Independent: Black man will spend six years in Georgia prison despite jury finding him 'not guilty'

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

44 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

Hey, don't blame us. We learned it from watching you, pops.
 

 

 

 

I've spotted your flaw here. You're banding me with those English idiots. 

 

My City was one of the very few who unanimously voted to stay IN.  .

 

Hail. 

[RedskinsMayne]

On 5/25/2017 at 3:01 PM, BenningRoadSkin said:

it is telling to me that so many on here are looking for any reason why this could have happened other than the obvious one that most oppressed people saw as soon as they read this.

 

 

Choosing to blame all your problems on your race isn't helpful. The fact is, if he wasn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the first time, he wouldn't be in this predicament. He brought this on himself, not because he was black, but because he committed a crime. 

[Gamebreaker]

8 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Choosing to blame all your problems on your race isn't helpful. The fact is, if he wasn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the first time, he wouldn't be in this predicament. He brought this on himself, not because he was black, but because he committed a crime. 

 

So because someone committed a crime previously, it's ok in your eyes, that they can be railroaded for a crime they likely didn't commit later on? Exactly how is that justice? 

[RedskinsMayne]

7 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

So because someone committed a crime previously, it's ok in your eyes, that they can be railroaded for a crime they likely didn't commit later on? Exactly how is that justice? 

 

He never served time for the original crime. He got probation, which means he needed to be better than good in order to avoid jail. He was not better than good, so he is serving his original sentence.  Justice delayed.....

[Bozo the kKklown]

9 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Choosing to blame all your problems on your race isn't helpful. The fact is, if he wasn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the first time, he wouldn't be in this predicament. He brought this on himself, not because he was black, but because he committed a crime. 

He was found not guilty for the second crime you racist.

[LD0506]

Mayne, you need to settle on one side or the other. Elsewhere it's not obstruction if they haven't proven a crime yet so no foul, but here this kid eats 6 years even though he was acquitted because of justice delayed? You don't see some conflict between those two points of view?

 

Damn, I'd love to see your shoes.

[RedskinsMayne]

16 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

He was found not guilty for the second crime you racist.

 

 

He was found guilty of the first crime. He is serving time for the first crime. He never served time for the first crime. Now he is.

 

If this was about race why go easy on him the first time around?

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

He was granted probation for the first crime, which is what happens you white supremacist.

[TK]

If this were about not understanding the Forum Rules & wasting the Staff's time with reported posts that actually don't break the Rules but you have started to demonstrate a pattern of doing just that because you apparently have issues from your own time outs, why go easy on him this time around?

 

From Rule 5 that you're not grasping:

Quote

We encourage spirited discussions and holding people accountable for what they post. This may be done in ways from funny to firm, including being castigating if reasonably merited. For example, calling someone "clueless" or calling some comment or post “stupid” when done in appropriate and justifiable context to the poster’s actual content is often allowable. This is most safely done when in response to a specifically posted comment using the "quote" feature or in accurate reference to a poster’s general content in various threads over time on a given topic. Such castigations must not be excessive, and the reaction should be such as may normally be expected by an average reader with a strongly opposing and reasonably informed opinion. If you're unsure, being civil is the safest course. You will rarely go wrong by going after the views of the poster more than the poster's character or personality as you see it. Moderators determine any actions to be taken if needed. Bottom line--do as you choose and so will the moderators.

We are not seeking to favor some genteel "tea & crumpets" gathering or some dry and ponderous book club discussion forum. Nor are we seeking some gratuitously flaming cage-match atmosphere in our threads. 

Understand that moderators have wide latitude in defining and enforcing this rule. For this and all matters related to moderation, we suggest close inspection of Rule 18.

 

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

He never served time for the original crime. He got probation, which means he needed to be better than good in order to avoid jail. He was not better than good, so he is serving his original sentence.  Justice delayed.....

 

More like bull**** confirmed. But carry on....

[Bozo the kKklown]

43 minutes ago, TK said:

If this were about not understanding the Forum Rules & wasting the Staff's time with reported posts that actually don't break the Rules but you have started to demonstrate a pattern of doing just that because you apparently have issues from your own time outs, why go easy on him this time around?

 

From Rule 5 that you're not grasping:

 

I feel you, but he is being racist. It may not be overt in that he is not saying hang all persons of color, but he is being racist and has said worse things before.

 

You can't attack a group of people and expect the response to be civil. We need to start calling those people out for their rhetoric because stuff like that leads to people feeling empowered to be racist in public, which then leads to violence like what happened at UMD last week (which was left out of the convo on this forum), or two men being killed for defending muslim women against two white supremacists in Portland.

 

We need to start letting people like @RedskinsMayne know exactly who he is.

