If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The slide into plutocracy continues: man won't face felony hit-and-run charge because he manages $1 billion in assets for Morgan Stanley   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 433
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

23712 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2010 at 2:21 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-08 05:45:25 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: Well North Korea isn't a corporate kleptocracy, it's more a "congenitally batshiat crazy ruling family kleptocracy"

I think that one might actually fit. Nice. I say it might because we can't really be too sure. I'd not be surprised to find something fitting that definition in the DPRK.

Mnemia: Not really, but there are degrees. This particular case is really over the top and in-your-face about it. Most places that are democracies at least try to keep up the appearance that the rich elite don't get a different standard of justice applied to them. Plus, in America we aspire to NOT be like that. We're not a society that was founded on aristocracy (well, we sort of are, but we like to believe that we aren't).

I guess I'm a realist. It isn't that I'm not outraged, it is that I fully expect this. For a while, actually quite a while throughout my life, I kept a keen eye on the sentences handed down by the courts for various crimes. I will not say that I studied it nor that I took notes or anything but I did pay attention. The disparity is well known to me.

This is along the same topic lines... I've often said that I'll take feminism serious when I see them advocating for the same punishment for females in the judicial system. It is, honestly, the Just Us System as much of a cliché as that is.

Then again, a part of me wishes that it were like this all the time. This is open. As you said, "In-your-face." To me that is a step closer towards honesty. I was young once and believed in a utopia, humanity, and had hope for society. I have since learned to have a sense of humor.
 
2010-11-08 05:45:44 PM
g4lt: wolfpaq777: g4lt: When was hit-n-run a civil crime?

I don't know. In the world where I make the rules, it would be a felony. However, that doesn't change the fact that huffpo purposefully left out information in an attempt to make the situation more outrageous than it actually is. The fact is that the DA dropped the charges because in their professional opinion it would be easier to make the charges stick to his record, and guarantee restitution to Dr. Milo as a misdemeanor. Keep in mind, if the DA went for felony but wasn't able to prove to a group of 12 random Coloradans that beyond reasonable doubt Erzinger is guilty, he walks free with no restitution and no mark on his record. Nothing.

It's not like they dropped all charges and Erzinger is walking free. It is quite the opposite.

Tell me that in a year, when Erzinger is free and Milo is still in Physical Therapy. Tell me that when Erzinger's farking precious job keeping mortgage companies afloat by selling their bad mortgages is protected and Milo still can't stand long enough to do his, saving people's lives

/hangin's too good for him


In one of Heinlein's books (Number of the Beast) he wrote about a society that exactly matched the punishment to the crime. So in this case Mr banker would be put on a bicycle, struck from behind, and left there for the same time frame the victim was.
 
2010-11-08 05:47:46 PM
g4lt: Do you think that Joe Schmoe will keep his job after a year in the hoosegow? He should have his life completely turned upside down so that nobody else thinks that they can get away with this (am I doing this right, I'm just quoting the typical conservartard when some poor schmuck that never got a good break ties one on and hits a ditch)

That's not just "conservartard" rhetoric. It's MADD rhetoric and the Dems are just as guilty of embracing it.
 
2010-11-08 05:48:43 PM
i280.photobucket.com

This seems to be a popular idea today.

I wholeheartedly endorse the start of this class war.

Billionaire? fark YOU! (pretend it isn't filtered to "fark")
 
2010-11-08 05:50:26 PM
The most logical explanation is that the judge was bribed.
 
2010-11-08 05:51:55 PM
sirrerun: IF the cyclist had died.
Was that not in my post?


Not really since I am answering the part where he didn't know, not the theoretical "if he died". If the guy died, it would be reckless homicide.
 
2010-11-08 05:54:26 PM
wolfpaq777: jwa007: wolfpaq777: At first I was outraged, but then I realized it was just the typical huffington post conglomerate of out of context quotes and little no no factual data.

