'll be dead. But I broke the law. So there. Cool.
What will it take to get you to stop crying about how much we're picking on the poor defenseless judge who's just helping keep the fabric of society stitched together by prosecuting the severely disabled to the fullest extent of the law? A lollypop? Will a lollypop keep you occupied? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
What will it take to get me to stop picking on the poor defenseless judge who's just putting criminals behind bars like we PAY them to do? :D
When you stop crying about your brethren potheads who are punished for BREAKING THE LAW.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
When you stop crying about your brethren potheads who are punished for BREAKING THE LAW.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Speaking of POT!
How about a tootsie roll? Will that dry your tears? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Speaking of POT!
How about a tootsie roll? Will that dry your tears? :D
Ahhh. I love watching you when you're backed into a corner, realizing you can no longer defend your failed argument. You start acting like my nephew. Just start crying and hurling insults.
It's ok. I know it makes you feel better. Keep at it and I'll check back from time to time to see if you've come up with another tack to try.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh. I love watching you when you're backed into a corner, realizing you can no longer defend your failed argument. You start acting like my nephew. Just start crying and hurling insults.
It's ok. I know it makes you feel better. Keep at it and I'll check back from time to time to see if you've come up with another tack to try.
Whatever you gotta type to think you just came outa of this smelling like roses is fine by me. All I saw you do was prove you couldn't understand the article that this whole "discussion" centered on and you go to extremes to prove that you like the show Baretta ... a lot.
What will your new tact be? No ... wait ... let me guess.
HIM DEAD CAUSE HE BREAK LAW!
DON'T DO CRIME IF CAN'T DO TIME!
Does your nephew think you're a hopeless moron too?
:D :lol :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Whatever you gotta type to think you just came outa of this smelling like roses is fine by me. All I saw you do was prove you couldn't understand the article that this whole "discussion" centered on and that you like the show Baretta ... a lot.
What will your new tact be? No ... wait ... let me guess.
HIM DEAD CAUSE HE BREAK LAW!
DON'T DO CRIME IF CAN'T DO TIME!
Does your nephew think you're a hopeless moron too?
:D :lol :aok
Nope, nothing intelligent to get yourself out of the corner.
I'll check back, though.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Nope, nothing intelligent to get yourself out of the corner.
I'll check back, though.
Ahhh .... can't even come up with your own original material at this point. I suggest a nap for you, young man. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhh .... can't even come up with your own original material at this point. I suggest a nap for you, young man. :)
Ooops, you're still stuck in the corner. Keep trying! I'll check back.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ooops, you're still stuck in the corner. Keep trying! I'll check back.
Deja vu! Yeah ... I guess I must be stuck. In a corner. :lol
Hey ... I got an idea. Why don't you post that I'm stuck in a corner and you'll check back ... again .... and then everyone will believe your Baretta imitation makes up for the death of a quadrapelegic for a misdemeanor.
You could include a catchy phrase like:
HE BROKE THE LAW
... to make your case more convincing.
Whatcha think? Will it work? :D
(I can go on like this for days. How about you?) ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Deja vu! Yeah ... I guess I must be stuck. In a corner. :lol
Hey ... I got an idea. Why don't you post that I'm stuck in a corner and you'll check back ... again .... and then everyone will believe your Baretta imitation makes up for the death of a quadrapelegic for a misdemeanor.
You could include a catchy phrase like:
HE BROKE THE LAW
... to make your case more convincing.
Whatcha think? Will it work? :D
(I can go on like this for days. How about you?) ;)
Still in that corner.
I'll check back. Later this time, though, cause I'm going in game.
You can post three times and I'll catch up.
-
Originally posted by Curval
What about alcohol? Why do people drink?
Cause it pays taxes? Oh no wait, thats how we justify its legality. Why is Tobacco Legal? oh yea Taxation, I remember.....
Anton
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Still in that corner.
I'll check back. Later this time, though, cause I'm going in game.
You can post three times and I'll catch up.
You haven't caught up yet. Don't fool yourself. But yeah ... you needed the break. I already told you that. I get the feeling you're somehow in "management." hehe :D
Just uh-member!
HIM DEAD CAUSE HE BREAK LAW! :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You haven't caught up yet. Don't fool yourself. But yeah ... you needed the break. I already told you that. I get the feeling you're somehow in "management." hehe :D
Just uh-member!
