As most likely one of "the same folks" referenced, it has zero to do with race and everything to do with bad judging. It also has nothing to do with vigilante-ism. It has to do with what happened in the courtroom of a dumb judge, perhaps dumber than dirt, who completely blew it.
The crime was attempted murder. The reason they failed (murder)was because a person intervened. Lucky them. He was unconscious and they were still hitting him. Let's deal with each incident on an individual basis,according to the facts, please.I agree that the judge blew it. The crime, however, was vigilanteeism, and it's ironic that people are unhappy over the lenient punishment for a crime they've so often approved of.
The 'street justice' by these thugs was to pulverize a guys face in because Utash's vehicle hit a kid in the roadway. The guy got out of his truck to help the kid and was mob rushed.The opposite didn't happen, but you can't pretend that some people who approved of 'street justice' in previous incidents are talking out of the other side of their mouths now, decrying the lack of harsh punishment for it.
True.
True.
FWIW, The general public in the Detroit metro area is absolutely livid with this sentence.
It won't matter, most do not live in Detroit.We will see just how "livid" they are come election time.
Again, won't happen.I also believe that the judge can be impeached.
Nope.Any bets nothing is done to remove him from the bench?
It won't matter, most do not live in Detroit.
Again, won't happen.
Nope.
I can be livid if I want to.Then there is no point in being livid.
Wow, there was a trial and everything, and it came out in the trial that "one or two punches or kicks by each defendant was not intent to kill," yet you can make a statement like that. It's impressive that you know more about what went on in the minds of those who participated in the assault than they did themselves. Very impressive, indeed.Then INTENT was to kill.
Equally? No. The law says people are only guilty of what they themselves do, not for what others do.ALL who participated are equally guilty.
EACH, deliberate choice, to kill. Those indicate premeditation. Yet there was no evidence of that at trial, and in fact evidence presented, including testimony, show otherwise. Yet for some reason you want to dismiss the evidence in favor of your own belief. That's dangerous, man. That's the kind of talk that can whip up a mob into a frenzy, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be equally guilty of the actions of others.Then there is the severe alteration in the man's life. This could even lead to an earlier death. EVERYONE in that mob CHOSE to take part. EACH individual made a deliberate choice to help in the attempt to kill this man.
Well OK then.They judge blew it. The entire mess was screwed up, from day one. There is no valid excuse for the attack in the first place and to limit the sentences to the extremely light ones that were handing out shows this judges tacit acceptance of this kind of mob action. The judge should be impeached.
Not that it's going to matter, or do any good, but I'm going to do it anyway. There are several different types of trials other than "jury" and "bench" (or "court") trials. A preliminary hearing is a trial. So is a preliminary arraignment. So is a grand jury proceeding.There actually wasn't a trial in this case.There was testimony in a preliminary hearing only.
Heck of a message that judge sent. Join a mob, try to kill a man for no valid reason, and little will be done to you. SO HAVE AT IT GUYS!
There is no justice. Just lawyers and back scratching.
Yep, lawyers looking for cash and prosecutors looking for wins so they can get re-elected.