So I went and got the actual facts from a valid news source - the felony charges are being dropped because if found guilty Erzinger may not be capable of fully paying restitution due to North American Securities Dealers regulations and could have his record swept clean in 2-4 years of good behavior, verses misdemeanors which stay on his record for life, and do not impact his ability to cover Dr. Milo.

But yeah, keep feeling outraged you circle jerking dumbf*ck libs.

You don't cite your source for the story, nor provide a URL. But you think felony convictions can be swept away in a few years time? And that misdemeanor charges would be worse for this guy? He fled the scene of an accident, he had no intention of reporting the accident at that time. And you only "libtards" would think this guy should be charged with felonies?

The DERP is strong in you.

URL has already been provided in this thread. Or you could try using google?

But anyway, since you're obviously a dumbf*ck who uses buzz words like DERP rather than thinking, I'll show you:

In such cases after two to four years the felonies could drop from his record if he met certain conditions
Because you're too f*cking stupid to use google, here's the link dumbass


Thank you for providing the URL I was not aware it was in the thread anywhere. That was a kind act. Too bad you are a mindless jerk who will be the first with your back to the wall when the revolution comes.
 
2010-11-08 05:55:18 PM
8Draw: Treygreen13: I guess that "Plutocrat" will soon be the buzzword for Republican here on Fark.

Keep f*cking that chicken.


t2.gstatic.com
 
2010-11-08 05:58:50 PM
silent sunday: Wonder what other crimes this guy has gotten away with.

There was this girl that went missing in 1990...
 
2010-11-08 05:59:27 PM
jwa007: Thank you for providing the URL I was not aware it was in the thread anywhere. That was a kind act. Too bad you are a mindless jerk who will be the first with your back to the wall when the revolution comes.

And you'll be the clueless guy that completely misses it...

The Flexecutioner: abc covered this, and it looks like this is Huffington's encapsulation of it.

abc's version (new window)
 
2010-11-08 06:00:17 PM
wolfpaq777: g4lt: When was hit-n-run a civil crime?

I don't know. In the world where I make the rules, it would be a felony. However, that doesn't change the fact that huffpo purposefully left out information in an attempt to make the situation more outrageous than it actually is.


Which is why you and I both sought out other sources of information. I know HuffPo shouldn't be taken at face value. It appears you know that too.

What I found out was that the DA really said the things he was quoted as saying in HuffPo so spare us your fake outrage and stop trying to make this about HuffPo rather than the actual case.

The fact is that the DA dropped the charges because in their professional opinion it would be easier to make the charges stick to his record, and guarantee restitution to Dr. Milo as a misdemeanor. Keep in mind, if the DA went for felony but wasn't able to prove to a group of 12 random Coloradans that beyond reasonable doubt Erzinger is guilty, he walks free with no restitution and no mark on his record. Nothing.

And you know what? Even after reading other sources you and I don't know everything. If a jury acquits him then we have to accept that he is "not guilty". It's how the system works.

From what we "know" I find an acquittal extremely unlikely. A hung jury would be possible but old Hurlbert isn't afraid to retry cases if that happens.

And even though it wouldn't be on his record, it would certainly turn up in any background check for any new job he might apply for. It's all over the freakin' news. What is known now can not be erased.

It's not like they dropped all charges and Erzinger is walking free. It is quite the opposite.

If I were Erzinger I'd be farking rejoicing right now. Even though a felony conviction would not be a foregone conclusion I would not want to take my chances. I'd gladly accept a couple of misdemeanors in exchange for knowing I would never have to spend a night incarcerated.
 
2010-11-08 06:02:58 PM
IrateShadow: stonicus: So the judge drops the felony so he can have a job to pay the victim... What happens now if he quits? Or gets fired? Will the judge re-add the felony?

What if the guy gets a really good lawyer for the civil trial and the doctor walks away with jack shiat?


What if the guy leaves the country and never comes back?
 
