Posted on 07/05/2007 6:08:06 PM PDT by Daffynition
Awesome post. Says it all.
And:
There were six men with 40 prior arrests among them in a hotel room with a semi-conscious girl and a minor. They were consuming illegal drugs and alcohol underage.
These are not innocent guys just having a party.
Have you read post 23? He could end this.
I sympathized with the young man, and now Al has ruined it.
Go to the link in post 11. It’s all from an article.
To Rev. Al, it's a "black rights" sort of case. To the FReepers on Genarlow's team, it's more of a "man's rights" thing, I guess. Of course, Genarlow would be walking the streets right now if he (and his lameass mama) didn't insist that the state declare him INNOCENT of everything except a little fun with friends. As Genarlow says, he's just "standing up for what I believe in." Which is evidently drunken orgies with drugged-up minors.
It gives the charges and circumstances.
They have rallies for murderers, too. Sometimes it works.
Neighborhood ‘Child Rapist’ Signs Blamed For Sex Offender’s Suicide - cannot alter flyers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389550/posts
Charges are not what I was asking you about. You take a point to persecute someone I just wanted to know the background rationale. You have been lacking in that thus far. This guy goes to jail for a decade because he was acquitted of everything else and had sex with someone 2 years younger than him?
Being charged does not mean being guilty. The Duke LAX players were charged. Circumstances were given. Editorials were written by about 80 or so professors at Duke. Were they guilty? Should they have to spend 10 years in jail because of an EDITORIAL?
He was acquitted of the rape of the 17 yr old.
He was convicted of rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation the 15 yr old.
Post 23 is also to you. A jury convicted him. He REFUSES the plea bargains they have offered him SINCE his jury conviction. He refuses them unless he's declared innocent. And he is NOT innocent. They used his own tape to convict him.
They jury convicted him of having consensual sex with a girl two years younger than him. It was wrong, but was it so wrong that he spends 10 years in prison? I think you got a little too much sun on your neck.
The punishment is mandatory.
They've offered to give him a deal for time served. He wouldn't be on the sex offender registry either. He refused. He wants to be declared innocent. Except he's not. On his own tape, he has a drunken, drugged orgy. Consensual sex applies to 16 and older.
I think the sentence was too harsh.
The punishment is mandatory.
***************************************************
There is another judge who disagrees.
No. A 15 yr old can't give consent in that state. He was convicted of rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation using his own tape. The jury saw underage drinking and drug use. The also saw the 17 yr old locked in a bathroom between "uses".
He was found guilty by a jury. He has been offered a deal in which he will be released for time served and NOT be on the registry. He refused. He wants to be declared innocent. He's not. The 10 yr sentence is mandatory in that state.
You'd be screaming bloody murder if he'd been 25 or 30.
Would you be saying that if he was 25? Remember, he could be released if he'd admit guilt. What he did is on tape. He wants to be declared innocent. Even though he's on tape.
It's state law. You approve of judicial activism when it agrees with your "assessment"? It's ok for a judge to disregard law if you agree?
Again, he can be released if he admits guilt. They have his tape of him having sex with the girl. He wants to be declared innocent.Despite the tape.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.