The meltdown that is happening on the Vandy message boards

#3,126
#3,126
RiseToTheTop said:
Vandy wiffed on all the 2 star desperation offers they sent out this week. So they stooped lower. They just offered a 77 2-star FCS Villanova commit.lol wow
Click to expand...

Vandy has hired the worst coach in America. Add to that after one year he fired most of his staff including both of his coordinator's. I now predict that Vandy goes winless against every team they play.

Mason is the most clueless, stupid head coach I've ever witnessed at Vandy, and I've seen a few.

Anchor down Vandy, it's stuck on a rock and the tide is coming in!
 
#3,128
#3,128
JFBanicki said:
Im not a lawyer or anything, but since the verdict was just reached and sentencing hasn't taken place couldn't they just remove that one person and reconvene with one of the optional jurors that sat through the whole trial. It would be so much quicker and easier and we all know they would reach the same verdict.
Click to expand...

The alternates sit through the trial but do not deliberate. They would have to do trial all over
 
#3,133
#3,133
#3,135
#3,135
#3,137
#3,137
NorthDallas40 said:
When you find a rabid animal you put it down. Period. Address how the animal got that way next but first thing make sure the rabid animal doesn't hurt anything else.

And on a side note wtf is wrong with your sense of morality dude?! Think you would want to turn the other cheek if that was your daughter??
Click to expand...

I am very interested in your last paragraph. Would it be moral, in your view, to allow the victim or their families to decide upon and enact the punishment on the perpetrators?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,139
#3,139
daj2576 said:
I am very interested in your last paragraph. Would it be moral, in your view, to allow the victim or their families to decide upon and enact the punishment on the perpetrators?
Click to expand...

Morality and justice can coexist my friend. We can be repulsed by acts of savagry while still upholding the rule of law and due process.

My morality says that kid was an animal. Due process has agreed thus far. PUT. HIM. DOWN.

Years ago when I was a kid we had a small sporting goods store in my home town. Some people passing thru robbed it and killed the worker. The owner of the store tried to post bail for the killers. We all knew he would not be allowed to do so. But a part of all of us wished he could have. And nobody tried to defend the worthless POS's

Edit: other than the officers who were charged to defend them. But we didn't hold it against them or TBI that is their job
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,140
#3,140
NorthDallas40 said:
Morality and justice can coexist my friend. We can be repulsed by acts of savagry while still upholding the rule of law and due process.

My morality says that kid was an animal. Due process has agreed thus far. PUT. HIM. DOWN.

Years ago when I was a kid we had a small sporting goods store in my home town. Some people passing thru robbed it and killed the worker. The owner of the store tried to post bail for the killers. We all knew he would not be allowed to do so. But a part of all of us wished he could have. And nobody tried to defend the worthless POS's

Edit: other than the officers who were charged to defend them. But we didn't hold it against them or TBI that is their job
Click to expand...

As to your first sentence, justice is moral. I can agree with you there. What I am afraid that you are describing is vengeance. Vengeance is not moral.

Justice concerns us all and is a show of balance achieved by an objective mediator. justice requires objectivity, the sort of objectivity that vengeance is incapable of as it requires thought, restraint, and an avoidance of cruel and inhuman punishment (lest we behave like animals).

If being human is defined by how we control ourselves as measured by how we treat others (that seems to be your initial position), than is a violent vengeful act of retribution less or more like an animal? If you want to "put down" the perpetrator for their loss of humanity, when the victim becomes the perpetrator by behaving like an animal inflicting pain for vengeance alone, using your 'morality' shouldn't they be held to that same standard and then be 'put down' too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,142
#3,142
I have referenced due process in my posts. This animal had his day in court. He was judged and convicted. Now carry out the sentence as allowed by law. Don't waste more of the tax payers time or money on this trash.

The father of that girl would love to have some alone time with the animal I'm sure. I would not fault him wanting personal vengeance. However our system does not allow for such to occur.

You can understand the desire for wanting vigilante justice while showing restraint. I'm sure that girls father thinks about that quite a bit now.
 
#3,143
#3,143
daj2576 said:
As to your first sentence, justice is moral. I can agree with you there. What I am afraid that you are describing is vengeance. Vengeance is not moral.

Justice concerns us all and is a show of balance achieved by an objective mediator. justice requires objectivity, the sort of objectivity that vengeance is incapable of as it requires thought, restraint, and an avoidance of cruel and inhuman punishment (lest we behave like animals).

If being human is defined by how we control ourselves as measured by how we treat others (that seems to be your initial position), than is a violent vengeful act of retribution less or more like an animal? If you want to "put down" the perpetrator for their loss of humanity, when the victim becomes the perpetrator by behaving like an animal inflicting pain for vengeance alone, using your 'morality' shouldn't they be held to that same standard and then be 'put down' too?
Click to expand...

Dude! We get it. You dont believe in the death penalty. Over in the political forum, where these post belong, they discuss it in great detail.
#buzzkill
 
#3,145
#3,145
NorthDallas40 said:
I have referenced due process in my posts. This animal had his day in court. He was judged and convicted. Now carry out the sentence as allowed by law. Don't waste more of the tax payers time or money on this trash.