2010-11-08 06:04:34 PM
Happy Hours: g4lt: Do you think that Joe Schmoe will keep his job after a year in the hoosegow? He should have his life completely turned upside down so that nobody else thinks that they can get away with this (am I doing this right, I'm just quoting the typical conservartard when some poor schmuck that never got a good break ties one on and hits a ditch)

That's not just "conservartard" rhetoric. It's MADD rhetoric and the Dems are just as guilty of embracing it.


you may want to look at when MADD seems to have the most sway over various legislative bodies...
 
2010-11-08 06:10:46 PM
jwa007: Thank you for providing the URL I was not aware it was in the thread anywhere. That was a kind act. Too bad you are a mindless jerk who will be the first with your back to the wall when the revolution comes.

To summarize the facts which wolfie is distorting:

* Trying someone in court does not guarantee a conviction. After hearing the case a jury with more information than we have gathered from news reports might not be convinced of his guilt. If you can get 12 people to vote NOT GUILTY then he should not be convicted. That's the way our justice system is designed to work.

* Victim wanted deferred adjudication. IF Erzinger keeps his nose clean for the specified amount of time, it does go away. That is actually not that uncommon. The advantage is that there isn't a need for trial and Erzinger must demonstrate that he can abide by the law.

* Pleading guilty to 2 misdemeanors is a slam-dunk for Hurlbert and also does not carry any provision for deferred adjudication. It's only a slap on the wrist, but it's a sure thing.

* NASD regulations only require disclosure of the felony convictions, not the firing of anyone making such a disclosure.

* Hurlbert still said he was letting him off so he wouldn't lose his job if convicted. That is what I (and I suspect most people) find so outrageous about this case.
 
2010-11-08 06:17:02 PM
Mnemia: That's what the DA SAYS is the reason. I don't think that's necessarily the true reason just because he says that. Other possibilities:
- He was bribed/promised a job/buddies with the defendant.
- He is afraid of losing the felony case due to the high-priced defense team the banker dude might hire.
- He doesn't believe that hit-and-run deserves a felony charge, but is embarrassed to admit this.
- He agrees with the defendant's politics.
- Etc.

The fact that the victim wants the felony charge undercuts the argument that the DA is concerned about restitution. The fact that the guy is most likely a wealthy individual undercuts the restitution argument. The fact that a jury could probably convict him of a lesser charge if they weren't convinced of the felony undercuts your other argument (not 100% sure of Colorado's laws on this).


You forgot a few possible reasons:
- He wets the bed more frequently when prosecuting a felony.
- His wife gets horny when he drops felony charges.
- etc etc

The point is, we could go on forever making up reasons why the prosecutor did what he did. Unless I see him working at Morgan Stanley a year from now, or reliable bed wetting statistics, I see no reason why we should consider these possibilities.

The "misdemeanor is easier to make stick and sticks longer" argument makes the most sense to me, and seeing as that's what he actually said was the reason, I'm not inclined to change my mind unless we are presented with more information.

Thanks for being one of the few who actually thought out your arguments rather than posting a kneejerk defense of huffpo.

As to your counter points, here are my thoughts: Victim doesn't get to decide what the DA does. You don't know whether or not Erzinger is wealthy: There are lots of reasons why he may not be able to afford the restitution out of his savings account. And finally, our limited knowledge of the CO laws & the details of the case should prevent us from conjecturing as to how easy it would be to get a felony conviction vs. misdemeanor conviction.
 
2010-11-08 06:18:11 PM
If being filthy rich doesn't have its benefits, then what's the point of being wealthy? If anything, this Erzinger fella ought to be suing the police and the "victim" for putting his name out there and endangering his job because it might look bad if Morgan Stanley keeps him on board. That's not justice. That's slander.

If someone drives the lane and the defender falls, there's gotta be a call.
 
2010-11-08 06:20:07 PM
Happy Hours: Hurlbert still said he was letting him off so he wouldn't lose his job if convicted. That is what I (and I suspect most people) find so outrageous about this case.

