But only because this one event and all the publicity surrounding it has ruined his chances of having a meaningful life.
So really it’s societies fault. :rolleyes:
But only because this one event and all the publicity surrounding it has ruined his chances of having a meaningful life.
So really it’s societies fault. :rolleyes:
The issue is: What is the appropriate amount of time? If the judge is correct that he followed the sentencing guidelines, then the legislature needs to revisit that particular law toot sweet. I’d dearly love to know how the judge’s decision followed those guidelines, though.
Hasn’t he already committed another offense?
I think the voters have decided to make the change themselves.
The judge lost his case to have the recall vote stopped, so clearly his fellow judges think he done screwed up too.
But sadly, California approved a ballot measure(?) that greatly reduced prison sentences. You only get 1 year for a lot of felonies now and only 1-3 years for rape, it would appear. :mad:
Jesus, what is wrong with you?
I don’t think human nature works like that. It’s just as likely he identifies with this kid (Nice White Boy, Good Family), and since he knows he himself is basically ethical, he projects his own standards onto the kid. He can’t conceive that he could have ever done such a thing, so he conclude that the only way this kid, who he sees as like himself, could possibly have done such a thing is in some sort of drunken fog, some sort of mental collapse: an external thing that happened to the rapist, a tragic accident. When it’s a person he doesn’t identify with that does the same thing, he attributes it to malicious intent, to a character flaw.
I’ve seen this many times on less serious issues.
+1
It’s BigT. What else do you expect?
Good News, everyone!
Judge recalled with 59% of voters in favor of his removal.
Assistant District Attorney Cindy Hendrickson won 71% of the vote to replace him.
I think you’re assessment is correct, but it wouldn’t surprise me if, as BigT suggested, the now-ex-Judge has been availing himself regularly of Stanford White Boy privilege.
I came in to post the good news and see that Chimera already did so.
No, this recall will pressure the law to conform to the wishes of the public. This is why you were removed from office, dude: you don’t get it.
Beautifully put, Snowboarder.
Anyone know what happened to Brock’s appeal? The last news I found was the rejection with orders to rewrite it, but nothing after that.
Yeah, Persky’s comment smacks of a “People exist to serve the law” not “The law exists to serve the people” attitude.
And of course, the law in no way, shape or form required him to follow the recommendations of the probation dept. He could have just as easily have sentenced him to the 6 years the prosecutors were requesting, and we wouldn’t be here today.
Persky’s primary argument against the recall seemed to be that his ruling was legal. The deafening counter argument is that his recall is also legal.
Oral arguments in the appeal begin on June 28th. His dumbass attorney is claiming that while the prosecutor said that all he had to do to rape the woman was unzip his pants, “there’s no evidence that he intended to do so”. :smack::smack::smack:
YOU MEAN OTHER THAN THAT HE DID DO SO???
Oh, and he’s objecting to the use of the term ‘dumpster’ in the original trial. :rolleyes:
*"Multhaup also claimed prosecutors “malevolently” used the phrase “behind-the-dumpster” to describe the location of the incident because it implied Turner wanted to shield the incident from view and because “it implied moral depravity, callousness, and culpability on the appellant’s part…”
The state again disputed Multhaup’s claim, arguing Turner himself said the encounter occurred behind a dumpster."*
Bricker has this same confusion about “legal” and “right”.
The guy looks like Vezzik from Princess Bride. Good riddance.
Dammit, I knew I’d get that wrong. Vizzini, not Vezzik. There is no Vezzik.
There’s a Fezzik, so I thought you meant Persky looks like Wallace Shawn & Andre the Giant’s love child.