HIM DEAD CAUSE HE BREAK LAW! :aok
No, he's dead because the people who's custody he was put in dropped the ball.
He was IN CUSTODY because he broke the law.
The whole "sentenced to death" defense of your argument was already presented and shot down.
-
Shhhh ... nap time Baretta jr. Uh-member? There ya go.
-
Actually, he's dead because he was in very poor health. The county did not deal with that correctly.
But then... this wouldn't be an issue if he'd died because he took the oxygen mask off long enough to smoke a joint.
I cannot believe the issue that is being made here. I cannot believe the twists that are occuring. The man was sentanced to 10 DAYS IN JAIL. 10 DAYS! And someone is screaming excessive sentance?
Yeah. Right. I guess parapalegics should be excused from court since any sentance could result in their death and thus be the fault of the judge. Yeppers... that's the way it should be. Afterall.. they're harmless.
I'm willing to bet money if the judge would have known he'd die in the county's custody, the judgement would have been different. The very notion that the judge "sentanced him to death" is completely without merrit and smacks of over-reaction with the increadible benifit of hindsight. I wonder if his "friends" that were driving the car also blame the judge for this one?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Translated as: "Hippies support the pothead!. Lay off the MAN"
That wasn't the way I took it. I took it as rpm crying about another pot head being trod on.
It was to expose a needless death by a wacko Judge Judy wannabe overenforcing a law against a consentual crime. Factor in he was completely harmless to society. Spin that however you want. You're going to anyway.
I don't think that's harsh at all. I'm for obeying the law. If you break the law, you have to accept the punishment. Whether or not I believe it is a dumb law is irrelevant.
I think the seatbelt law is stupid, too. You won't hear me crying if I get tagged not wearing one.
Unless the judge sentences you to spend 10 days underwater without an air supply. Wait... we WON'T hear you. Will we?
-
Originally posted by rpm
It was to expose a needless death by a wacko Judge Judy wannabe overenforcing a law against a consentual crime. Factor in he was completely harmless to society. Spin that however you want. You're going to anyway.
Unless the judge sentences you to spend 10 days underwater without an air supply. Wait... we WON'T hear you. Will we?
A consensual crimes are still crimes. If you don't like them, get them off the books. There's enough of them so you should be busy for awhile.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm relaying the facts.
He broke the law.
He was sentenced to 10 days in jail. He was riding around smoking dope, how much special care does he need? The only laws that were broken were by him.
-
WE NEED MORE CAPSLOCK IN THIS THREAD. I JUST POPPED OFF MY KEY, NOW I'M STUCK IN CAPS. EAT IT.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
A consensual crimes are still crimes. If you don't like them, get them off the books. There's enough of them so you should be busy for awhile.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm relaying the facts.
He broke the law.
He was sentenced to 10 days in jail. He was riding around smoking dope, how much special care does he need? The only laws that were broken were by him.
You are already spinning. He wasn't riding around smoking, they found pot in the car and he claimed possession. Maybe the fact he wasn't allowed to bring his resperator to jail (contraband, can't be bringing any personal items) was a contributing factor. Maybe the Judge should have been more specific than "Ya'll take crips?" when checking to see if it was an adequate facility to house this inmate. Maybe she should have pulled her head out of her *** before passing sentence. These could all be factors...don't you agree?
-
Originally posted by rpm
You are already spinning. He wasn't riding around smoking, they found pot in the car and he claimed possession. Maybe the fact he wasn't allowed to bring his resperator to jail (contraband, can't be bringing any personal items) was a contributing factor. Maybe the Judge should have been more specific than "Ya'll take crips?" when checking to see if it was an adequate facility to house this inmate. Maybe she should have pulled her head out of her *** before passing sentence. These could all be factors...don't you agree?
I'm spinning? I've been talking facts. Let's look at your last post.
I'll grant you he may not have been smoking in the car. That's an assumption, since they obviously had cause to search.
Beyond that, your story is garbage.
He was sentenced within the guidelines of the law. He was checked in at the hospital and released. He was under a doctor's care at the jail. That doctor tried to return the quad to the hospital but the hospital refused it as being unneccessary.
Seems to me they DID have an adequate system in place, the hospital just botched it. Your anger is misdirected because of your eagerness to make a point about drugs.
-
Apparently they DID'NT have a proper facility or he would still be alive. She went overboard.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Apparently they DID'NT have a proper facility or he would still be alive. She went overboard.
