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.

(Yahoo)   According to TX prosecutors, an inmate with an IQ of 51 who was granted a new trial in 1983 but was mistakenly never retried or released, deliberately hid himself in jail for the next 30 years just so he could claim a "speedy trial" violation   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 155
    More: Asinine, speedy trial, Infraction, retrials, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, prosecutors, Sixth Amendments, criminal appeals, sentenced to death  
•       •       •

9387 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2014 at 2:06 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-17 04:07:54 PM  

DrBenway: Dr Dreidel: scarmig: ZeroPly: As that great "lib" H. L. Mencken once said:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Favorited, because Mencken.

My favorite Mencken quote: "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."

// though I just found this also: "If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."

When I see a story like this, I go straight to "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."


Not to mention:

the foul, ignorant, thieving, superstitious, self-appointed negro preacher of the Black Belt, whose mental life is made up of three ambitions - to eat a whole hog at one meal, to be a white man in heaven, and to meet a white woman, some day, in a lonely wood

See p. 234.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RHdLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq =m encken+men+versus+the+man&hl=en&ei=myrHTKuwIMO88gbo16jJDw&sa=X&oi=book _result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=fa lse
 
2014-04-17 04:09:32 PM  
1. gottdamn it Texas cut this shiat out.
2. Prosecutor I hope no one is buying that shiat your spewing.
3. where the fark were the guy's lawyers during that 30 years?
 
2014-04-17 04:19:55 PM  
He did the time but didn't do the crime. So give him a crime. Let him kill the judge or prosecutor and then walk home to live the rest of his life. Seems fair.
 
2014-04-17 04:19:59 PM  
From the Huffington Post

Hartfield, 57, was convicted in 1977 of killing Lowe and sentenced to death, but that conviction was overturned three years later. After prosecutors unsuccessfully appealed that ruling, then-Gov. Mark White commuted Hartfield's sentence to life in prison in 1983.
Hartfield, who is described in court documents as an illiterate 5th grade dropout with an IQ of 51, didn't challenge his continued detention until 2006, when a fellow prisoner pointed out that once his conviction was overturned, there was no sentence to commute. Appeals courts agreed and ordered Hartfield freed or retried. Hartfield is scheduled to stand trial again in April for Lowe's slaying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/14/jerry-hartfield_n_4791122.h tm l

What I would really like to see is a copy of the judge's opinion, since I don't necessarily trust a Yahoo journalist's description of it.
 
2014-04-17 04:21:15 PM  
They should send him a bill for all the housing and food he has been steeling from the State of Texas for the past 30 years.
 
2014-04-17 04:26:02 PM  

Heatseeker: He did the time but didn't do the crime. So give him a crime. Let him kill the judge or prosecutor and then walk home to live the rest of his life. Seems fair.


He didn't do the crime?

Lets quote from the farking article, shall we?  "On June 30, 1977, Hartfield was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing a woman named Eunice Lowe. "

It certainly shouldn't have been handled the way it was handled, but there is exactly zero evidence that this guy is actually innocent.
 
2014-04-17 04:26:08 PM  
"strategized to keep himself in prison for 30 years as a way of avoiding a retrial."

How is this in the INMATE's hands? Where are the prosecutors? Where is his public defender? Never mind his family, there are a lot of people asleep at the switch.
 
2014-04-17 04:28:30 PM  
Texas just loooooooooooooooovvvvvves to hurt non-rich people, doesn't it? Bonus points if the victim is of the blah persuasion.
 
2014-04-17 04:29:13 PM  
Free room and board for 30 years.  Can't argue with that.
 
2014-04-17 04:29:48 PM  

JuggleGeek: Heatseeker: He did the time but didn't do the crime. So give him a crime. Let him kill the judge or prosecutor and then walk home to live the rest of his life. Seems fair.

He didn't do the crime?

Lets quote from the farking article, shall we?  "On June 30, 1977, Hartfield was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing a woman named Eunice Lowe. "

It certainly shouldn't have been handled the way it was handled, but there is exactly zero evidence that this guy is actually innocent.


The conviction was vacated - which means that, under the law, he was never convicted of anything, and is an innocent man.
Or are you one of those guys who regards the law and the Constitution and stuff like that to be "technicalities"?
 
2014-04-17 04:29:50 PM  

JuggleGeek: He didn't do the crime?


Not legally, he did not. See, that's what happens when a conviction is overturned and a sentence vacated. It's like the trial never happened.
 
2014-04-17 04:32:10 PM  
This guys "conviction" stunk so bad it giot thrown out in 1980s Texas. That should tell you how much merit it had.
 
2014-04-17 04:38:14 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: StanTheMan: Because he hid from the system for 30 years. Now let's reward that.

Right. He hid from the system. In prison. For 30 years.

His trial was in 1977. His conviction was overturned in 1980. It was vacated in 1983. Since then, he has been sitting in prison without having legally committed a crime.


That bastage owes the tax payers a lot of back rent!
 
2014-04-17 04:41:09 PM  
This is like later on in the monopoly game, when there are hotels everywhere.  You stay in jail and desperately try not to roll doubles for the full 3 turns before paying the meager $50 release fee.  Guy really dodged a bullet.
 
2014-04-17 04:43:20 PM  

StanTheMan: LordJiro: StanTheMan: Fark him, the murdering scumbag was sentenced to death and should have been executed a long time ago. RTFA.

Because Texas has never sentenced an innocent man to death, right?

Except there is not even an allegation he is innocent, dipwad.


Texas has never officially executed an innocent man. After the execution, all records are sealed and cannot be investigated anymore.
 
2014-04-17 04:45:31 PM  

imapirate: God, Texas is f*cked up.



