Where is that obligation to accept it?
Amendment?
I hope the defendant appeals.
1 Like
I agree to a point. However, I feel no obligation to just accept rogue prosecutions, or unjust laws. I do not have to accept them either. I can have my opinion.
Further, some laws I feel no obligation to obey. Do away with the 1st & 2nd amendments for instance, I would not obey or roll over. In the case of several laws they are so egregious & wrong, they should be opposed the same. Unjust prosecutors should have the law turned on them. Their prosecutions overturned as well. There are times it has happened.
In this case it is true injustice: Watch Cops Seize Combat Vet's Life Savings [RARE FOOTAGE] - YouTube
It is highway robbery. Civil asset forfeiture is an evil law.
To me, even if this man was breaking a law, they should not be allowed to take anything.
If upon conviction, for instance, if the fine is say $1,000, they should only be allowed to fine him the $1,000.
Not take other property. Not for drugs, not for theft, not for murder. ONLY the fines or prison terms under the penalties in the law.
Thatās a subject for another thread. It has no bearing on the guy convicted of manslaughter in this thread.
1 Like
Perhaps our predecessors should have just accepted black people only being 3/5 human because it was in the Constitution.
The above is total sarcasm.
Americans arenāt obligated to accept anything at all, and last I heard we still had the right to peaceful protest.
Signing and funding a petition, whether average or famous, is the First Amendment right to peaceful protest.
In case people didnāt know. The 27 counts wereā¦
Four counts of vehicular homicide
Six counts of first-degree assault
Ten counts of attempt to commit assault in the first degree- extreme indifference
Two counts of vehicular assault- reckless
One count of reckless driving
Four counts of careless driving causing death.
Sorry, but if I were him, I would have chosen a judge trial. Iāve done it once in the past. I donāt trust a jury of my peers unless I am trying to get away with something. Why? Because people are stupid. If I know Iām guilty, give me my dumb peers. If Iām innocent, I want a judge trial.
Not a chance they can come to that verdict from eyewitness testimony from idiots on the roadway. Not a chance. `They screwed the pooch on this one.
āBecause people are stupid.ā
I agree 1,000% with that statement. Idiot jurors blamed racism on this creepās indictment and acquitted him:
To be fair, they were denied information about his kidnapping, raping and burying two young pregnant women who survived.
Thereās an interesting post script about Hartās vasectomy at the end of this production, warning, it is a sad one:
Once again ā¦ Not relevant to the issue in this thread.
Did you read the responded to posterās statement about how, if guilty, it heād take his chances on dimwitted jurors?
He was right.
Jurors donāt always get the information to make well informed decisions with regards to verdict.
That is the point others are trying to make to counter the must accept the juryās decision attitude.
No, nobody has to accept anything. There was a juror who lied in response to questions about being affected by domestic violence and in legal proceedings to be on the jury of Scott Petersonās 2004 trial.
Juries arenāt infallible. Youāre on your own in this thread.
I donāt know what you want from me here. I already stated that oneās disagreement with some other case doesnāt make all jury cases invalid.
Quit pestering me with whatabouts.
This is the part of your post I think is exactly right. Not that I disagree with the rest, but this is my main focus. It is my opinion that there is no way the jury could convict a man on the 27 charges they convicted him with, on eyewitness testimony from drivers on the roadway alone. Did you read those convictions? It isnāt possible. There has to be something else more concrete or I am calling BS.
When I was 27 I was charged with aggravated assault. Did I do it? Absolutely. But it was in self defense. Everything pointed to self defense. I was found not guilty. Not a chance I would trust a jury of my peers.
Itās a fair opinion if the highlighted word were not a guess.
And you have nothing to base that guess on.
Which is why in another post I said there had to be something concrete other than eyewitness testimony alone. The reason for the guess was based on several videos in regards to this case. But since I wasnāt at the trial, it is still a guess based on what Iāve read and heard. I canāt find anything besides eyewitness testimony and a short video or two. Perhaps there was a camera that caught a lot more of what went on.
10 seems fairer.
Yes it does.
Iām in total agreement with Governor Polis.
To apply guidelines without considering the individualāfor example, did he express remorse or have priorsāis arbitrary.
He did not absolve Mr. Aguilera-Mederos of blame, just reduced his sentence.
1 Like
That depends on what was admissible in court and how well the prosecution and defense did their jobs.
I donāt know how it is handled in Colorado but in Florida, the jury delivers the verdict and the judge does the sentencing, the jury doesnāt even sit in during the sentencing process. We didnāt hear everything, just the stories the prosecution and defense told, and neither one was giving the complete truth.
Hereās my problem. Why is 10 fair? If he caused the death of multiple people through his idiocy, why is 10 fair? If he simply lost his breaks and it was an accident, why is he getting 10? Iām trying to figure this out.
Look at the charges he was convicted of. All 27. If those are true, 10 is a joke. If they arenāt, he shouldnāt even be getting 10. They are basing a lot of his conviction on bypassing the truck ramp. Did he do that on purpose? Or did he just miss it in panic?
Personally, I believe he was not acting maliciously but definitely negligent - his negligence led to four people losing their lives - therefore some punishment is prudent. 10 years feels appropriate even if heās eligible for parole in 5.
Heās out in 7 1/2 years, with or without parole.
If youāre right, then I agree with you. It does sound about right. But the commuted sentence doesnāt only fix the 110 year mistake, it mocks the juryās verdict. Read through the 27 counts. If he was truly guilty of that, he should be getting 20-30.
