Posted on 03/14/2018 11:34:51 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Hold on just a minute.
I read the first paragraph.
Plus i read a few of the comments in order to get the flow of the article.
^_^
Should that not be up to the defendant's lawyers?
He withdrew his not guilty plea. He confessed to the police and that will be presented in court along with forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. He doesn’t stand a chance.
That means he’ll be executed at between 33-38 years old.
His lawyers told him to withdraw his not guilty plea and stand silent because that won’t enrage the public as much. He still gets a not guilty plea out of it.
He may be A shooter. But they may not have all shooters.
I think he lit that candle a month ago.
He still gets a not guilty plea out of it.
Yep, and a waste of tax payer time/money.
I guess he doesn’t like girls?
You saw that also. The judge wants to make sure the death penalty is applicable. Good on the judge.
He has no choice now. But all joking aside, they need to show no mercy to these murders. No second chance, nothing but death row.
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. For example. A friend of mine at work was getting harassed by an ex of the girl he was dating. I met a person, outside of our office building in the morning, after working a graveyard shift. According to what I remember, “goatee, camouflage jacket and hat, and black boots, black hair.” This guy sounded EXACTLY like the guy harassing my friend. Exept the company had video tape of me talking to the guy. He had camo on the arms only, the rest was blue. A black hat. Full beard. White tennis shoes, brown hair. NOT the same guy. Stress and exhaustion can do a lot to a memory.
The way I understand it: The public defender was trying to negotiate for life in prison, no parole in exchange for the State prosecution NOT seeking the DP in exchange for a Guilty plea. They argue the state saves the money and time by cutting a deal. They argue it ‘spares’ the victims and families further grief. It’s not fair to make that assumption.
1. Cruz’s actions are exactly why the death penalty was enacted in Florida.
2. Avoiding a trial would result in cloaking the depth of the ineptitude within the Broward county school district, Sheriff’s office and the FBI.
But when there are commonalities among reliable witnesses, they must be considered. Both teachers were extremely precise in their descriptions. How many ACTUALLY SAW Cruz specifically? Was there shooting going on elsewhere? Lots of questions for the defense.
He may be A shooter. But they may not have all shooters.
...
I wonder if all the other shooters took Uber.
It's required by law if the defendant fails or refuses to plead.
First off I'm not a "Lawyer" or do I have a "Law Degree." Nor do I try and sell the B.S. That I'm a "Licensed" Lawyer. (Ask a Lawyer to see a piece of paper that say's "License.") They will show you there "Bar-Card," a.k.a., State(s) "Mandated Union-Card," simply showing that he/she is a "member in good standing." Translation they are current on Union Mandated Dues.
What the Judge has done is to protect "THE RECORD." In this instance, it's to show that the self confessed killer was protected by proper "DUE PROCESS."
If your wondering, well he did "self-confess," yes you would be right, it's very important to show via the "Court Record," that the "self-confess[ed]" killer was properly represented (& Constitutionally Protected) via a "LAWYER," either a "Public Pretender," (I could write a novel just on that subject) or a privately secured Attorney.
This is to prevent another court (State Appeals or Federal Appeals & Ultimately U.S. Supreme Court) from being able to release said self-confessed killer, because of a "LACK OF DUE PROCESS."
My own courtroom experience, three times to the Washington State Supreme Court (Civil Matter.) Case Law was made in all three cases. Unfortunately I was the loser in all three cases. Ref: The making of "NEW COUNTIES" in a State, that would be the State of Washington.
Prior court decisions are sometimes called a Latin phrase "stare decisis." The courts need a new phrase in my OPINION: Stare at the Shit on the wall, when a court (in my case) make a "HOLDING / stare decisis," based on a subject matter that was neither argued or briefed. Put so a lay person can understand what I just said is basically, the "court" decided to stick their "finger in the air," and say Hey here's our opinion, although nobody asked us, and that's--that!!!
I was only half joking.
Maybe the difference is,at that age, I was interested
in getting to know a girl.
Not shooting them to death?
I hope it crosses his mind that he will never really know a girl.
Or, maybe that he could be someone’s girl in prison.
Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
Who was the “reliable” eyewitness that id’d him then, because he wasn’t caught in the middle of shooting? How does a teacher eyewitness mistake jeans and a t shirt for full protective gear? I would also think that most false eyewitness reports are from people who don’t know the person they are identifying, yet his schoolmate says she walked out with him, while talking to him.
In other words, this is the standard plea entered by judges in these cases.
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.