The father of that girl would love to have some alone time with the animal I'm sure. I would not fault him wanting personal vengeance. However our system does not allow for such to occur.

You can understand the desire for wanting vigilante justice while showing restraint. I'm sure that girls father thinks about that quite a bit now.
Click to expand...

Dup process is only a part of the evaluation. Last year something like 125 people were released from long term prison sentences because they were convicted, with due process, for crimes that evidence later proved they didn't commit. Many had spent years, if not decades, in prison due to satisfactory due process but a botched trial. How can society repay innocent men who did the time for a crime they didn't commit? Should they be allowed to go kill a judge, or the prosecutor, or the jury?

The defendants in this case have a right to a fair trial, which supersedes notice and a hearing (see: Due Process generally). This could arguably mean a jury free of people who had been victims of similar crimes, or relatives of the victim, or other people potentially compromised of their objectivity. It appears the evidence is overwhelming and a second trial would turn out just like the first, but I am terrified of a system where the government can take short cuts for appearances. In fact, I am terrified of a system that convicts one innocent man even if it locks up every criminal.
 
#3,146
#3,146
malinoisvol said:
Dude! We get it. You dont believe in the death penalty. Over in the political forum, where these post belong, they discuss it in great detail.
#buzzkill
Click to expand...

I didn't start this conversation. I'm only adding to madness I stumbled upon.

#ignoreitifyoudontlikeit
 
#3,147
#3,147
They could delay their prison rape all they want. They're just going to suffer the same shock and humiliation as the first trial. Video evidence is very damning.
 
#3,148
#3,148
daj2576 said:
Dup process is only a part of the evaluation. Last year something like 125 people were released from long term prison sentences because they were convicted, with due process, for crimes that evidence later proved they didn't commit. Many had spent years, if not decades, in prison due to satisfactory due process but a botched trial. How can society repay innocent men who did the time for a crime they didn't commit? Should they be allowed to go kill a judge, or the prosecutor, or the jury?

The defendants in this case have a right to a fair trial, which supersedes notice and a hearing (see: Due Process generally). This could arguably mean a jury free of people who had been victims of similar crimes, or relatives of the victim, or other people potentially compromised of their objectivity. It appears the evidence is overwhelming and a second trial would turn out just like the first, but I am terrified of a system where the government can take short cuts for appearances. In fact, I am terrified of a system that convicts one innocent man even if it locks up every criminal.
Click to expand...

So do we stop punishing people all together because someone might be innocent? Excepting older cases many of the innocent people getting out were convicted by some pretty da-ning evidence, its not like the state walks in the prosecutor says ' that man is guilty' the judge bangs his gavel and gives him the worst sentence possible. The fact these guys gets out proves the system works, in many countries that doesn't happen, those that do copied our system. If nothing else it is the juries fault, they are the ones to decide most of the time.
 
#3,149
#3,149
daj2576 said:
Dup process is only a part of the evaluation. Last year something like 125 people were released from long term prison sentences because they were convicted, with due process, for crimes that evidence later proved they didn't commit. Many had spent years, if not decades, in prison due to satisfactory due process but a botched trial. How can society repay innocent men who did the time for a crime they didn't commit? Should they be allowed to go kill a judge, or the prosecutor, or the jury?

The defendants in this case have a right to a fair trial, which supersedes notice and a hearing (see: Due Process generally). This could arguably mean a jury free of people who had been victims of similar crimes, or relatives of the victim, or other people potentially compromised of their objectivity. It appears the evidence is overwhelming and a second trial would turn out just like the first, but I am terrified of a system where the government can take short cuts for appearances. In fact, I am terrified of a system that convicts one innocent man even if it locks up every criminal.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in general, but not in specific on this case. Rape is one of those hard to prove charges sometimes, as the difference between a yes or a no is the issue at hand. It's not that often that video or text proof exists. Our legal system is set up to err on the side of caution and would prefer to let a guilty man walk than imprison an innocent one.

These guys are guilty as sin though, through the legal book at them and maximum sentence their azzes.

Vigilante justice has no place in our society, and will and should be prosecuted.
 
#3,150
#3,150
daj2576 said:
Dup process is only a part of the evaluation. Last year something like 125 people were released from long term prison sentences because they were convicted, with due process, for crimes that evidence later proved they didn't commit. Many had spent years, if not decades, in prison due to satisfactory due process but a botched trial. How can society repay innocent men who did the time for a crime they didn't commit? Should they be allowed to go kill a judge, or the prosecutor, or the jury?

The defendants in this case have a right to a fair trial, which supersedes notice and a hearing (see: Due Process generally). This could arguably mean a jury free of people who had been victims of similar crimes, or relatives of the victim, or other people potentially compromised of their objectivity. It appears the evidence is overwhelming and a second trial would turn out just like the first, but I am terrified of a system where the government can take short cuts for appearances. In fact, I am terrified of a system that convicts one innocent man even if it locks up every criminal.
Click to expand...

I guess you and the earlier gentleman, and I, will simply have to disagree. As far as I'm concerned this kid has had his day in court. Now get on with sentencing and try to give that girl and her family's lives back as much as we can.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top