Female Pushes 74 year old disabled Man To His Death From A Bus

win231 said:
You would lose your bet. It will be very easy for her attorney to establish NGRI (Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity). And, even if that is unsuccessful, the victim's age is another factor - callous as it is...she wouldn't end up serving much time in prison. You may remember John Hinckley also being found not guilty for the same reason. He's now 100% free with no restrictions, after shooting the president & several others & also causing the death of James Brady.

"Las Vegas Judges being tough on crime?" A judge can sentence anyone to anything - it means nothing, other than a façade show of support for the victims.
It's the Parole Board that decides when to release an inmate. The judge is completely out of the picture.
The Nevada State Parole Board released O.J. Simpson after 9 years. The judge sentenced him to 33 years.
Click to expand...


Obviously, you do not understand sentencing guidelines. In almost every state that I am aware, judges are all but limited or restricted to following guidelines set by either the U.S. Attorney General, the NCSC or in some states, Nevada being one, sort of does their own thing, but they do have their own sentencing guidelines. Even so, if a sentence that is handed down goes over the top, more than likely, the Appellate Courts will send the sentence back to state court for reconsideration.

As I stated previously, judges are to take into consideration the facts, the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the crime. Nevada is known to be tough on crime, but what the parole board does is separate from the court. As you stated, OJ was given 33 years, but served nine. The judge handed down a tough sentence and that proves my point.

Proving temporary insanity is always a crap shoot. I don’t get you saying that it will be easy for her attorney to prove this in court. Proving temporary insanity has always been tough to prove. In Hinckley’s situation, it was a no-brainer. The guy was screwy to begin with and any psychologist or psychiatrist would have found him unfit to stand trial given the story behind his motive for shooting at the President. To impress a movie actress. Really?

And, just because a person suffers from a mental illness, does not mean that person will get a pass on committing a crime. I’ve seen many defendants stand trial who pled not guilty due to having a mental illness and after the court appointed psychologist or psychiatrist has examined that person, they are found fit to stand trial. The number one rule for finding someone mentally ill or being temporary insane is, “Did the person know what they were doing was wrong?” And, believe me, it is very difficult to fool the professionals.

A life has been taken, no matter what the age. There is irrefutable evidence to the crime committed. The defendant has a history of past violence. She is out on $100,000.00 bail, which I find a bit confounding. So, now, it’s wait and see.
 
911 said:
Obviously, you do not understand sentencing guidelines. In almost every state that I am aware, judges are all but limited or restricted to following guidelines set by either the U.S. Attorney General, the NCSC or in some states, Nevada being one, sort of does their own thing, but they do have their own sentencing guidelines. Even so, if a sentence that is handed down goes over the top, more than likely, the Appellate Courts will send the sentence back to state court for reconsideration.

As I stated previously, judges are to take into consideration the facts, the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the crime. Nevada is known to be tough on crime, but what the parole board does is separate from the court. As you stated, OJ was given 33 years, but served nine. The judge handed down a tough sentence and that proves my point.

Proving temporary insanity is always a crap shoot. I don’t get you saying that it will be easy for her attorney to prove this in court. Proving temporary insanity has always been tough to prove. In Hinckley’s situation, it was a no-brainer. The guy was screwy to begin with and any psychologist or psychiatrist would have found him unfit to stand trial given the story behind his motive for shooting at the President. To impress a movie actress. Really?

And, just because a person suffers from a mental illness, does not mean that person will get a pass on committing a crime. I’ve seen many defendants stand trial who pled not guilty due to having a mental illness and after the court appointed psychologist or psychiatrist has examined that person, they are found fit to stand trial. The number one rule for finding someone mentally ill or being temporary insane is, “Did the person know what they were doing was wrong?” And, believe me, it is very difficult to fool the professionals.

A life has been taken, no matter what the age. There is irrefutable evidence to the crime committed. The defendant has a history of past violence. She is out on $100,000.00 bail, which I find a bit confounding. So, now, it’s wait and see.
Click to expand...


