Another Victory in the War on Drugs

[Martlet]

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.

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.

[Arlo]

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.

[Arlo]

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.  Way to go, man. You made the party proud.

[Martlet]

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.

[Arlo]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

[Arlo]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

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.

[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.

[Martlet]

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.

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.

[Maverick]

Skuzzy,

Time to lock this one. Nothing new being posted by either side and it's degenerated into a senseless flame fest.

[Martlet]

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.

Agreed.  I'm out.  I've got Arlo blathering about absolutely nothing now.   I almost feel sorry for him.

[Arlo]

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?

[Arlo]

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.)

[DREDIOCK]

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