It's only outrageous if you keep taking it out of context. But hey, if you enjoy distorting facts, then by all means continue to only pay attention to the first part of the sentence. If I wanted some faux outrage, I'd probably do the same.
 
2010-11-08 06:21:48 PM
Cyndi Lauper was a PROPHET!!!

991.com
 
2010-11-08 06:22:25 PM
wolfpaq777: juniper lopez's hedgetrimmer: it's true! When you murder someone you know they are dead; when you hit them and leave them for dead, you're aren't sure if you stopped and helped them they may have lived.

Nice work identifying one of the major differences. There are a couple other big ones though, maybe one day you'll be intelligent enough to catch them all!


I know! In both cases you are both guilty of being involved in the death of someone, potentially, and in both cases have sought to avoid the consequences of doing so! But, it's only in the case of a hit and run that you can go home and sober up first to avoid any additional charges - because time is on your side!
 
2010-11-08 06:23:55 PM
g4lt: Happy Hours: g4lt: Do you think that Joe Schmoe will keep his job after a year in the hoosegow? He should have his life completely turned upside down so that nobody else thinks that they can get away with this (am I doing this right, I'm just quoting the typical conservartard when some poor schmuck that never got a good break ties one on and hits a ditch)

That's not just "conservartard" rhetoric. It's MADD rhetoric and the Dems are just as guilty of embracing it.

you may want to look at when MADD seems to have the most sway over various legislative bodies...


Their biggest victory at the federal level seems to be The National Minimum Drinking-Age Act of 1984 which was introduced by a Democrat and passed both houses on a voice vote. Votes on proposed amendments to the bill were about equal among Dems and Repubs. And a Republican president signed it into law.

Is there some other piece of legislation that differentiates Dems from the "conservartards" on this?

We could both spend all day citing examples of individual legislators from both parties pushing for stricter DUI laws.
 
2010-11-08 06:28:57 PM
wolfpaq777: Happy Hours: Hurlbert still said he was letting him off so he wouldn't lose his job if convicted. That is what I (and I suspect most people) find so outrageous about this case.

It's only outrageous if you keep taking it out of context. But hey, if you enjoy distorting facts, then by all means continue to only pay attention to the first part of the sentence. If I wanted some faux outrage, I'd probably do the same.


I haven't taken them out of context at all. OTOH, you've distorted facts and ignored reasonable arguments all the while calling people who disagree with you names like "circle jerking dumbf*ck libs" from your initial post in this thread.
 
2010-11-08 06:31:26 PM
Helios1182: Seriously; convict him on the felony, seize all assets for restitution, send guy to jail.

Seriously, you're confusing the civil case with the criminal case.
 
2010-11-08 06:33:04 PM
Happy Hours: jwa007: Thank you for providing the URL I was not aware it was in the thread anywhere. That was a kind act. Too bad you are a mindless jerk who will be the first with your back to the wall when the revolution comes.

To summarize the facts which wolfie is distorting:

* Trying someone in court does not guarantee a conviction. After hearing the case a jury with more information than we have gathered from news reports might not be convinced of his guilt. If you can get 12 people to vote NOT GUILTY then he should not be convicted. That's the way our justice system is designed to work.


i thought it only took one person to maintain that he isn't guilty to hang a jury on convictions.

and any links to NASD's regulations on this would be nice. It wasnt cited specifically anywhere in the HuffPo or ABC articles. And wolfpaq wont provide one either. I'm such a lazy incompetent farktard that he will have to do it himself.
 
2010-11-08 06:33:51 PM
I would donate a few bucks toward the surgeon's civil suit if necessary. I mean, if everyone else was doing it.
 
