Teens Who Savagely Attacked Well-Known DOGE Staffer Avoid Jail Time

[NxNW]

For brutally attacking someone? Yes, they should get prison time.

Trump pardoned a thousand such convicts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@Hans Blaster, @GoldenBoy89 ,@iluvatar5150

I believe you guys had implied before that I was feigning "moderate" status and never pushing back against conservatives the same way I push back against the left in other threads...

Happy? lol

 

[rjs330]

I think none of us knows the reasons for this judges decision.

Was she racist against the white kid? I don't know. We don't have enough information to say.

Did she just feel sorry for the perps because of their backgrounds? We don't have enough information to know.

I think the only way to know if she is a racist would be to know if she DID hand our harsher sentences to white kids and she gave out light sentences to black kids if all things were equal.

Thats the problem with all of this racial injustice stuff. Its extremely hard to prove that race was a determing factor.

I think we are on stronger ground to simply state she was far too lenient. Those kids did not deserve such leniency. They should have been punished for their actions where they felt the real sting of discipline.

They beat the crap out of that kid and they deserved real punishment for it. Not this limp wristed nonsense by another feckless judge.

 

[7thKeeper]

Yes, all it takes is one blow, kicking someone in the head, the chest, or the kidney. We had a local guy who was in a similar situation and he is brain-damaged for life. A teacher was just killed from a blow to the chest:

‘Tragic loss’: Mass. school mourning staff member who died after being kicked by student

The worker collapsed to the ground during the altercation and was pronounced dead the next day.

www.yahoo.com

Well in that case, the punishment would have been different, now wouldn't it have? But in this case, there was no permanent damage. It's quite odd why you'd bring up a different case with totally different results as if that would have relevance.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the only way to know if she is a racist would be to know if she DID hand our harsher sentences to white kids and she gave out light sentences to black kids if all things were equal.

Thats the problem with all of this racial injustice stuff. Its extremely hard to prove that race was a determing factor.

"under-sentencing" makes it an even more complicated thing to hash out.

For instance, if the judge had been giving lenient sentencing to literally everyone but a person from a particular race got the book thrown at them, it's a little easier to sus out.

But in cases where a judge had been giving out "typical" sentences for everyone, and then gave a particular defendant a more lenient sentence, it's not quite as clear.

 

[Valletta]

Well in that case, the punishment would have been different, now wouldn't it have? But in this case, there was no permanent damage. It's quite odd why you'd bring up a different case with totally different results as if that would have relevance.

When there is a vicious assault the perpetrator does not know whether the victim will live or die. The idea, no matter what the result, is to prevent such an event from happening again.

 

[7thKeeper]

When there is a vicious assault the perpetrator does not know whether the victim will live or die. The idea, no matter what the result, is to prevent such an event from happening again.

None of that is relevant for sentencing. They are being judged by what was done and what the results of those actions are. If a victim suffered permanent injury or not is very much relevant to how harsh of a punishment the perpetrator(s) will receive.

 

[Valletta]

None of that is relevant for sentencing. They are being judged by what was done and what the results of those actions are. If a victim suffered permanent injury or not is very much relevant to how harsh of a punishment the perpetrator(s) will receive.

Of course it is. What "was done" covers it.

 

[rjs330]

"under-sentencing" makes it an even more complicated thing to hash out.

For instance, if the judge had been giving lenient sentencing to literally everyone but a person from a particular race got the book thrown at them, it's a little easier to sus out.

But in cases where a judge had been giving out "typical" sentences for everyone, and then gave a particular defendant a more lenient sentence, it's not quite as clear.

I agree. Thats why I said we don't have enough information. Even if we did have more it may not give us a clear picture. Sentencing takes into consideration a lot of different things. How many times have we heard about systemic racism because blacks got harsher sentences than whites? I always said thats to narrow minded. There are many reasons and factors behind these decisions that we dont know about. And you'd have to look at individual judges.

In this case we have an individual judge in an area that is known for its leniency on sentencing. And until we have a lot more information, I don't think we can say racism is involved.

 

[7thKeeper]

Of course it is. What "was done" covers it.

Well then we are in agreement that your initial post about that different case with different results/injuries is irrelevant to this judgement.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think we should throw all speeders in jail; after all, these incidents could have ended with someone's death.

 

[rjs330]

Well in that case, the punishment would have been different, now wouldn't it have? But in this case, there was no permanent damage. It's quite odd why you'd bring up a different case with totally different results as if that would have relevance.

You do recognize the facts that while something like assault and speeding all have varying degrees of punishment correct? Punching someone in the face one time is not as serious an offense as several people beating on someone over and over again. Even though the peraon disnt die or receive life threatening injuries hos injuries were far worse than a bloody nose or a black eye. The amount of injury and amount of beating makes a difference. In this case he received a good beating with numerous injuries. This deserves a more serious punishment than just giving someone a black eye.

Just like speeding. Going 35 in a 25 is not as serious as going 75 in a 25. You get a more serious punishment in fines for that.

So in this case the punishment does not fit the crime.

 

[Arcangl86]

From what I can tell, the judge simply followed the law regarding juvenile offenses. Prison time, while apparently an option, was never likely to begin with.

 

[Valletta]

From what I can tell, the judge simply followed the law regarding juvenile offenses. Prison time, while apparently an option, was never likely to begin with.

They should be in jail. There were a lot more juveniles in this attack and others, were the two cooperative and did they give the names of the other individuals involved in the assault? This victim only ended up with a broken nose and a concussion, he was lucky.

 

[rjs330]

From what I can tell, the judge simply followed the law regarding juvenile offenses. Prison time, while apparently an option, was never likely to begin with.

Yes,she followed the law because she had discretion regarding the sentence. I think she failed to use good judgement regarding her discretion. Such short probation is a terrible sentence. Once again the failure of the liberal justice system.

 

[7thKeeper]

You do recognize the facts that while something like assault and speeding all have varying degrees of punishment correct?

Which is why the punishment would have been different if there had been permanent injury. Which there wasn't, so that would count when it comes to sentencing.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So there WERE consequences.

Do you even know what probation is?

 

[7thKeeper]

Do you even know what probation is?

Yes. It is a consequence. No consequences would mean that nothing was imposed on the guilty party.

 

[rjs330]

Which is why the punishment would have been different if there had been permanent injury.

No the charge would have been different. Permanent injury is a Felony. This was not a felony.

Ive already explained assault. This assault was egregious enough that the perpetrators deserved a maximum punishment for misdemeanor assault.

 

[7thKeeper]

No the charge would have been different. Permanent injury is a Felony. This was not a felony.

Therefore, the punishment too. I'm not sure what you're arguing as we both seem to agree that with different circumstances and results, the punishment would have been different. Now there wasn't permanent injury and the kids were underage, possibly first timers in court (don't remember this one and no one answered before, but not a sticking point). Therefore, jail time was deemed excessive for this case.