Ahmed Aubrey executioner gets life

Tommy Tainant

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
58,276
Reaction score
26,956
Points
2,300
Location
Y Cae Ras

The young one with the piggy eyes.
Doesnt bring him back though.
That's an extreme sentence. It should be 7 years. He would learn his lesson by then. Why do we have to pay to take care of him for life? Better to execute, than keeping someone caged for life.
 
That's an extreme sentence. It should be 7 years. He would learn his lesson by then. Why do we have to pay to take care of him for life? Better to execute, than keeping someone caged for life.
Better to execute, than keeping someone caged for life.

I'm all for executing him.
 
Not sure what he got in the first trial. He now has plenty of time to reflect on his sins.
 
Man commits murder. Man gets charged with state crime of “murder.” Man gets convicted of that murder. Man gets sentenced to life in prison with no possibility or parole.

Man then gets charged federally for the same criminal acts but the charge is murder as a hate crime. Presumably, man didn’t commit the murder because he loved the victim. Either way, the same dead victim and the same convicted murderer.

What exactly is the point of a second set of charges? Maybe he will get another sentence of life without possibility of parole? That sure will show him.
 
Had this guy break into my home. actually got inside. His MO was to ride a bike through the neighborhood pretending to be on a bike ride, casing the neighborhood. Eventually figures out some of the schedules of some of the homeowners, that's when he'd strike.
 
Thats how you make sure he's not getting out on something like a technicality.
Hugo Furst disagrees with that statement. Here is an example for you...

"To take a situation involving the possibility of parole, suppose that a defendant is on trial for two murders. The jury convicts him of both, and the judge sentences him to consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole. State law allows the defendant to apply for parole after 20 years. By sentencing the defendant to consecutive life sentences, the judge has likely ensured that he will be behind bars for at least 40 years"


"Now let's say the defendant received consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Here, the defendant appeals the convictions and a court overturns one because the prosecution didn't comply with its discovery obligations. That takes one life sentence off the books—at least until the defendant can be retried. But the other life sentence remains in effect"

 
15th post
I am. I expect right to prevail. It isn't about white. It is about justice. It is about the law. It is about unbiased judges and not using politics to come up with punishment.
 
Hugo Furst disagrees with that statement. Here is an example for you...

"To take a situation involving the possibility of parole, suppose that a defendant is on trial for two murders. The jury convicts him of both, and the judge sentences him to consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole. State law allows the defendant to apply for parole after 20 years. By sentencing the defendant to consecutive life sentences, the judge has likely ensured that he will be behind bars for at least 40 years"


"Now let's say the defendant received consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Here, the defendant appeals the convictions and a court overturns one because the prosecution didn't comply with its discovery obligations. That takes one life sentence off the books—at least until the defendant can be retried. But the other life sentence remains in effect"

To take a situation involving the possibility of parole,
But, in that assholes case, the state of Georgia stated there was NO chance of parole.

So, no need to try him for a hate crime.

Read your ******* links.
 
Back
Top Bottom