2010-11-08 06:36:26 PM
wolfpaq777: Mnemia: That's what the DA SAYS is the reason. I don't think that's necessarily the true reason just because he says that. Other possibilities:
- He was bribed/promised a job/buddies with the defendant.
- He is afraid of losing the felony case due to the high-priced defense team the banker dude might hire.
- He doesn't believe that hit-and-run deserves a felony charge, but is embarrassed to admit this.
- He agrees with the defendant's politics.
- Etc.

The fact that the victim wants the felony charge undercuts the argument that the DA is concerned about restitution. The fact that the guy is most likely a wealthy individual undercuts the restitution argument. The fact that a jury could probably convict him of a lesser charge if they weren't convinced of the felony undercuts your other argument (not 100% sure of Colorado's laws on this).

You forgot a few possible reasons:
- He wets the bed more frequently when prosecuting a felony.
- His wife gets horny when he drops felony charges.
- etc etc

The point is, we could go on forever making up reasons why the prosecutor did what he did. Unless I see him working at Morgan Stanley a year from now, or reliable bed wetting statistics, I see no reason why we should consider these possibilities.

The "misdemeanor is easier to make stick and sticks longer" argument makes the most sense to me, and seeing as that's what he actually said was the reason, I'm not inclined to change my mind unless we are presented with more information.

Thanks for being one of the few who actually thought out your arguments rather than posting a kneejerk defense of huffpo.

As to your counter points, here are my thoughts: Victim doesn't get to decide what the DA does. You don't know whether or not Erzinger is wealthy: There are lots of reasons why he may not be able to afford the restitution out of his savings account. And finally, our limited knowledge of the CO laws & the details of the case should prevent us from conjecturing as to how easy it would be to get a felony conviction vs. misdemeanor conviction.


Who cares how long the misdemeanor sticks? As a misdemeanor, it has no significant impact down the road. When was the last time you filled out a form or were asked if you had a misdemeanor on your record? When have you ever heard of anyone being denied a job or a loan because they have a misdemeanor on their record?

Why is the prosecutor worried about restitution in a possible civil suit at all? That's not the prosecutors problem or concern in any way, nor is the wealth status of the accused, or the possible impacts, outside of the legal punishments, that a felony conviction MIGHT bring to the accused. This Prosecutor seems to believe he is both the accused's attorney and the financial planner for the victim, rather than the people's representative in enforcing the laws.
 
2010-11-08 06:37:42 PM
RowdyPants: This is the same dirtbag who defended Kobe on his rape charges...
BTW, you legal types out there, does this constitute a new precedent which can be used to defend ourselves should someone strike another person like a DA (provided they bank enough money)?


The DA is the same DA who prosecuted Kobe and the guy representing the doctor was the 2nd chair in Kobe's defense.
 
2010-11-08 06:42:36 PM
Complaining, peasants?

i181.photobucket.com



/Linked like kicking ass and chewing bubble gum. (new window)
 
2010-11-08 06:43:08 PM
1derful: Say your the victim of a hit and run. Would you rather the guy that hit you do a month in jail, or would you rather him do no time at all so you could sue him and become filthy farking rich?

Personally, I'd spend my time recovering not dealing with stupid-ass false dichotomies.
 
2010-11-08 06:44:27 PM
Happy Hours: I haven't taken them out of context at all. OTOH, you've distorted facts and ignored reasonable arguments all the while calling people who disagree with you names like "circle jerking dumbf*ck libs" from your initial post in this thread.

Actually, I responded to all the reasonable arguments with reasonable responses. Here, let me explain it to you in detail why you are taking his quote out of context:

Here's what you said:

Hurlbert still said he was letting him off so he wouldn't lose his job if convicted
-Happy Hours

When you take a case through jury trial, there's always certainly a bit of uncertainty. This is a guarantee that he will have this on the record for the rest of his life...He [Erzinger] could say in two to four years that nothing happened, which I could not stomach. So we decided to have two misdemeanors. We talked to Dr. Milo and he did object. We did take his thoughts into account but we thought misdemeanors would be better...He may face potential jail time, which is up to a judge. And he'll lose his driver's license and pay restitution...Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it. When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay
-Hurlbert

You are definitely taking his quote out of context. However, I know it's embarrassing to be wrong on the internet, so I understand why you'd keep denying the obvious.

