Overturned [GUILTY] Verdict Stuns DA (Child Enticement)

JSOnline ^ | September 13, 2007 | Dan Benson

[generally]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

I am beginning to wonder what type of person becomes a judge. Most are former lawyers, so if money is the motivation, then they must have been lousy lawyers because successful lawyers make much more than judges. Maybe it’s laziness. In general, judges have better hours and easier jobs than lawyers.

I am beginning to think a main reason someone becomes a judge is because he/she is the type of person who thinks he is above the law and who thinks he knows better than the rest of us how to run things. Or someone who has an agenda. Or someone who has no discernable skills that would otherwise benefit society. I think these people get their kicks from messing with other people’s lives. (Similar to politicians.)

[freekitty]

“Van Akkeren made his ruling just minutes after the jury handed down its guilty verdict Wednesday, saying that the shelter the man tried to lure the girl into wasn’t secluded enough to satisfy the requirements of the charge.”

I am stunned. What possesses a person to rule this way? I really feel that a judge that could do this should be imprisoned right along with the convicted as he is contributing to this travesty.

[Designer]

"Quite frankly, I believe that we should just shoot the bastards on the spot, no questions asked."

Who, the perps, or the judges? Or both?

[trimom]

I’ve been thinking about this since the ‘80’s when I learned there is a college major called Criminal Justice and that’s where those interested in a Law Enforcement career are to study.

Criminal Justice? Criminals are getting all the justice, IMO. How about VICTIM Justice, huh?

[Poser]

I’ve got a quarter that says Bill O’Reilly adds this one to his show.

[PapaBear3625]

Here's what's strange. In his jury instructions the judge provides a definition of "secluded area" as "a place screened or hidden from view or remote from others." The jury, presumably, found that that definition was met. The judge decided that it was not met, and the jury be damned.

The judge should be reversed. The judge interprets the law, the jury has final say on the facts. If the jury, hearing the legal definition, found that the place met the definition, then the judge may not overrule that finding of fact

[conservonator]

I have a feeling that there are many judges that are members of nambla. This is happening too often to be a coincedence, and - I know they’re lawyers - but they can’t be that disconnected from the rest of society.

My one journey into the dark world of conspiracy is the belief that there is a very powerful cabal of pedophiles that operate as untouchables in our country: judges, politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. they are positioned for access and cover.

[davisfh]

Both!!