They DID have the proper facility, those that ran it wouldn't take him. THEY dropped the ball.
She did her job.
He broke the law.
-
We could go back and forth all night...and there's a good episode of Venture Brothers on. Like I said earlier, an IQ of 2 can see she was wrong.
-
Originally posted by rpm
We could go back and forth all night...and there's a good episode of Venture Brothers on. Like I said earlier, an IQ of 2 can see she was wrong.
Uh huh.
I don't blame you for bailing.
The facts get in the way of your argument.
-
Actually I just get tired of listening to drivel.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Actually I just get tired of listening to drivel.
HAHAHAHA!
Drivel? You haven't posted a single relevant or factual piece of information yet. It's all speculation and opinion. You ignore the facts to promote your agenda.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually, he's dead because he was in very poor health.
You are certainly in the running for the idiot of the thread award here. But, be warned, Martie will give you a run for your money. :aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
HAHAHAHA!
Drivel? You haven't posted a single relevant or factual piece of information yet. It's all speculation and opinion. You ignore the facts to promote your agenda.
Back for more, are we? That nap has sure reenergized ya, bunny.
And you ignore all facts period and just repeat "Well, Uncle Jed, he DID break that thar law so he deserves to be dead and all!"
Listen to a story bout a poster named martlet
didn't have a clue, he's the BB's own tardlette .....
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You are certainly in the running for the idiot of the thread award here. But, be warned, Martie will give you a run for your money. :aok
You locked up that title with your 23rd attempt to argue your case without a single fact to back you up and ignoring the ones that prove you wrong.
-
I think the majority opinion is going to go against ya here Mart.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Back for more, are we? That nap has sure reenergized ya, bunny.
And you ignore all facts period and just repeat "Well, Uncle Jed, he DID break that thar law so he deserves to be dead and all!"
Listen to a story bout a poster named martlet
didn't have a clue, he's the BB's own tardlette .....
You didn't get a defense while I was gone, I see.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I think the seatbelt law is stupid, too. You won't hear me crying if I get tagged not wearing one.
Seatbelts are stupids, have you mentioned this to NASCAR?
-
Originally posted by rpm
I think the majority opinion is going to go against ya here Mart.
You have no argument. None. Zero. Zip.
Repeating over and over "she killed him" while the facts plainly show the hospital was at fault doesn't make you right. It just makes you stupid.
-
Just like your "He broke the law, so what if he died". I just got tired of slapping it down over and over and over. The first time was sufficient.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Just like your "He broke the law, so what if he died". I just got tired of slapping it down over and over and over. The first time was sufficient.
I'm sorry, could you point out where I said "so what if he died"?
I said it wasn't the judges fault.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Seatbelts are stupids, have you mentioned this to NASCAR?
Regardless of the opinion of NASCAR, seatbelts are inanimate; they have no inherent intelligence.
-
You just did it again. The whole point is it WAS the Judges fault for not acting "reasonably within the guidelines". To try and pass the buck is where the "so what" comes from. Now get your last word in because I'm going to bed.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You locked up that title with your 23rd attempt to argue your case without a single fact to back you up and ignoring the ones that prove you wrong.
Not really. You see. You're proud of your stupidity here. It's a foot-stamping "champion of all that's good over evil and white over black" (but has trouble distinguishing what's what when a certain party platform is involved) type thang.
You couldn't look at the core issue of the judge being excessive to the point of ordering a quadapelegic to a sentence that was as certain a death as her rising from behind the bench and shooting him between the eyes because you think that may be giving ground in a battle you're having with rmp here. One I merely joined in on to see exactly how far you'd take it over nothing more than party bickering.
Now that, Jethro, is as much a tragedy as anything. Especially if you have any sort of position of authority that involves the welfare of another person in real life? Hopefully that's not the case (even to the point of parenting). The party may require a human sacrifice from you to make another poli statement. ;)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You didn't get a defense while I was gone, I see.
You haven't developed anything substantial that requires one yet, I see. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Not really. You see. You're proud of your stupidity here. It's a foot-stamping "champion of all that's good over evil and white over black" (but has trouble distinguishing what's what when a certain party platform is involved) type thang.
You couldn't look at the core issue of the judge being excessive to the point of ordering a quadapelegic to a sentence that was as certain a death her rising from behing the bench and shooting him between the eyes because you think that may be giving ground in a battle you're having with rmp here. One I merely joined in on to see exactly how far you'd take it over nothing more than party bickering.
