Five minutes of hate news

Abhorsen said:
... It being subject to review means it isn't at their "sole discretion". Do you understand what that means? It means that only the judge (the "sole" part) gets to decide (the "discretion" part). If you can be overruled, it isn't at your sole discretion, as other people can have have a say (and in fact, can overrule you).
Click to expand...
A. You claimed they can't dismiss it, only now you are backtracking to argue the definition of sole discretion.
B. The existence of the appeal court does not change the fact that the initial case was dismissed at the judge's sole discretion. The appeal is an appeal, not the same original case
Abhorsen said:
On top of that, cases aren't just dismissed 'just because'. There has to be a legal reason for it. A dismissal is given for a variety of things, but not because the judge feels like it.
Click to expand...
1. tell this to actual judges.
2. "you will never win this case so it is a waste of court's time" is in fact a legitimate legal cause to dismiss a case and one often used IRL. Also explicitly mentioned in the source I linked
  • Even if everything in the complaint is true, the plaintiff should lose the case which means the pleading is defective from the start, or
Click to expand...
3. "the defendant is a minor" is also a perfectly legal reason to dismiss a case. And also explicitly mentioned in the source I linked.
 
Abhorsen said:
She absolutely could be convicted in a trial by jury. She can't make a self defense claim, as she wasn't in imminent fear of her life/bodily harm because the guy was sleeping. And I'm pretty sure her talking with cops blew more holes in any self defense case she might have had.
Click to expand...
She was a hostage breaking out of a gang holdout. The sleeping guy was a clear and present threat to her life as opening the door could wake up him, he then raises the alarm and the rest of the gang descends upon her and her escape is cut short.
Abhorsen said:
I've seen no evidence for misbehavior at all on the part of the defense attorney.
Click to expand...
The chucklefuck got her to plead guilty to a literally unloseable case.
Abhorsen said:
She has to rely on a trafficking victim defense through another Iowa law that a jury gets to decide, and the jury might not be sympathetic (it's always a dice roll with juries. You get one person with a loud enough personality and opinion, and they can sway it). So they went with the less risky option of a plea deal with a low enough minimum that she could get sentenced to just time served with the right judge.
Click to expand...
While jury is a crapshot, the sheer level of implausibility of finding a jury that would unanimously convict her is mind boggling. (remember it has to be unanimous. if even 1 single jury objects it is a hung jury)
 
mrttao said:
A. You claimed they can't dismiss it, only now you are backtracking to argue the definition of sole discretion.
B. The existence of the appeal court does not change the fact that the initial case was dismissed at the judge's sole discretion. The appeal is an appeal, not the same original case
Click to expand...
In regards to A, my original complaint was with sole discretion (I literally put that part in quotes to highlight it!):
Abhorsen said:
Judges also don't and can't throw cases out 'at their sole discrection'. In fact, them throwing cases out is subject to appeal, and has to be based on an array of rules and laws, and if not done so correctly, will be overturned.
Click to expand...
That's why I included that they could throw out cases, but they were subject to appeal. The entire issue I have is that you think judges can just do whatever, when they absolutely cannot. They have a limited set of things for which they can dismiss a case, and those things are subject to review. None of them apply here.

In regards to B, it's the same case. It's a different hearing, with a different ruling, but the case is preserved.

mrttao said:
1. tell this to actual judges.
2. "you will never win this case so it is a waste of court's time" is in fact a legitimate legal cause to dismiss a case and one often used IRL. Also explicitly mentioned in the source I linked
Click to expand...
1. You can, and lawyers do. It's called an memorandum, telling the judge why or why not the case should be dismissed, and what laws control the judge. It's also called an appeal when a judge disagrees with you.

2. The prosecutor has a guilty plea, he clearly can win. No, it can be only be dismissed if the prosecution literally failed to present enough evidence to show a fact (or forgot to present it)/prove guilt beyond any possibility of a reasonable doubt.