Also, note how the bolded part indicates that Erzinger could still actually spend some time incarcerated. What were you saying earlier about dancing for joy because he's guaranteed to not spend a single night incarcerated? Oh yeah, you'll probably deny that as well.

How does it feel to be anonymously humiliated?
 
2010-11-08 06:58:06 PM
This is what happens when rethuglicans take over a city like Denver.
 
2010-11-08 06:58:59 PM
The peasants are revolting...
 
2010-11-08 07:06:51 PM
wolfpaq777: he walks free with no restitution and no mark on his record.

lesser included charge anyone?

sounds like the DA is full of shiat, but that is typical of your average DA
 
2010-11-08 07:07:09 PM
The Flexecutioner: * Trying someone in court does not guarantee a conviction. After hearing the case a jury with more information than we have gathered from news reports might not be convinced of his guilt. If you can get 12 people to vote NOT GUILTY then he should not be convicted. That's the way our justice system is designed to work.


i thought it only took one person to maintain that he isn't guilty to hang a jury on convictions.


You're correct. What I meant was 12 people voting not guilty means you cannot be retried. A hung jury means you're still not guilty, but you can still be retried.

If everything most of us know about this case is true and there isn't anything else that might change circumstances I have a hard time it would be anything but a hung jury or a verdict of guilty.

and any links to NASD's regulations on this would be nice. It wasnt cited specifically anywhere in the HuffPo or ABC articles. And wolfpaq wont provide one either. I'm such a lazy incompetent farktard that he will have to do it himself.

I admit that I didn't read NASD's regs directly but the Vail Daily only mentioned this:

Erzinger manages more than $1 billion in assets. He would have to publicly disclose any felony charge within 30 days, according to North American Securities Dealers regulations. (new window)

So if they also say they can't work in that capacity anymore whoever is claiming that can provide a link.
 
2010-11-08 07:16:57 PM
wolfpaq777: Happy Hours: I haven't taken them out of context at all. OTOH, you've distorted facts and ignored reasonable arguments all the while calling people who disagree with you names like "circle jerking dumbf*ck libs" from your initial post in this thread.

Actually, I responded to all the reasonable arguments with reasonable responses.


Except the ones you skipped.

Here, let me explain it to you in detail why you are taking his quote out of context:

Here's what you said:

Hurlbert still said he was letting him off so he wouldn't lose his job if convicted
-Happy Hours


You want me to dig up the exact quote for you? It's right there in the article.

The ABC article was written later and presumably his comments there were to make up for the reaction to his earlier comments.

I understand what he's saying but it's BS (IMO). If things are as they seem do you really think he could get an outright acquittal? (Not a hung jury which would allow for another trial)

When you take a case through jury trial, there's always certainly a bit of uncertainty. This is a guarantee that he will have this on the record for the rest of his life...He [Erzinger] could say in two to four years that nothing happened, which I could not stomach. So we decided to have two misdemeanors. We talked to Dr. Milo and he did object. We did take his thoughts into account but we thought misdemeanors would be better...He may face potential jail time, which is up to a judge. And he'll lose his driver's license and pay restitution...Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it. When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay
-Hurlbert
(Performing Damage Control - maybe next time he runs for office he won't be disqualified because 2/3 of the signatures he submits aren't bogus)
You are definitely taking his quote out of context.


Two different quotes made at different times

However, I know it's embarrassing to be wrong on the internet, so I understand why you'd keep denying the obvious.

Also, note how the bolded part indicates that Erzinger could still actually spend some time incarcerated. What were you saying earlier about dancing for joy because he's guaranteed to not spend a single night incarcerated? Oh yeah, you'll probably deny that as well.

How does it feel to be anonymously humiliated?