Now that, Jethro, is as much a tragedy as anything. Especially if you have any sort of position of authority that involves the welfare of another person in real life? Hopefully that's not the case (even to the point of parenting). The party may require a human sacrifice from you to make another poli statement. ;)
Ahhh, I get it. You didn't really mean to argue, you were just doing it for kicks. That's a new comeback. "I'm not really this stupid, I'm just pretending".
Now you're telling me that a hospital isn't qualified to meet his medical needs? That's rich.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
They DID have the proper facility, those that ran it wouldn't take him. THEY dropped the ball.
She did her job.
He broke the law.
"Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie ... "
Reading is such a phundi-mental thing when it comes to forming an opinion about something we ... errr ... read, Jethro. Uncle Jed isn't gonna be happy that you played hookie in the cement pond.
:lol
-
"Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
It was the draconian gun law that killed him.
(ducks)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie ... "
Reading is such a phundi-mental thing when it comes to forming an opinion about something we ... errr ... read, Jethro. Uncle Jed isn't gonna be happy that you played hookie in the cement pond.
:lol
Within hours, Magbie was moved to Greater Southeast Community Hospital.
The court official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the doctor believed that Magbie belonged at the hospital and pressed Greater Southeast, which handles inmate hospitalizations, to take him back. But the hospital rebuffed the request, the official said.
It certainly is.
The facts, my boy, the facts.
Something you are trying so desperately trying to ignore.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Regardless of the opinion of NASCAR, seatbelts are inanimate; they have no inherent intelligence.
Damn you Holden Mcgroin!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, I get it. You didn't really mean to argue, you were just doing it for kicks. That's a new comeback. "I'm not really this stupid, I'm just pretending".
Now you're telling me that a hospital isn't qualified to meet his medical needs? That's rich.
And you're still trying? Dunno man ... seems the more you type, the more you come off as a crackhead. Kinda ironic considering the main reason you're having a pissy-fit here.
I know you can't understand that the judge is liable for handing down too stiff a sentence to a person that was physically incapable of surviving it (with a myraid of options not only at her disposal but ... recommended ... even preferred ... by the system she was supposedly serving). Serving the system. Heh. Serving herself. Oops ... screwed up. Well that's a career that needed ending before it got this far.
You may want to double check your own logic circuits before you screw up your own life in a similar fashion. One that hopefully doesn't involve a responsibility greater than selecting the channels on a remote control. :aok :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And you're still trying? Dunno man ... seems the more you type, the more you come off as a crackhead. Kinda ironic considering the main reason you're having a pissy-fit here.
I know you can't understand that the judge is liable for handing down too stiff a sentence to a person that was physically incapable of surviving it (with a myraid of options not only at her disposal but ... recommended ... even preferred ... by the system she was supposedly serving). Serving the system. Heh. Serving herself. Oops ... screwed up. Well that's a career that needed ending before it got this far.
You may want to double check your own logic circuits before you screw up your own life in a similar fashion. One that hopefully doesn't involve a responsibility greater than selecting the channels on a remote control. :aok :D
Ahhh, so reading all of a sudden doesn't matter anymore? Why? Facts got you down?
The hospital screwed up, not the judge. It's right there in black and white. Keep calling it pink if you'd like, though. Whatever makes you happy. Watching you change tacks every time you find yourself backed into a corner is enough satisfaction for me.
You're wrong and you know it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It certainly is.
The facts, my boy, the facts.
Something you are trying so desperately trying to ignore.
"Paralyzed as a child and unable to even breathe on his own, Magbie died last Friday after being shuttled between the D.C. jail complex and Greater Southeast Community Hospital."
At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate."
" By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected. "
"Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie ... "
"In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe (which she now obviously doesn't) "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended (I screwed up, ok? Whoops!) tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family." (please let me continue to serve in the capacity I'm so obviously suited for)
Gotta have the stamina to read more than one paragraph AND understand what it means, Jethro. Even Judge Judy knows she screwed up. But you make as good a lawyer for her defense as she does a judge. Now tell yourself that's a compliment .... because ... you know you want it to be. And .. well ... that's what counts. :D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
He was sentenced to 10 days in jail. He was riding around smoking dope, how much special care does he need? The only laws that were broken were by him.
