- Smoking ban becoming ludicrous
- Bush has lied and violated his oath
- Saved from disaster, thanks to Bush
- Limited abilities in ‘Rosen’s world’
- Two memorials
- Puritanical lawmakers
- High cost of textbooks
- Congress should impeach Bush & Cheney
- Openness needed regarding gifts
- Everyone must pitch in to save the earth
Judge has a backbone
Vincent Margera is found guilty of two counts of sexual assault on a child. Finally a judge and especially a jury with a backbone when it comes to punishing a famous person.
This letter has not been edited.
Paris Hilton He Ain't
Posted by on November 6, 2007 02:41 PMAlso, he wasn't tried in LA.
Posted by shaupeen on November 6, 2007 04:01 PMConvicted in Jefferson County ?
They don't play!!!
Boy, I wonder what would have happened if Denver Federal Court Chief Judge Ed "$3K lap dancing enthusiast" Nottingham, had presided over this criminla trial. Snotty-Notty sentenced ex-black Denver US Marshal Benny Bailey (26 years service) to 6 years in federal prison, because Bailey lied under oath about his sexual affair with a "WHITE WOMAN" (alternate juror in Tim McVeigh's OK City bombing trial).
Snotty-Notty (GHWB appointee), Bush, former USAG John "Disco" Ashcroft, and former Denver deputy USAG John Suthers, collectively, couldn't bust Clinton, so let's do Bailey.
This GOP posse of draft dodging bigots violated Bailey's constitutional rights by simply asking him this "nookie-gate" question. Obama should force Bush to pardon (Scooter) with retroactive full pay and benefits. This racist band of GOP wankers should imprisoned as prison wives at SuperMax.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on November 6, 2007 06:15 PMdraft...:
Is there ANYTHING that you couldn't turn into one of your bitter diatribes? Your reply has nothing to do with the point of the letter.
george{draft}-the world is so unfair and everyone really is out to get you.no one will listen and never will . so what are you waiting for? quit your constant bitching or be a man and do something about.
enough already.
LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS!
Posted by on November 6, 2007 07:25 PMJust so you all know, JeffCo is one of the worst counties to be tried for a sex crime. Almost all result in a guilty verdict. The interesting thing is, nearly half of the 1st time convicted are innocent. I should know my son is on of the innocent.
Did you know it only takes opportunity and an accusation to result in a trial and a guilty verdict? At least Vincent had a trial by jury. My son was denied a jury trial.
1 in 10 people in the state of Colorado have been and will be accused of a sex crime in this past year and in 2008. 5 of those accused will be dropped for insuffecient evidence (most of those are angry spouses in the middle of a divorce). 3 of the remaining 5 will plea out and the remaining 2 will be found guilty by judge or jury.
Don't believe me? Do your own research and you will only confirm my numbers.
I'm not saying Vincent is guilty or innocent, but the system is flawed and any guilty verdict in a sex crime should be scrutinized.
Posted by Harry on November 7, 2007 04:47 AMThere are very few judges that use judgement, the majority rely on emotion in making their findings or personal opinion, rather than the rule of law, as it applies to the case and the constitution.
Fact finding and truth take a backseat to the primary scrourge of this day and age, political correctness. By the way, does anyone know who controls what political correction is defined as or, is it an out of control societal created idiotism that has taken on a life of it's own.
In any case, have you noticed how many DA's and Judges have been involved in investigations of their actions in recent times. Scares me, not because I am a lawbreaker, but because of the erosion of the rule of law this country was founded on.
Posted by Allen Campbell on November 7, 2007 06:27 AM40 Ounces (draft) - Would you please just kill yourself? Pretty please?
Posted by on November 7, 2007 08:55 AMHarry I'm sure your "son" was innocent. Just go into any jail and ask the inmates if they are innocent and see what kind of response you get. Yes Harry I'm sure he is innocent.
Posted by on November 7, 2007 08:57 AM1 in 10 will be accused of a sex crime?
Really?
What is there, like 3 million peeps in the state....too lazy to look it up today.... that would mean 300,000 people are accused every year?
WOW, i am not going to the good parties apparently.
I heard that 78.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot....sounds like this one was too.
Posted by Dravur on November 7, 2007 10:34 AMWon't somebody think of the children?
Posted by on November 7, 2007 10:49 AMhey draft you whinning idiot SHUTUP!! give us all a break nyou nliberal jerk DIE
Posted by on November 7, 2007 12:06 PMJust because he was convicted ,doesn't mean he will do time. This state believes in restorative justice when it comes to sex offenders.
He will probably get probation and have to register as a sex offender, That will teach him not to rape children ,EH?
Forty acres/draft: Pursuant to my last request to stay on the subject matter (from which I occasionally drift) you've been doing pretty good. You got carried away this time; however, I still enjoy perusal of your sentiment. Snotty Notty reversed Sidney Brooks who found me in contempt of court by violating the rules that governs his conduct; therefore, forty, a judge usually is supported by 50% of the litigants irrespective of his decision. Margera is found guilty by a jury. Wherefore: you denounce a judge; I applaud the judge; Snotty Notty is okay by me.
