We are of course free to make inferences, but our inferences should have some basis in adduced facts, or we are practicing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium, and defeating the mission of this board.
I have spent the last several posts in this thread suggesting that the evidence of his being a “rich white Republican officeholder” having anything to do with his sentence is lacking. I have invited anyone who cares to to offer some evidence of a similar conviction netting an “ordinary Joe” considerably more punishment than Janklow got. To date, no one has.
You are NOT entitled to infer that rich white Republican officeholder Janklow got a whitewash unless you can show that others in his situation got punished worse.
Where is that evidence?
NO, it doesn’t “kinda make [me] wonder.” If there were any actual evidence, then it might make me wonder.
You have spent the last several posts in this thread denying that all sort of evidence that people have been treated more harshly than Janklow for similar offenses is valid. I doubt you would accept any conceivable evidence as valid.
What’s more, your post in no way invalidates ANY of the reasoning in my post. Do you deny that Janklow had many speeding citations when he was out of office? Do you deny that those citations stopped when he got into office again? Do you deny that the very crime for which he is charged is a strong indicator that the speeding continued unabated for all these years? Do you deny that it’s curious that in a state where speeding is commonplace, Janklow should have so many speeding citations during his brief bout of vulnerability to such citations?
I’m arguing that it would have been reasonable to charge Janklow under the more stringent standard as Fear Itself said. You think otherwise. I think you’re having to ignore an awful lot of obvious facts and clear conjectures to think that way.
Janklow has exhibited a history of speeding. Many citations, but he never slowed down. His collision with another vehicle was just a matter of time. Reckless speeding, not negligent.
You are NOT entitled to infer that rich white Republican officeholder Janklow got a whitewash unless you can show that others in his situation got punished worse.
As I said, any reasonable person would call it reckless speeding, not negligent. I have been ticketed for speeding, once in thirty years of driving. On that occasion I was negligent. If I’d done it every time I went driving and had a glove compartment full of citations, I’d be reckless. Like Janklow was reckless. NO, it doesn’t “kinda make [me] wonder.” If there were any actual evidence, then it might make me wonder.
I do not think you are very disposed to look at these issues objectively.
No. (But as I explained, the evidence of those prior charges would be inadmissible as a matter of law, and so, for the purposes of a trial and conviction, are b]irrelevant**. Do you deny that?
No.
No. But as a matter of law, this fact couldn’t be considered at a trial, so it’s useless for you to offer it in support of your theory that Janklow’s status helped him avoid punishment. In other words, if Joe Average ALSO had years and years of speeding convictions, and then ran a stop light and killed someone, the jury would not be allowed to hear about his prior record.
No - I think it’s clear that Janklow was an unrepentant speeder. That doesn’t prove the contention that, because of his power, race, political affliation, or gender, he was treated less harshly than someone without those attributes.
It would have been reasonable? What are the elements of reckless manslaughter in South Dakota?
Ah ha! Here we have the problem.
The above statement is not true as a matter of law. You cannot put the glove compartment full of citations into evidence to prove recklessness. If you could, then I might concede that Janklow should have charged under the more serious statute. But you can’t. Do you understand that now?
If you disagree, then you show me (a) what the elements of reckless manslaughter are in South Dakota, and (b) where the record reflects evidence for each and every element of that charge such that a reasonable fact-finder could convict on the element.
When the record is silent, the facts may be construed in favor of the prevailing party, and all reasonable inferences therefrom may be drawn in favor of the prevailing party. But this does not mean that we may reach inferences whooly unsupported by the record.
I agree that the claim it was a split-second of inattention is an inference, but at a high rate of speed, the fact of the matter is that an ordinary stop-sign will not be in view for long. “Split-second” was, on reflection, a bit of undeserved hyperbole, and I withdraw it. But neither can you say, “For all we know, he did it intentionally and with malice,” since that, too, is utterly unsupported by the record.
I didn’t realize I had left this unaddressed. My apologies.
It makes me wonder how people can cast their mystic vision into the future and tell that a 17 year old school girl will someday marry someone who will be elected President, and so they had better put together a cover up.
It makes me wonder how moronic a post can be that puts “accident” in quotes so as to imply that it was actually deliberate murder, based on nothing atall.
It makes me wonder if you know how big an asshole you making yourself seem, or if it is unconscious.
Wow. A post that combines the worst aspects of idiocy, partisan rancor, and paranoid delusions. Congratulations.