Obviously enough to keep him alive. Which the jail was unable to provide.
Again ... are you really so stupid .... or party loyal ... to miss that very key issue? And you keep harping on whether or not Judge Judy broke a law.
You can't grasp the simple idea of liability or responsibility. I bet you think that whole family got just what it deserved over their tongue gun toting mafioso whacked out killer quadrepeligic son's indiscretions. Wait ... that's exactly how you feel. You've repeated that endlessly. :aok Way to go, man. You made the party proud.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You can't grasp the simple idea of liability or responsibility.
Sure I can. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. You're the one that's been arguing against it.
He broke the law.
Accountability.
The judge acted as she was supposed to.
The hospital dropped the ball.
You see it. I see it. You just hate looking like more of a fool than you already do. What you don't realize, though, that continuing to argue a point that's already been tossed out is giving me a good laugh.
The judge did nothing wrong.
The criminal did.
The hospital may have.
Keep spinning. I'm having a good laugh.
At your expense, of course. It's rare I get to see a GED in action.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure I can. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. You're the one that's been arguing against it.
He broke the law.
Accountability.
The judge acted as she was supposed to.
The hospital dropped the ball.
You see it. I see it. You just hate looking like more of a fool than you already do. What you don't realize, though, that continuing to argue a point that's already been tossed out is giving me a good laugh.
The judge did nothing wrong.
The criminal did.
The hospital may have.
Keep spinning. I'm having a good laugh.
At your expense, of course. It's rare I get to see a GED in action.
You've been trying to argue for her defense and coming up short all this time. You're still doing it ... and you're still doing a lousy job of it. I suppose we can award you points for dogged determination but that would just lead you to think that you're accomplishing something.
Now that we're both laughing, chew on this Jethro.
If you ever had a position of responisibility in your life that involved a decision that affected the life of another individual you would probably sober up pretty quick about this. That much is obvious. I, at least, know this.
Ok ... rest your brain. Take a break and watch cartoon network. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You've been trying to argue for her defense and coming up short all this time. You're still doing it ... and you're still doing a lousy job of it. I suppose we can award you points for dogged determination but that would just lead you to think that you're accomplishing something.
Now that we're both laughing, chew on this Jethro.
If you ever had a position of responisibility in your life that involved a decision that affected the life of another individual you would probably sober up pretty quick about this. That much is obvious. I, at least, know this.
Ok ... rest your brain. Take a break and watch cartoon network. :)
You keep saying I'm not supporting my argument. Saying it doesn't make it so. You've yet to even present an argument. You just keep repeating your tag line, which, I might add, is opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion.
You thinking she was in the wrong doesn't make her in the wrong. Anyone in any position to make that determination agrees with me.
Moonbat, I would hardly call you job as a Walmart greeter the "big life influencing" position. I'm sure no one went home crying because you forgot to say hi.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You keep saying I'm not supporting my argument. Saying it doesn't make it so. You've yet to even present an argument. You just keep repeating your tag line, which, I might add, is opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion.
You thinking she was in the wrong doesn't make her in the wrong. Anyone in any position to make that determination agrees with me.
Moonbat, I would hardly call you job as a Walmart greeter the "big life influencing" position. I'm sure no one went home crying because you forgot to say hi.
Nor is your forgetting to ask them if they "want fries with that" a life changing event.
Truth be told ... you're free to think the judge acted accordingly even though it's obvious to everyone who even bothered to scan the article that she didn't. Nothing I can say here will convince you otherwise.
Likewise I'm free to think she's an idiot that has no business being left behind the bench to render decisions that have more to do with making a name for herself as a tough guy than it does insuring justice is carried out.
I'm sorry you're so angry that you're not impressing or influencing anyone on the ahbbs with your tunnel vision party slant on every single thread you read and respond to but you really have nobody to blame but yourself. Ironic, given that's generally your pat answer to any and all examples of hardship or tragedy posted here.
Now I know you think you're not done ... but you are. You were before you even struggled to form a sentence on this topic. Thanks for trying. Good look on the french frier promotion. I'm sure the other kids don't really hate you as much as you think they do.
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Nor is your forgetting to ask them if they "want fries with that" a life changing event.
Truth be told ... you're free to think the judge acted accordingly even though it's obvious to everyone who even bothered to scan the article that she didn't. Nothing I can say here will convince you otherwise.