For example, I know of a drunk driving case that was dismissed after the prosecution rested because the prosecution completely forgot to mention that he was driving on a public road (a necessary part of the offense).

mrttao said:
She was a hostage breaking out of a gang holdout. The sleeping guy was a clear and present threat to her life as opening the door could wake up him, he then raises the alarm and the rest of the gang descends upon her and her escape is cut short.
Click to expand...
This is why you don't talk to cops without a lawyer. What she said in the interview with cops might have included a statement about just being so angry that she stabbed him or the like. Entirely reasonable, and I have no problem with it, but it would abandon any legal defense.

mrttao said:
The chucklefuck got her to plead guilty to a literally unloseable case.
Click to expand...
It absolutely isn't unlosable. A jury probably won't convict. But if they did, she'd face maybe 20 years in jail. But by going for a guilty plea, they are angling for a time served, which would get her out sooner. Then once she's out, you can perhaps appeal the guilty verdict. But the priority being getting someone out of jail? I can't blame them.

mrttao said:
While jury is a crapshot, the sheer level of implausibility of finding a jury that would unanimously convict her is mind boggling. (remember it has to be unanimous. if even 1 single jury objects it is a hung jury)
Click to expand...
A hung jury that she'd remain in jail over during the time for a new trial. She's not out on bond.
 
Abhorsen said:
A hung jury that she'd remain in jail over during the time for a new trial. She's not out on bond.
Click to expand...
She never should have been tried as an adult in the first place. Under Indiana's juvenile detention laws she would have been released within two years no matter what she did.

Iowa's laws for child delinquints and criminals are, to put it politely, pants-on-head retarted.
 


Simpocalypse

Treating a woman like a sex object is no more objectifying than treating a man like a cash machine. The people in the simp/thot relationship are entirely equal in this respect.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well this doesn't seem at all ghoulish and inappropriate.

It's just really awful, I mean, Remember-tini? Never Forgetini would flow so much better. Why such lame puns?

 
State Law Will Release Second-Degree Murder Suspects Without Bail: 'The End of Days'

When a new Illinois law takes effect next year, it will do away with the cash bail system in the state, meaning suspects charged with felonies, including second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and arson, will be released without bail.

The Counter Signal reports the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act, also called the SAFE-T Act, would end cash bail and includes 12 non-detainable offenses, second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and arson without bail, as well as drug-induced homicide, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, intimidation, aggravated DUI, aggravated fleeing and eluding, drug offenses and threatening a public official.
Click to expand...

While I agree that bail is bullshit for most crimes, people who do crimes like second-degree murder, aggravated battery, arson and kidnapping should not be just left out on the streets to do more of the same.
 
Last edited:
FcLQ_OkXwAE7ctX




Get out of Illinois. NOW.
 
Captain X said:
Click to expand...


They always scoff at the slippery slope folks and then we slide right down that slope every time.

In my state, they wanted to install cameras for traffic control. Everyone was up in arms. It wasn’t even close. 90% of people were against it. Everyone knew it would be a slippery slope once they had that infrastructure in place then law enforcement would want to use the system too. Finally, they passed a state law that the cameras had to be slightly out of focus or panned out enough that you couldn’t make out the faces of drivers. Also by law they cannot record an of the video feeds.

So they built the facility for traffic monitoring. The facility was a joint effort between the state DOT and State police. Half of the large room is state police operations and the other half is the traffic control people. There is a wall down the middle of the room that is four feet high. It is illegal for any state police to walk into the traffic control side. However, they can see all the screens from their side of the room. Obviously, this facility was built with the intention. And obviously, all of the talk about only wanting cameras for traffic was nonsense since construction on the facility immediately began once the law passed. They had full intention of police being able to monitor the system and just lied.

Decades later. All of the limitations have been repealed bit by bit quietly with little fanfare. People are used to the cameras now and don’t even know what they are being used for anymore.

The system is now exactly what all those “crazies” were saying it would become.
Click to expand...


In Britain, they said 25 years ago, this technology would only read the centre two indices between two fixed points on a road to measure traffic flow. Suddenly about 20 years ago, the Police installed them at strategic interstate sections to identify Lindbergh-style kidnap cases. Now they store number plates for years so they can track where your car has been during your ownership, at what time, in what direction and how fast. Civil rights over for partners of police officers at a minimum despite stated safeguards.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top