[Jumbo]

A lot of us here like guns regardless of our sociopolitical differences. I call this my Tailgate Special

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

@BenningRoadSkin you are right that racism needs to be called out but so does wrongly calling someone racist and a white supremacist.  I feel like you are doing the latter here.  I dont see anything he said as rising to those levels.  Someone not agreeing with your interpretation of events doesnt meet the bar.

[TK]

8 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I feel you, but he is being racist. 

Nice avatar. 

 

 

Yes, I know it's from Atlanta & in context of that episode it was hilariously funny. However, have you wondered how anyone that hasn't seen that show could take it being out of context & whatnot? Just something for you to ponder on. 

 

Also, as far as Mayne goes, we've been watching him for some time now. He'll either get on board with the program or he'll ~ahem~ hang himself. 

[Jumbo]

It's a tight line, Benning. Because you're right and so is The Great Buzz (in general).

 

Now those are the kind of choices---holding self/others accountable--- I'm all about making, and do here and everywhere I am, and encourage assertiveness (different than aggression) in such matters when warranted (subjective). My deal is there's much to be aware of and caution and discernment should be employed to do it most effectively and productively. 

 

I think you're a very thoughtful and sometimes provocative (in a positive way) poster and have solid legs to stand on in much of your discussion on these topics. I think publicly calling people out for racism and other acts of hate or harm is proper and necessary. But the big trick of course is making a good and fair call.

[grego]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

You can't attack a group of people and expect the response to be civil. We need to start calling those people out for their rhetoric because stuff like that leads to people feeling empowered to be racist in public, which then leads to violence like what happened at UMD last week (which was left out of the convo on this forum), or two men being killed for defending muslim women against two white supremacists in Portland.

 

 

Im a strong first amendment proponent, but not so much when violence is being encouraged with that speech. 

 

When it comes to violence-particularly racial violence how much do you think is actually reported? 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

1 hour ago, TK said:

Nice avatar. 

 

 

Yes, I know it's from Atlanta & in context of that episode it was hilariously funny. However, have you wondered how anyone that hasn't seen that show could take it being out of context & whatnot? Just something for you to ponder on. 

 

Also, as far as Mayne goes, we've been watching him for some time now. He'll either get on board with the program or he'll ~ahem~ hang himself. 

 

 

This 'program' you speak of ..... Does it include those SJ9's I've STILL not received? Buying that vintage port was frigging useless investment!!!!!

 

Hail. 

[killerbee99]

**** got serious quickly and off course as expected RedskinsMayne comes wading in here with his bull****..... Go back to slurping on your master Orange man Donald Trump in the other threads... Definitely know you are proud of that **** show

[Jumbo]

46 minutes ago, killerbee99 said:

..... Go back to slurping on your master Orange man Donald Trump in the other threads... Definitely know you are proud of that **** show

 

 

Need to see less of this kind of stuff (when applied directly to a specific poster), in general,  from anyone, in order to avoid temp bans.

 

But the "slurping" thing is a no-go, period, so that's a time-out, amigo.

 

[DogofWar1]

This guy can hopefully appeal his case and get this nonsense tossed.

 

Probation is so often designed to screw you and get you in more trouble.  "Be here at 830 tomorrow morning for a meeting.  Oh, you have work and need more than 12 hours notice to take off?  ****ing tough."  And judges generally don't like to push back against probation officers too much.

 

Usually though, at least in NoVA, they wait until a conviction to violate you for picking up new charges.

 

There needs to be a remedy here for him.  Otherwise it's a REALLY BAD showing for our "justice" system.

[TK]

[Jumbo]

I listened to a lot of Jethro Cull back in the day.

[TK]

6 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

I listened to a lot of Jethro Cull back in the day.

So you ride yourselves over the fields and 
you make all your animal deals and 
your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick.

 

Congrats. I think you just found the Tailgate theme song.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Culling away on the thin ice of a new day...

[DogofWar1]

Also, assuming all this happened with the same judge, which the article isn't 100% clear on but it seems like it was, this guy is a disgrace to the legal profession.

 

The one potential out for the judge would have been if he violated the guy AFTER the guy tried to enter an Alford plea, but there are two problems with that:

1. Judge violated him in February, and article makes it sound like he tried to enter the plea much closer to August, well after the violation.

2. Judge rejected the plea.  If you're gonna reject the plea and force a jury trial, you ought to accept the consequences of your rejection of the plea and assume innocence until guilt.

 

Timeline appears to be after the guy turns himself in in late 2015, judge violates the guy's probation in February, then guy tries to enter a plea around August, which is rejected, and guy is found not guilty in August at trial.

 

Any self-respecting attorney would look at that timeline and call foul.  Especially since the judge rejected the plea.  I mean, jeez, he accepts the plea and you get a conviction which covers your butt, but no, you rejected it and refuse to accept the consequences?  What the hell dude.

 

Disgrace.