Another Victory in the War on Drugs

[Martlet]

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.

[Arlo]

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.

[rpm]

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.

[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".

[AKIron]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

[Arlo]

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.

[DREDIOCK]

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

[rpm]

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".

[Martlet]

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.

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.

[Arlo]

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?

[SOB]

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.

[DREDIOCK]

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

[Martlet]

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?

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?

[DREDIOCK]

When the discussion degrades to the infintile level of namecalling the discussion ends..
have a good day