Likewise I'm free to think she's an idiot that has no business being left behind the bench to render decisions that have more to do with making a name for herself as a tough guy than it does insuring justice is carried out.
I'm sorry you're so angry that you're not impressing or influencing anyone on the ahbbs with your tunnel vision party slant on every single thread you read and respond to but you really have nobody to blame but yourself. Ironic, given that's generally your pat answer to any and all examples of hardship or tragedy posted here.
Now I know you think you're not done ... but you are. You were before you even struggled to form a sentence on this topic. Thanks for trying. Good look on the french frier promotion. I'm sure the other kids don't really hate you as much as you think they do.
:D
Ahhhh, so now your argument is right where it should be.
You think she was wrong.
Fortunately, the world doesn't revolve around what Arlo thinks. Heck, you can't even come up with an original insult. Keep stealing mine, though. They'll work for you someday.
While you're thinking, I'm laying out the facts. It's why you're in a corner with no place to take your argument but home.
FACT: He broke the law. What was in the car? Coke, a gun, and pot.
FACT: He was sentenced in accordance with the law.
FACT: The judge was told the facility could handle his needs.
FACT: The facility realized it couldn't and sent him to the hospital, standard procedure.
FACT: The hospital wouldn't take him.
Ahhhh, theirs the problem.
Have your floor supervisor explain it to you. I'll bet he gets it.
-
Fact: The sentence was unusually harsh and it fell outside the standards. This is agreed upon by the DA's office.
Fact: He couldn't survive a ten day stint in the pokie for a misdemeanor. This was proven by his death, no less.
Fact: No arms company in the world sells a tongue gun.
Fact: You are a moron. So was the judge.
Have your daddy review this and I'm sure he'll agree.
See? I told you that you were done. You should have listened. Oh well. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Fact: The sentence was unusually harsh and it fell outside the standards. This is agreed upon by the DA's office.
Fact: He couldn't survive a ten day stint in the pokie for a misdemeanor. This was proven by his death, no less.
Fact: No arms company in the world sells a tongue gun.
Fact: You are a moron. So was the judge.
Have your daddy review this and I'm sure he'll agree.
See? I told you that you were done. You should have listened. Oh well. :aok
Which one of those facts contained a law or rule broken by the judge?
Oh yeah. NONE.
The ONLY legitimate gripe you have is that his sentence was harsher than it should have been. Even THAT is opinion.
You have nothing. You aren't done. You never started. You're just crying in the corner.
You've got no game. None.
-
Skuzzy,
Time to lock this one. Nothing new being posted by either side and it's degenerated into a senseless flame fest. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Skuzzy,
Time to lock this one. Nothing new being posted by either side and it's degenerated into a senseless flame fest. :rolleyes:
Agreed. I'm out. I've got Arlo blathering about absolutely nothing now. I almost feel sorry for him.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Which one of those facts contained a law or rule broken by the judge?
Oh yeah. NONE.
The ONLY legitimate gripe you have is that his sentence was harsher than it should have been. Even THAT is opinion.
You have nothing. You aren't done. You never started. You're just crying in the corner.
You've got no game. None.
Stop being a blithering idiot with the "what law did she break" stuff. Nobody's asking for her head or for her to be thrown in jail (even though some may say she could be technically considered criminally negligent). She doesn't have any business behind the bench. Deep down ... in spite of your pressing need to fulfill your political duties, you're bound to know this. It's hard to picture anyone incapable of doing so being able to turn on the pc much less connect to the internet.
Do yourself a favor and read up on litigious responsibilites. There's more to it than judges actually committing offenses when it comes to culpability. Do you need to pull out a dictionary now?
:D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Agreed. I'm out.
Well ... some may say better late than never. Work on them first instincts. :)
(Are we gonna edit everytime we think of something we wish we would have added now so we can pretend we're done? Heh ... cool beans.) :aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
And I didn't CALL YOU anything.
What are you whining about? If you've realized you can't defend your position and want to bail, go for it. Don't make up fake reasons, though.
My apologies,
You didnt call me anything. I hadnt noticed that you were responding to two posts at the same time.
So on that particular point I was wrong
Your right, the judge "technically" did nothing wrong according to the law.
It is her judgment in the application and enforcement of the law which comes into question.
But Im sure this will probably come out in whats sure to be a civil trial
As for my invovlment. Not that its any of your buisness.
I've both written and spoken to several of my legislators expressing my views and my reasons.