I wouldn't know. You did get me on my point about not spending any time incarcerated. That's a possibility but not a certainty.

I was wrong on that point, but I would still be pretty farking pleased with that option.

Care to place a small wager on whether or not his misdemeanors will earn him a night in jail?
 
2010-11-08 07:32:41 PM
Happy Hours: The Flexecutioner:
I admit that I didn't read NASD's regs directly but the Vail Daily only mentioned this:

Erzinger manages more than $1 billion in assets. He would have to publicly disclose any felony charge within 30 days, according to North American Securities Dealers regulations. (new window)

So if they also say they can't work in that capacity anymore whoever is claiming that can provide a link.


Thanks for the link. Yeah, the consequences of reporting a felony to NASD is more important in seeing how valid a worry or consideration that is in making the decision on whether to go for it or not. For all we know, it might mean his Trading certifications are revoked or just that he'll have to pay for his car with cash cuz his credit is smudged.

btw, i tried an exhaustive (10 minutes) search to find any NASD regulations pages. it turns out the NASD merged with NYSE regulators to form FINRA in 2007. Who the hell knows if they would/could do anything to this guy. They have a ridiculously lengthy arbitration process that could probably tie this up for a long time.
 
2010-11-08 07:33:35 PM
District Attorney Mark Hurlbert told HuffPost on Monday afternoon that news reports about the prosecution have been inaccurate. "We charged him with a felony, first of all," he said.
 
2010-11-08 07:37:26 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: Who cares how long the misdemeanor sticks? As a misdemeanor, it has no significant impact down the road. When was the last time you filled out a form or were asked if you had a misdemeanor on your record? When have you ever heard of anyone being denied a job or a loan because they have a misdemeanor on their record?

Your kidding me right? Go out and start checking jobs in this market, etc. Anything. This isn't a 'Have you ever been convicted of a Felony' crap anymore. This is 'Have you ever been convicted of ANY crime?'
Misdemeanors, Felonies, Petty Offenses, hell, traffic tickets for what it's worth. Ya know, keep the 'rifraff' out of the market.

Gimme a break.
 
2010-11-08 07:47:21 PM
The Southern Dandy: Cyndi Lauper was a PROPHET!!!

Well, to be fair, it was The Brains who were prophets, but no one knows who they were.
 
2010-11-08 07:55:03 PM
And his journey to the Dark Side is now complete.....
 
2010-11-08 07:58:06 PM
Repairman Jack, call your office.
 
2010-11-08 08:05:12 PM
Should be a slam dunk case against the state for violation of equal protection.
 
2010-11-08 08:05:34 PM
But District Attorney Mark Hurlbert says it wouldn't be wise to prosecute Erzinger -- doing so might hurt his source of income. Here's Vail Daily:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

"We have talked with Mr. Haddon and we had their objections, but ultimately it's our call," Hurlbert said.


There's a name I intend to remember.
 
2010-11-08 08:11:14 PM
I didn't read the whole thread. Just wanted to point out the irony of a surgeon getting screwed over by a fund manager in the legal system.

Although the surgeon (victim) probably had lots of money (before his accident), the fund manager had several orders of magnitude more $$ to corrupt justice with.

That is how stratified our nation is becoming - even a freakin' surgeon has no chance up against a damned financial manager.
 
2010-11-08 08:19:22 PM
wingnutx: This is what happens when rethuglicans take over a city like Denver.

Lern Moar Geography!
 
2010-11-08 08:26:33 PM
Egalitarian: I didn't read the whole thread. Just wanted to point out the irony of a surgeon getting screwed over by a fund manager in the legal system.

Although the surgeon (victim) probably had lots of money (before his accident), the fund manager had several orders of magnitude more $$ to corrupt justice with.

That is how stratified our nation is becoming - even a freakin' surgeon has no chance up against a damned financial manager.


It also probably has something to do with protecting their own. Home town rich boy who pays taxes locally vs. some doctor from New York (who for all I know has a home in Vail too, but either way he's not local).

