quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Change the circumstances a bit and rather than a bunch protesters it's the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and rather than a neo-Nazi from Ohio he's just a tourist. Mr. Ohio tourist is driving around trying to find a place to watch the parade. He winds up driving down a street and see's the parade coming. Option 1 is certainly not continue driving forward through the marching band and see how it goes.

Suppose Mr. Ohio tourist isn't there to see the parade, is oblivious that a parade is happening until he turns down a street and sees it coming. Option 1 is still not continue driving forward through the marching band and see how it goes.

What he did is cut and dried to me. He pleaded guilty to 29 of 30 hate crime charges, so I suspect it was cut and dried to him as well.

If a BLM or Antifa person had driven through the neo-Nazis would the sentencing have been different? I'd like to think the charges and sentencing would be the same, justice being blind, but my gut says the sentencing would be lighter.

It appears to me that he made a plea deal in order to have the death penalty taken out of consideration. Just because someone makes a plea deal to lessen the severity of the sentence doesn't make the situation cut and dried.

Regarding changing the circumstances, one could armchair quarterback a situation with 20/20 hindsight all day long - saying what someone should have done, what they themselves would never do, etc. It's all irrelevant to the issue and people at hand. Change it up and consider times when you have done something ill-conceived in what may have been a confusing situation to you, yet the correct - or at least less ill-conceived - alternative was crystal clear to someone else.

What I'm looking for is not to reopen all the angst and speculation of the previous thread, but to get an objective opinion from anyone here who may have followed the case, and can add more than the snippets of reporting from Left-wing mouthpieces.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by PR64:
I remember seeing the video.

They surrounded the car and were bashing the windows in. Yes he got the hell out of there and killed a lady...

He is a shit head White supremest...

Perhaps, but did his actions (I would contend manslaughter at the most) warrant essentially a 500 year sentence? This is nothing but another symptom of the current times in this country and bears no reality to actual punishment for the crime committed. Short and sweet, this guy was made an example of.

my understanding on those 'excessive' sentences, beyond the Feel Good and We Did Something aspect is that the time goes toward the possibility of parole,

as in a person getting a life sentence may get out in (for a simple example) 25yrs,

add another life and that may be doubled to 50,

add more years and he may be released at 62,,

I am sure those in the legal field can elaborate and correct me if I am wrong

quote:

Originally posted by G-Man:
He won’t last through the first year of that sentence.

He'll probably be put in solitary for his safety. He'll end up wishing he got the death penalty.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
From just watching the video, I don't see the cut-and-dried aspect. I see a driver trying to ease his way through a crowd; somebody beats on the back of the car - which would likely cause someone to panic if they are focused on what is in front of them; and that beating on the car causes the driver to accelerate away from the threat, but into the crowd.

So you would accelerate into a crowd, that you chose to already driving towards, if someone hits your car?

He wasn't 'easing' through anything, he's doing at least 15 MPH until he gets hit, which was likely someone trying to stop him from killing people, then he slammed on the gas.

Dude deserves everything he got.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Dude deserves everything he got.

Really? He deserves 500 years? For Christ's sake, some of the Nazi's got less than that at the Nuremberg court. This sentence was bullshit of the highest order, just another wet dream miscarriage of the justice to support and placate a particular ideology. For murder he gets a life sentence, but for being a white supremacist he gets another 400+ years. I for one am sick of this shit. You wanna charge this guy with first degree murder and find him guilty of that charge in court (which I have no earthly idea how they'd prove 1st degree murder) and sentence him to life in prison without chance for parole, well Ok. Again, I don't know how you get there with that particular charge, but this 500 year sentence is bullshit of the highest order. The judicial system has become nothing but a joke at this point, just another piece of the three branches of government that runs almost solely on ideology with little actual focus on the law.

And make no mistake here, I'm not defending this Fields guy. He may indeed be a piece of hateful garbage. My issue (as usual) is with the court system and how they handled this case.

I'm not talking about the semantics of the '500 year' sentence. Dude pled guilty to avoid death sentence. I could give two fucks what they call it, 500 years, life without parole, whatever.

I take issue with people 'justifying' his actions as somehow 'reasonable' in the midst of a 'mob'. That is complete and utter bullshit. He drove into a crowd of people he disagreed with and people try to freeze-frame some sort of 'justification'.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

So you would accelerate into a crowd, that you chose to already driving towards, if someone hits your car?

Always have to go to the personal attack, don't you? Nice try Saul Alinsky. Not even going to bother with the rest because it's a waste of time and typing to deal with your bullshit.

Cue Rhino's usual childish comeback/have-to-get-the-last-word in 3...2..1...

Sorry you take offense to being called out, it pegs my zerofucks meter at zero.

You can always have the last word if you like, when you are done daydreaming about justifying this dude James Fields actions as "not intentional, and that the driver was trying to leave the scene without being injured or killed" (your words).

Have a nice evening!

So predictable.

Now back to the request posted earlier - anyone follow this trial that can objectively comment on it?

The idiot went looking for trouble, he found it. Adios.

quote:

Originally posted by MattW:
The idiot went looking for trouble, he found it. Adios.

Succinct and to the point.

Rhino, stick a sock in it.

It's unfortunate that there are those that are unable, or unwilling, to focus on the request or purpose of a thread.

I'm still interested to hear from anyone familiar with this case about whether there was more than political theater involved in this sentencing, and any commentary on the fairness, either yay or nay, of the trial. If there is anyone willing to impart their knowledge in this case and doesn't wish to be involved in the irrelevance that others have brought into the thread, I'd welcome an e-mail if you have the time and inclination.

Although I daily miss JAllen's savvy and insightful posts, it's in instances like these that his loss is especially felt.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Am I off base here? Does anyone have a clearer understanding of the events and why the sentence might be justified?

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
It's unfortunate that there are those that are unable, or unwilling, to focus on the request or purpose of a thread.

The last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph of your original post are off base. My response was based on those sentences and your request. Sorry I didn't understand what you were actually looking for.

Wish I could know the facts of the case as presented in court.

I’m a bit skeptical of the MSM “facts”.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
Am I off base here? Does anyone have a clearer understanding of the events and why the sentence might be justified?

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
It's unfortunate that there are those that are unable, or unwilling, to focus on the request or purpose of a thread.

The last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph of your original post are off base. My response was based on those sentences and your request. Sorry I didn't understand what you were actually looking for.

Understood. Ideally what I'm looking for is what was proven, not guesses, opinion, or speculation. Plea bargaining doesn't necessarily prove a case but rather, as I understand it, has all manner of variables to consider why a case may not be winnable.

However, a civil discussion of the situation is also welcome. Your post and others are perfectly fine as they share knowledge and recollection to help gain a better understanding. The posts by members who seek confrontation are useless - as such an attitude is in any attempt at rational conversation.