Life plus 419 years

[jayem]

"A jury in Charlottesville said Tuesday that James Alex Fields Jr. should be sentenced to life plus 419 years in prison and $480,000 in fines, for killing Heather Heyer and seriously injuring 35 others.

Judge Richard Moore will decide whether to sign off on the recommended sentence at a hearing on March 29..."

The judge could reduce the sentence, but can't increase it. I suspect he'll follow the jury's recommendation. Fields could still be tried in federal court for federal hate crimes. Which could carry a death sentence. But I don't think that's necessary. The state jury sent a pretty clear message.

Charlottesville Jury Recommends 419 Years Plus Life For Neo-Nazi Who Killed Protester

 

[SummerMadness]

So I guess he might get out in 2450?

 

[Hieronymus]

This was not an event that should be taken at face value as presented by the news, i.m.o.
But that goes for many (most?) politically relevant events...
Just sayin'..

 

[Tanj]

This was not an event that should be taken at face value as presented by the news.
But that goes for many (most?) politically relevant events...
Just sayin'..

Can I take it at face value as presented by the jury?

Just askin'...

 

[Hieronymus]

Can I take it at face value as presented by the jury?

Just askin'...

They had to work with the same story.

The stakes and ambitions are often high enough to stage or fake events.
Then it's a false flag.
It puts the blame on your enemy and / or is used for political purposes.
Happens frequently.
But you won't hear any of that if you limit yourself to main stream channels.
And if you don't limit yourself you still can't be sure, depending on how thorough it is done, how well it is analysed, how much of it isn't removed by Google's thought police.
And then there's the shills and gatekeepers too, of course...

Regarding this case, i've seen some anomalies being pointed out with video footage.
Possibly a different guy behind the wheel.
This kid wasn't rich, but he had a sweet car.
Seems unlikely to ruin it and kill someone with it because of political differences.

But who knows..
There's a technology called "the voice of God" out there too.
Imagine what you can let someone do with that...

Controversy, controversy....
Be careful who you follow.
Never follow blindly.

FWIW, i'll add "i.m.o." to my previous post.

 

[mala]

They had to work with the same story.

The stakes and ambitions are often high enough to stage or fake events.
Then it's a false flag.
It puts the blame on your enemy and / or is used for political purposes.
Happens frequently.
But you won't hear any of that if you limit yourself to main stream channels.
And if you don't limit yourself you still can't be sure, depending on how thorough it is done, how well it is analysed, how much of it isn't removed by Google's thought police.
And then there's the shills and gatekeepers too, of course...

Regarding this case, i've seen some anomalies being pointed out with video footage.
Possibly a different guy behind the wheel.
This kid wasn't rich, but he had a sweet car.
Seems unlikely to ruin it and kill someone with it because of political differences.

But who knows..
There's a technology called "the voice of God" out there too.
Imagine what you can let someone do with that...

Controversy, controversy....
Be careful who you follow.
Never follow blindly.

FWIW, i'll add "i.m.o." to my previous post.

where can I buy tinfoil hats in bulk? I find it takes too much time to fold aluminium sheets.

 

[Hieronymus]

where can I buy tinfoil hats in bulk? I find it takes too much time to fold aluminium sheets.

Bravo! You have passed the programming exams.

 

[Tanj]

They had to work with the same story.

...but not you huh? You have special information the defense attorneys didn't have.

Did it occur to you to share it with them?

Regarding this case, i've seen some anomalies being pointed out with video footage.

Once again, perhaps something the defense attorney could have used.

 

[Hieronymus]

...but not you huh? You have special information the defense attorneys didn't have.

Did it occur to you to share it with them?

It was shared on line.
Open source.
The question then, is why it wasn't followed up on.
Many of these politically charged / charging cases have their "building 7".

Why does that shock you?

 

[mala]

It was shared on line.
Open source.
The question then, is why it wasn't followed up on.
Many of these politically charged / charging cases have their "building 7".

Why does that shock you?

The real question is why nobody is talking about buildings -4 through 6!!!

 

[Hieronymus]

The real question is why nobody is talking about buildings -4 through 6!!!

Are you referring to the round shaped holes from the top down in those buildings?
I've seen just about all 9/11 videos that were online some 8 years ago..
Many mysteries.
Maybe one day the whole truth will come out, but probably not..
The truth is covered with many layers of lies, distractions and half truths...
Just like the JFK assassination, only worse..

 

[Tanj]

It was shared on line.
Open source.
The question then, is why it wasn't followed up on.
Many of these politically charged / charging cases have their "building 7".

Why does that shock you?

Because compared to the much more reasonable "it was followed up on but found to have no basis in fact", I find the mindset that a complete layman staring at an online photo thinking they have secret squirrel information to be shocking. It gets me everytime.

 

[Hieronymus]

Because compared to the much more reasonable "it was followed up on but found to have no basis in fact", I find the mindset that a complete layman staring at an online photo thinking they have secret squirrel information to be shocking. It gets me everytime.

"Much more reasonable"...
Nah, i think you're just scared the truth may not be what they tell you.

 

[Tanj]

Nah, i think you're just scared the truth may not be what they tell you.

Of course you do.

 

[Hieronymus]

Of course you do.

Guess what gave me that idea...

 

[Tanj]

Guess what gave me that idea...

Ooh, ooh I know this one. It was a photo you found on the internet. No...wait...it was a youtube video!

 

[Hieronymus]

Ooh, ooh I know this one. It was a photo you found on the internet. No...wait...it was a youtube video!

No it is you.
And now you confirm it too.

 

[Tanj]

No it is you.
And now you confirm it too.

I gave you the idea that an Australian (me) that lives 12000 miles from the USA is deathly scared that some evil "they" people are not telling me the truth about some nutjob that ran people over with their car.

Well, to be fair, it makes as much sense as everything else you have said.

 

[KCfromNC]

It was shared on line.
Open source.
The question then, is why it wasn't followed up on.

You'd have to ask the defense attorneys. Assuming they're not working with the lizard people on this one.

 

[rambot]

They had to work with the same story.

The stakes and ambitions are often high enough to stage or fake events.
Then it's a false flag.
It puts the blame on your enemy and / or is used for political purposes.
Happens frequently.
But you won't hear any of that if you limit yourself to main stream channels.
And if you don't limit yourself you still can't be sure, depending on how thorough it is done, how well it is analysed, how much of it isn't removed by Google's thought police.
And then there's the shills and gatekeepers too, of course...

Regarding this case, i've seen some anomalies being pointed out with video footage.
Possibly a different guy behind the wheel.
This kid wasn't rich, but he had a sweet car.
Seems unlikely to ruin it and kill someone with it because of political differences.

But who knows..
There's a technology called "the voice of God" out there too.
Imagine what you can let someone do with that...

Controversy, controversy....
Be careful who you follow.
Never follow blindly.

FWIW, i'll add "i.m.o." to my previous post.

So you don't think his defence team would have explored this?

What EXACT evidence do you believe was not dealt with in the courts?

Are you implying a "seems unlikely" label as a reasonable excuse for defence in a court case?