Back in the early '90s there was a high-ranking DEA officer who got involved in a couple of accidents, one involving a bicycle and another a city bus. My memory is kind of fuzzy on this but one he left the scene but did go to a nearby fire-station to report it. DUI was suspected in both cases, but IIRC never charged. In one case he claimed he had been taking his wife's prescription medication because he had a cold or some such nonsense.

Dude - you're in the DEA and you're using taking controlled substances without a valid prescription as a defense? He had about a year until retirement and a conviction would have screwed him out of a pension. Poor guy.
 
2010-11-08 08:28:50 PM
Philip Francis Queeg:

Who cares how long the misdemeanor sticks? As a misdemeanor, it has no significant impact down the road. When was the last time you filled out a form or were asked if you had a misdemeanor on your record? When have you ever heard of anyone being denied a job or a loan because they have a misdemeanor on their record?

Why is the prosecutor worried about restitution in a possible civil suit at all? That's not the prosecutors problem or concern in any way, nor is the wealth status of the accused, or the possible impacts, outside of the legal punishments, that a felony conviction MIGHT bring to the accused. This Prosecutor seems to believe he is both the accused's attorney and the financial planner for the victim, rather than the people's representative in enforcing the laws.


Restitution can be part of a criminal sentence as well. I'm still not sure what the outrage is for here; a deferred judgment on a felony is in some ways a lesser punishment than a misdemeanor conviction or guilty/no contest plea. Deferred judgment by definition means no jail time if you keep your nose clean. A misdemeanor guilty plea or conviction can mean up to two years' jail time, and it stays on your record for life.

Plus, if the DA persists with the felony and the accused goes to trial, there's a chance the accused could walk by convincing 12 people that his conduct didn't amount to felony hit-and-run as defined by Colorado law.

It's less taxpayer expense for the DA and a better end result for the public to let him plead to two misdemeanors than try him for a felony and possibly lose. Bird in the hand, etc. It's not the victim's call, and the victim's plea bargain idea is useless if the accused won't take it.

Worth noting for fun is that felonies in Colorado are tried by a jury of 12 at the court's expense. Misdemeanors are tried by a jury of 6, and only if the accused pays a "jury fee".

 
2010-11-08 09:04:20 PM
Even the normally surrendering French got tired of that shiat and did something about it.
www.understandfrance.org

Why can't we?
 
2010-11-08 09:09:47 PM
my bmw x5 can run over two dumbaxx bicycles and i won't spill my coffee.
 
2010-11-08 09:34:57 PM
WilderKWight: Dear 4chan,

This is the kind of raging dickbag you should be going after. He's far worse than a puppy-killing European kid or 12-year-old attention whore.

Consider it.

Regards,
WKW


in b4 "not your army"
 
2010-11-08 09:36:38 PM
Happy Hours:
Back in the early '90s there was a high-ranking DEA officer who got involved in a couple of accidents, one involving a bicycle and another a city bus. My memory is kind of fuzzy on this but one he left the scene but did go to a nearby fire-station to report it. DUI was suspected in both cases, but IIRC never charged. In one case he claimed he had been taking his wife's prescription medication because he had a cold or some such nonsense.

Dude - you're in the DEA and you're using taking controlled substances without a valid prescription as a defense? He had about a year until retirement and a conviction would have screwed him out of a pension. Poor guy.


No remorse for the DEA. Whatsoever. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Agency should not even exist in the first place. Their "service" to society should be the responsibility of either the enforcement portion of the Food and Drug Administration or the BATFE, and the majority of their funding should be with the FDA. I mean, the DEA is primarily interested in the off-prescription use and the unlicensed manufacture of FDA-regulated substances, right? Shouldn't that be the realm of the agency responsible for managing the licensing of prescriptions and manufacturing of certain medicines?

/The DEA are the stormtroopers in the war against the minds of United States citizens
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report