I also support organasations like "the Coalition of medical marijuanna" and the "AAMC"
And of course Ive broken the law and will do so in the future for others as needed and I am fully prepaired to suffer the consequences as I have stated,," PROUDLY".
Im bailing now not beause I cant defend my position
I beleive my position to be the right one.
Obviously Your views are and will always be more black and white.
And they probably wont change untill circumstances in your life perhaps change that view.
Untill then you will always see my view as flawed
This is the same mentality both yours and mine we see in the abortion debates. which are conversations I also tend to not get too involved with
-
If this had been an athlete, people would have been screaming for a maximum sentance. It's fun to hate some and make others into martyrs.
The county is solely responsible for the care of its inmates. A civil trial will bare this out quite clearly. Weather someone is sentanced for 10 days or 1 year, the county is obligated to care for them. If the proper medical support is not available at a jail, then the inmates are kept at a hospital. This is the decision of the county corrections office, not the judge.
The judge looked at someone who was arrested along with everyone else in a vehicle and saw complete unrepentance and dismissal and sentanced them to 10 DAYS IN JAIL. Yes.. excessive. Yah.. sure... responsible. Yeppers... it's all the judge's fault.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
If this had been an athlete, people would have been screaming for a maximum sentance. It's fun to hate some and make others into martyrs.
The county is solely responsible for the care of its inmates. A civil trial will bare this out quite clearly. Weather someone is sentanced for 10 days or 1 year, the county is obligated to care for them. If the proper medical support is not available at a jail, then the inmates are kept at a hospital. This is the decision of the county corrections office, not the judge.
The judge looked at someone who was arrested along with everyone else in a vehicle and saw complete unrepentance and dismissal and sentanced them to 10 DAYS IN JAIL. Yes.. excessive. Yah.. sure... responsible. Yeppers... it's all the judge's fault.
The disabled inmate died in custody because the judge decided to make an example of a quadriplegic guilty of a misdemeanor because she suspected the tonguegun was his. Yep ... judge Judy was just doing her duty.
-
Decided to "make an example" of a quadrapolegic? Now... just where are you getting that. It seems to me the only people making an example of him are those screaming for the judge's robes.
Do you know what sentance everyone else riding in the car got? Do you even care?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Decided to "make an example" of a quadrapolegic? Now... just where are you getting that. It seems to me the only people making an example of him are those screaming for the judge's robes.
Do you know what sentance everyone else riding in the car got? Do you even care?
(thanks for bringing some kind of intelligent argument to your side.)
it doesnt matter what the other guys in the car got, they presumably got what they deserved, this quad got death for smoking some dope for medical purposes. yes that is illegal, and yes he should have got punished. but punishment should fit the crime and the criminal.
the make an example comes from the excessive sentence for a first time misdemeanor, which the guy would not have got, had the gun not been in the car.
""Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
"Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.
"I certainly would not say they killed him or any conclusion like that," Fornaci said. "But it certainly seems likely that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't gone to jail.""
-
Originally posted by vorticon
it doesnt matter what the other guys in the car got, they presumably got what they deserved, this quad got death for smoking some dope for medical purposes.
No, he didn't. He got 10 days in jail. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to spin it, the facts are the facts.
"I certainly would not say they killed him or any conclusion like that," Fornaci said. "But it certainly seems likely that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't gone to jail.""
Let's take it a step further back.
"He wouldn't have gone to jail if he hadn't broken the law".
It's not like the judge was pulling people randomly off the street and putting them in jail.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Decided to "make an example" of a quadrapolegic? Now... just where are you getting that. It seems to me the only people making an example of him are those screaming for the judge's robes.
Do you know what sentance everyone else riding in the car got? Do you even care?
Are you clueless about the term "extenuating circumstances" as well? Ten days in the pokie isn't a death sentence to whoever else was in the car. You don't really understand that, do you? :D
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, he didn't. He got 10 days in jail. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try to spin it, the facts are the facts.
Let's take it a step further back.
"He wouldn't have gone to jail if he hadn't broken the law".
It's not like the judge was pulling people randomly off the street and putting them in jail.
I knew you couldn't leave and walk away. Not so much because you think you're right ... but because you can't stand being wrong. You want so badly to pound your belief into other's heads. It doesn't work that way. You have to actually try a different approach. One that merits a concession from the other side. Unless ... you're just in it for the attention, mate. ;)