Posted by Richard Grimes: Deicide/Misanthrope as far as believers in nonsense on stilts are concerned. r22037y on November 7, 2007 01:38 PMSettle down there, Grimey.
Posted by Grimicide on November 7, 2007 02:10 PMDravur
I heard that 78.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot....sounds like this one was too.
As high and ridiculous as this figure sounds it's not made up at all. In fact because it is so high it is NOT broad casted.
Posted by Harry on November 7, 2007 05:25 PMHarry I'm sure your "son" was innocent. Just go into any jail and ask the inmates if they are innocent and see what kind of response you get. Yes Harry I'm sure he is innocent.
Posted by on November 7, 2007 08:57 AM
This sounds a little sarcastic. My son was 11 at the time of the alleged offense, He was not tried and convicted until 12 mos later because the supposed accuser wouldn't admit that anything happened until after 9 months of brainwashing er I mean counseling.
Posted by Harry on November 7, 2007 06:13 PMWon't somebody think of the children?
Posted by on November 7, 2007 10:49 AM
The children, interesting concept. My son 11 at the time of the alleged offense, and soon to be 14, is a child. Who's thinking of him?
Posted by Harry on November 7, 2007 06:18 PMCan I get an AMEN!
Restorative justice typically only applies to children who have been found guilty of a sex crime. That, they say has a 96% success rate. What they don't tell you is that 10 years is not near long enough to really establish a reliable recidivism rate.
What they have established is that the recidivism rate in adult offenders is 55%, if my memory recalls correctly. Which is why they typically don't pursue restorative justice with adult offenders.
Again, because of the way the justice system is set up, opportunity and accusation, we may never know if Vincent did or did not sexually touch these children. A guilty verdict is NOT necessarily a sign of justice.
Posted by Harry on November 7, 2007 06:33 PMAs far as jury selection goes, was it really a trial by a jury of peers? I'd like to know the demographics of that jury. How many of them earned like incomes as Margera? How many of the jurors had similar occupations? How many were males? Was it really a trial by a jury of one's peers?
Yes, all those things DO make a difference in one's thought process. Granted there can never be a perfect match all throughout a jury pool. But something close should have been attained.
Posted by Harry on November 7, 2007 07:10 PMHarry , you made some valid points about the jury system.
My husband was a jurist for three days on an assault trial.
The defendent was charged with 1st degree and 2nd degree assault.What made this case unique is both were blind. Evidently the male defendent had beat up his girlfriend,it wasn't the 1st time and he had a prior conviction for domestic violence.Shortly after the beating the girlfriend suffered a stroke,she was in her 20,s,so they couldn't prove whether the beating caused the stroke or not for sure,but the Dr's said it was possible.
The Prosecutor paraded a bunch of people before the jury that saw bruises or black eyes on the girlfriend.Most family members testified they had witnessed the marks on her,but did nothing.When he was arrested for the last beating and she ended up having a stroke and recovered,he sat in jail for a year awaiting trial.
My husband said it wasn't made clear why he was in jail for a year.
My husband wanted to vote not guilty at all,why? He says because the state did a shoddy job with evidence. There was none. It was a he said they said case. The Police Detectives never even took one picture of her injuries. Her family and friends never took one picture of her bruises and black eyes ever.
So the jury voted 2nd degree assault and judge ordered time served and for him to not go near the woman again .
The woman's family was angry and rightfully so, but juries are only supposed to make judgements on evidence,not emotions.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 8, 2007 07:18 AMA clear case of restorative justice came out of Boulder last year.
A man classified as a violent sex offender was releaased after serving 7 years for raping a 5 year old.Rape not sex assault.
The community was notified that they were about to release a known violent sex offender to a half-way house. He would be looking for a job during the day and have to return to the half-way house at night.
One of the conditions he had to abide by was no alcohol,no drugs and no pornography.
Within a week he was rearrested and charged with having adult pornography in his possesion. He was resentenced to 30 years.
He serves 7 years for raping a 5 year old girl and 30 for having adult legal pornography in his possesion.How in the world does that make sense?
How is a child rapist going to find a jury of his peers? Put an ad on the NAMBLA website?
This brings to mind another question. I said to my husband after the trial ,did they have any blind people on the jury? He said no.
This brings up another jury of your peers question. If an illegal alien is charged with a crime ,does he get a jury of his peers? No ,because they would have to be illegals.
I'm waiting for the ACLU to sue for that right.
Yo Keith: That's cute: First Grimey then Grimicide. I have never agreed with the bulk of posters that you should be executed; but, in fact, I will duel to the death anyone who attempts to stifle your free speech.
Posted by RG on November 8, 2007 09:32 AM