I'm not a legal scholar, but it seems to me that leaving out increased penalties for those who would commit gun violence is missing the mark, and that it should be a priority of "gun legislation".
I'm with you Rbreb13, She aimed a little low for my liking.
The trouble is with the whole system, from not enough police, to not enough prosecutors, and public defenders which most of these schmucks have for attorneys, to too bogged down a court system due to not enough judges and too few prisons to put these offenders in for extended periods of time! (forgive my run on sentence) No one, including me wants higher taxes, but prisons don't build themselves and they are expensive to staff and run. So, we are stuck with deferred prosecitions, deferred prison sentences, and early release programs.
That begs the question; Is one required to submit to being fingerprinted if not arrested? I'd have to decline, just as I would a field sobriety test.
I beg your PARDON? So, we are to believe that the jury of 12, the several judges plus the appellate courts who have heard and studied this case, have ALL come to the same WRONG conclusion? NO DNA ties Feguson to the case. Is it possible that other than the obvious DNA of the victim at the scene that NO other DNA found at the scene to either incriminate or exclude Ferguson as a suspect? Rather a pointless point! And Erickson, the self proclaimed liar is NOW telling the truth? Or should we base Ferguson's inocense on the night janitor who claims to have seen Erickson and Ferguson at the scene was actually coerced by the prosecutor to identify them. Since he has a seemingly sketchy and questionable background and prison record, he wouldn't have a "bone to pick" with a prosecutor would he? Or should we rely on the TV series telling the Ryan Ferguson story and their account of a week or more long trial in 30 some minutes of actual air time. I'm certain they told the whle story leaving nothing out such as the cross examination of the "new witnesss" or "new information." Ya know something? Sometimes bad people come from good families. Sometimes kids disapoint parents. And sometimes you even feel sorry for them. But that doesn't excuse their actions, nore does it call for a pardon, even if you have someone to tell JUST YOUR SIDE of the story.
You know JCLifer, For once you and I agree on something!
JCLifer, Pardon my inability to comprehend true meaning of your initial writing. It was presumptuous on my part to read your response to the article as a diatribe, however you must admit that only metioning 12 jurors instead of 100 was a bit misleading. And of course I should not have read into the "commissioner's brother" comment either. I hope your day gets better. By the way it's JVicors, not Jvictors. ciao
$450.00 not $435.00, but reasonable none the less.
JCLifer, once again you should get your facts in order. If you've ever been an elderly member of the jury pool, or handycaped and made that walk you'd, appreciate a trolly service. If you've ever attempeted to find parking near the courthouse, let alone handycaped parking near the courthouse, you'd REALLY appreciate that trolly service! And, $435.00 to transport not just 12 jurors, but the entire pool of 100 or more jurors for voir dire before the jury is picked is pretty darned reasonable by any standard. My guess is that the clerk did check with other services such as city transit then went with the "low bid" as it seems every government entity does anymore. My hat goes off to the new circuit clerk for this move even if the trolly owner is and I doubt that's true "a commissoner's brother."
Last login: Wednesday, July 10, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.