Infuriating

[oxysback]

Isn't justic supposed to be blind?

Oh I forgot that was before these liberal judges took over the constitution and our court system. The poor wealth manager, it might affect his future job prospects never mind he left a person for dead.

I'm fuming

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Rally to restore sanity and/or fear? Perfectly fine to make a thread about.
Tea Party rallies (and their "ilk", as someone so kindly called them in a different thread)? Definitely NOT ok.

Just thought you should know.

(Sorry gals. I do like this forum, but sometimes I feel it's not as "non-partisan" as it could be, which is why I don't post very often.)

(I DO agree that this particular DA needs to find another job ASAP, and the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.)

(Ok...I'm done. Commence the flogging...)

[OakLeaf]

Once again:

This has nothing. to. do. with. judges.

Maybe the good "conservative" citizens of the county, via the Grand Jury, will decide on their own to indict this piece of ****, as is their right and duty. That could happen.

And anyone who thinks the "Rally to Restore Sanity" was "liberal" ... I don't even know where someone would get that idea. Unless sanity is a "liberal" idea. Read or watch some of how it's being vilified in the Left press and on TV, maybe. I think the whole purpose of the rally (besides advertising) was actually to distract attention from the rally the first weekend of the month, which was for human rights causes that some people consider "liberal."

[redrhodie]

Maybe the good "conservative" citizens of the county, via the Grand Jury, will decide on their own to indict this piece of ****, as is their right and duty. That could happen.

Could that really happen? How? Doesn't the DA have to present a case to the jury for it to be considered?

I've never served on a Grand Jury, so I don't really understand how it works.

[ny biker]

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Rally to restore sanity and/or fear? Perfectly fine to make a thread about.
Tea Party rallies (and their "ilk", as someone so kindly called them in a different thread)? Definitely NOT ok.

Just thought you should know.

(Sorry gals. I do like this forum, but sometimes I feel it's not as "non-partisan" as it could be, which is why I don't post very often.)

(I DO agree that this particular DA needs to find another job ASAP, and the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.)

(Ok...I'm done. Commence the flogging...)

Well, since I started the thread about the Daily Show rally... I was asking if anyone was going to an event on the mall. It wasn't about advocating any particular position, just seeing if anyone was going to attend, and to see if anyone had any interest in meeting up. Which was why it was in the Mid-Atlantic forum, since I was asking folks who live near DC. If someone wanted to see if anyone was planning to attend a different event, whether it was a Tea Party rally or a Smithsonian festival or Rolling Thunder or whatever, I wouldn't care.

[Eden]

It's not whether or not the post was left leaning or right leaning, but rather about whether or not it was accurate.....

I can call the sky green all I want and say its my opinion, but its not accurate...

It's just not accurate to blame the situation on a "liberal judge" - for one it was the DA's decision, not a judge and that particular DA isn't particularly liberal.... and beyond that it would be pretty well against liberal beliefs to act in such a way anyway.

[Cataboo]

Just wow. Noone does drama like the team estrogen women.

[zoom-zoom]

Just wow. Noone does drama like the team estrogen women.

I take it you've never hung out on any dieting or mommy boards. This is nuthin'. I'm not getting out the popcorn for this.

On-topic. It's all about the Benjamins. Lohan, Hilton, et al. should have been behind bars ages ago.

[PamNY]

I take it you've never hung out on any dieting or mommy boards. This is nuthin'. I'm not getting out the popcorn for is.

Or dogs, or anything really. This is about the most low-drama group on teh interwebz.

[Charlotte Berry]

I'm not getting out the popcorn for this.

I think it's going to take coffee rather then Popcorn. I didn't make it through on just a candy bar, so coffee or perhaps a mocha. I'm staying out of the fray, ducking entering and leaving. Nicities went out the window in this one, I say ducking and weaving. :-)

[Eden]

(stepping into my flame proof suit)

If you can fall asleep and kill someone without knowing it from apnea then perhaps it is time to limit/disallow driving for those diagnosed with severe and untreatable or untreated apnea...(not unlike limitations on driving for epileptics). Of course this never stops people from driving anyway and who knows how many people are undiagnosed.

[PamNY]

Sorry, Bike Writer. Someone should have warned you. The unspoken rule of the forum is that it's ok to bring up political stuff as long as it's left leaning.

Um...understanding how the justice system works makes you left-leaning? I think you missed the point. In this case, the judge has done...what? S/he could lean far enough to fall on the floor -- wouldn't affect the topic under discussion.

Back to the original topic, could there be validity to the argument that maintaining earning power increases the villain's ability to pay restitution? According to an article in HuffPo, restitution was part of the plea bargain. Apparently the two misdemeanor counts could bring up to two years in jail.

And if there's a civil lawsuit? I'd much rather sue a high earner.

I don't understand at all why the victim is pushing for a felony conviction that would later be expunged from the record. Does he want the felony just as a matter of principle?

The more I read about this the less I understand.

[ultraviolet]

Why should his "high earner" status somehow exempt him from the standard of the law? How much money he does, or can, earn should not be a factor in what charges are brought against him. (Unless we're going to say that we should have different laws for people based on monetary "class" or societal standing...and I'm pretty sure none of us want to go down that road.)

A hit-and-run is a felony offense. He committed a hit-and-run crime. He should be charged with a felony.

Feh.

[Bike Chick]

This is horrifying and an outrage! Where did the DA go to law school is what I want to know?

For the record, the DA (or prosecutor) files criminal charges on behalf of the state against an individual who IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. This is a right guaranteed to us by our Constitution. You can either plead guilty or be found guilty by a judge or jury. You can't be adjudicated for a crime greater than what you are charged with. The problem in this case lies with the prosecutor---not the judge.

[channlluv]

Feh.

+1 -- I've been thinking this exact same thing. And also that this uber-wealthy money guy and his uber-wealthy-protectionist DA sound like Fat Cat Republicans to me, but I wasn't going to say so out loud. Ha! I really don't see what a judge, liberal or otherwise, has to do with what charges a DA brings. And it's not like it's a class thing because the victim here is a surgeon and while he may not earn as much as uber-wealthy money guy, I imagine he's pretty comfortable. (And I'm a registered Independent, fwiw.)

Except for the lifetime of pain he's going to endure because of this accident.

I DO understand the desire for $$$ restitution on that point, and if uber-wealthy money guy is going to pay up big, he's going to need to work, so maybe all of that really did figure into the plea bargaining and the victim's lawyer was okay with it, in spite of the moral outrage. He gets paid more to, then, doesn't he?

In the end, it's really all about the money.


Roxy

[bmccasland]

Yeah but the victim isn't exactly in the "poverty" economic class either - which is making this class talk rather interesting. The Doc could have been one of the Financial Manager's clients.

It's still sad that for a really lame reason a person was thus far allowed to get away with seriously injuring another. If he had beat him to a pulp with his fists, he'd be in jail. Or maybe his lawyer would be trying to get him off for some dumb reason.

It still amazes me that you can hit someone with a car, seriously injuring them, leave the scene of the accident and get away with it as if all you did was smack them on the butt as you walked by.