Is this Justice?

[RetiredGySgt]

Judge: Man cleared of murder deserves freedom - Yahoo! News

Acquitted of the charges BUT held anyway. On technicalities.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No opinions? Really?

 

[FA_Q2]

I am somewhat confused as there is little detail in the article. He served 16 years. Was that his sentence? What was he acquitted with, killing the officer (what it sounds like) or the entire crime. It sounds to me like he was acquitted of the murder charge but was guilty for shooting the officer in the first place. Has he served that sentence in its entirety. Not to mention where the car and cell phone come in?

 

[George Costanza]

Judge: Man cleared of murder deserves freedom - Yahoo! News

Acquitted of the charges BUT held anyway. On technicalities.

Guy shoots a cop, who does not die, but who is seriously injured. Guy does 16 years for that. Then the cop finally dies. Guy is then charged with murder of the cop. He is acquitted on the murder charge. In spite of the acquittal, they hold the guy in prison for two more years on some technical, bull shit charge (having a cell phone in jail or some such).

Is that justice? No. What would justice have been? Release the guy when he was acquitted of the murder. I am assuming the prior 16 years he served for shooting the cop in the first place constituted his entire sentence for that and, had the cop not died, he would then have been released at the end of the 16 years. The article is not clear on that point.

Should the guy be compensated for having been held for two years when he should have been released? I think so - although (1) it is hard to drum up any sympathy for a cop shooter and (2) he was not being held totally arbitrarily - it appears there was some reason to hold him the extra time. But two years for having a cell phone in prison? I don't think so.

 

[FA_Q2]

Judge: Man cleared of murder deserves freedom - Yahoo! News

Acquitted of the charges BUT held anyway. On technicalities.

Guy shoots a cop, who does not die, but who is seriously injured. Guy does 16 years for that. Then the cop finally dies. Guy is then charged with murder of the cop. He is acquitted on the murder charge. In spite of the acquittal, they hold the guy in prison for two more years on some technical, bull shit charge (having a cell phone in jail or some such).

Is that justice? No. What would justice have been? Release the guy when he was acquitted of the murder. I am assuming the prior 16 years he served for shooting the cop in the first place constituted his entire sentence for that and, had the cop not died, he would then have been released at the end of the 16 years. The article is not clear on that point.

Should the guy be compensated for having been held for two years when he should have been released? I think so - although (1) it is hard to drum up any sympathy for a cop shooter and (2) he was not being held totally arbitrarily - it appears there was some reason to hold him the extra time. But two years for having a cell phone in prison? I don't think so.

Something is fishy about the article. It makes no sense to me and seems quite vague in general.

 

[strollingbones]

he shot and paralyzed a cop during the commission of a robbery......

he violated parole....

simple as that

 

[strollingbones]

you wanna get fucked go to the courthouse....

you want justice go to a whore house....

 

[del]

you wanna get fucked go to the courthouse....

you want justice go to a whore house....

"in the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls"

lenny bruce

 

[xotoxi]

Mumia?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

you wanna get fucked go to the courthouse....

you want justice go to a whore house....

I'm so gonna use that line in the future. Many thanks.