Uh, if you read my post carefully, you would understand that was my main point - that judges being "tough on crime" means absolutely nothing when the parole board can release a criminal whenever they want.

You are mistaken that "It is very difficult to fool the professionals." How many times has a "Professional" decided that an inmate is "no longer a threat to society," he is released & he re-offends soon after - especially in the case of rapists & pedophiles? Whenever that happens, we ALWAYS find that he has a lengthy record for the same crimes & was released early. Those are all clear indications of how easy it is to fool the "professionals" who said he was "no longer a threat." How many times has a "Professional" sent an abused child back to his abusive parents who then murder him?

The fact that this woman is out on bail is something you find "a bit confounding?" It's not just confounding; it's yet another example of our useless system of--in--justice. What do you think of the Manson murderers being granted parole? Also a bit confounding?

You may not want to acknowledge that our justice system is pathetic because of your career in law enforcement, but that's exactly what it is - irritating as it may be to you.
 
This guy is out on bail. Same amount, $100,000. With electronic monitoring. Pretty much identical.

But then he's a while guy who killed a black guy, So no outrage there.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...n-Clearwater-parking-space-incident_172075487


LARGO — Michael Drejka, the man who shot and killed Markeis McGlockton in a case that set off a national debate about self-defense in July, was released from the Pinellas County Jail on Monday afternoon.

Always Available Bail Bonds posted $100,000 bail for Drejka, who has been in custody on a manslaughter charge since Aug. 13. He didn’t talk as he emerged from the front entrance to a gaggle of TV cameras and reporters. An electronic monitor hugged his ankle, a condition of release set by Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone during Drejka’s first appearance last month.

Drejka wore plaid shorts, a white T-shirt, a gray baseball cap and sunglasses. Lysa Clifton, one of his lawyers, and bail bond agent Tina Ruffo ushered him to a Hummer in the parking lot.
Click to expand...
 
win231 said:
You would lose your bet. It will be very easy for her attorney to establish NGRI (Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity). And, even if that is unsuccessful, the victim's age is another factor - callous as it is...she wouldn't end up serving much time in prison. You may remember John Hinckley also being found not guilty for the same reason. He's now 100% free with no restrictions, after shooting the president & several others & also causing the death of James Brady.

"Las Vegas Judges being tough on crime?" A judge can sentence anyone to anything - it means nothing, other than a façade show of support for the victims.
It's the Parole Board that decides when to release an inmate. The judge is completely out of the picture.
The Nevada State Parole Board released O.J. Simpson after 9 years. The judge sentenced him to 33 years.
Click to expand...

I don't know how it is where you live, but here a judge cannot "sentence anyone to anything." Sentences for conviction of various crimes are set forth in the criminal code. The judge may not have anything to do with it after the fact, BUT the judge can structure the sentence so that there is no parole, i.e., life plus 200 years or some such. The parole board doesn't have any power to release, other than what the laws specify regarding parole eligibility, good time, etc., so if you want to blame somebody, blame the legislature.

Here, a sentence is not "softened" by the age of the victim -- rather, the sentence is increased because the victim was old and/or infirm.

The insanity defense doesn't get you off the hook totally, it gets you sent to a psychiatric facility rather than prison and maybe you get our after a few years, and maybe you don't. Anyway, in most states (like here) it isn't so easy to prove as most people think. Here it means you cannot tell right from wrong -- which is a pretty high standard. She could maybe plead some kind of diminished capacity, but that's not as easy as it sounds either.
 
Equally pathetic: This POS killed her husband TWO MONTHS after they were married, over a period of time, torturing him with increasing doses of rat poison until he died, to collect his life insurance. To throw off the police's suspicion, she also gave her young daughter the same poison. She was paroled & she's now 53 years old.

https://wnep.com/2016/12/12/murderer-joanne-curley-freed-from-prison/
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top