It is farked up.
It is full of farked up people, too.
And there are quite a few people that live there that are just plain full of crap.
I'm sure one will post shortly along this thread pointing out that I am wrong about that, just to prove the point.
I speak from experience. I have lived in Texas. It is a Farked up state. I moved the fark out. Because I don't want to be associated with assholes.
I lived in Pennsylvania. Yep, Moved the fark out.
I've moved out of a lot of states that I found out were corrupt shiatholes.
But I always had enough self-conscious to not live in a place full of farked up people.
But really, Texas, must you be so farked up? I mean, the first thing anyone sees when they meet someone from your state is how farking smug you are, when you ought to be ashamed.
You ought to mumble your home state with such derision and humility that you should be asked to repeat it. You should cast your eyes on the floor and shuffle your feet when you say it.
You should thank your lucky stars we the people don't just rip the border open and yell out to Mexico, Come and get it! And let them have a crack at it because at least they are hardworking and enterprising and wouldn't shait on people that come to work cheap.
Jesus, Texas, you make Massachusetts look less retarded every time you are in the news.
 
2014-04-17 04:48:08 PM  

Magorn: Homebody go re-animate Gen Sherman, I'm off to buy a shiatload of matches and Kerosene. It's time.


We had less on Saddam Hussein. Let's give Texas the freedom they deserve.
 
2014-04-17 04:53:20 PM  

limeyfellow: StanTheMan: LordJiro: StanTheMan: Fark him, the murdering scumbag was sentenced to death and should have been executed a long time ago. RTFA.

Because Texas has never sentenced an innocent man to death, right?

Except there is not even an allegation he is innocent, dipwad.

Texas has never officially executed an innocent man. After the execution, all records are sealed and cannot be investigated anymore.


Cameron Todd Willingham. Yes, they have. And this is why, while I'm fine with the death penalty in theory, I am no longer willing to support it in practice.
 
2014-04-17 04:57:06 PM  
I had submitted this with a better link!
 
2014-04-17 05:08:21 PM  

Magorn: Delta1212: The judge literally called the 33 years he spent in jail "pre-trial detention."

and further noted the guy didn't seem to mind being locked up. IN PRISON. FOR 30 YEARS, so no harm, no foul... "there is no evidence that Hartfield has suffered any anxiety relating to his pretrial detention."

The decades-long delay in a retrial actually benefited Hartfield, Judge Estlinbaum concluded last week, because it is far less likely today that he will be sentenced to death than it would have been had he been retried in the 1980s. The judge reached this conclusion in the same ruling in which he acknowledged that Hartfield's ability to mount an effective defense has been diminished by the passage of time and the loss of witnesses and evidence.


Homebody go re-animate Gen Sherman, I'm off to buy a shiatload of matches and Kerosene.   It's time.


Sign me up.
 
2014-04-17 05:14:06 PM  

Securitywyrm: StanTheMan: Magorn: according to the Internets an IQ score of 55 put this guy in the "Barely able to function on his own" range and only about 10 points above Chimps or Dolphins.  Not only would it probably be unconstitutional to execute him, but the prosecutor's ability to get a conviction that will stand up on appeal given the lack of witnesses and evidence at this point is virtually nil.  Why the hell is TX willing to take the PR hit and re-try this guy instead of realizing that he's already done 3 decades in jail and basically just spring him for time served

There's some SCOTUS judicial activism that needs to be reversed. I don't care if your IQ is 55, you murder someone with premeditation and deliberation, you get the needle. Call it equal protection.

One problem with this made-up rule is that now all murder suspects attorneys hire IQ expert witnesses (i.e., whores) to show how dumb they are.

He has not been convicted of murder. The first trial was ruled invalid due to illegal actions by the prosecutors (In 1980s Texas, consider what sort of actions those entailed).


I think you are going to find out that this guy is typing responses by banging his junk up and down on the keyboard, this whole concept of "reason" isn't gonna work with him. Nor will "facts", or "Reading the Farking Article". You could try banging YOUR junk on the keyboard, and you might reach his communication level.
 
2014-04-17 05:14:31 PM  

ChubbyTiger: limeyfellow: StanTheMan: LordJiro: StanTheMan: Fark him, the murdering scumbag was sentenced to death and should have been executed a long time ago. RTFA.

Because Texas has never sentenced an innocent man to death, right?

Except there is not even an allegation he is innocent, dipwad.

Texas has never officially executed an innocent man. After the execution, all records are sealed and cannot be investigated anymore.

Cameron Todd Willingham. Yes, they have. And this is why, while I'm fine with the death penalty in theory, I am no longer willing to support it in practice.


The key word is offically
 
2014-04-17 05:14:46 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: Sounds like the inmate wasn't the only person there with an IQ of 51.


One of them is RIGHT HERE on this very board...
 
2014-04-17 05:16:59 PM  
I'm surprised ACLU national hasn't come down on this like a fat man at Sizzler.
 
2014-04-17 05:20:51 PM  
This headline has the words "Texas, inmate, IQ, and jail" in it, I feel like I should express some type of opinion toot sweet.
 
2014-04-17 05:22:05 PM  

Magorn: Why the hell is TX willing to take the PR hit and re-try this guy instead of realizing that he's already done 3 decades in jail and basically just spring him for time served


Look at his picture. This is Texas. You'll figure it out.

/they're all dangerous, you know
 
2014-04-17 05:27:48 PM  
I am skeptical that a black man with an IQ of 51 got a fair trial for the murder of a white woman in Texas in 1977.
 
2014-04-17 05:29:43 PM  
See pp. 3-7 of the attached for a lot more information on this case.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/JHartfield5Cir.pdf

He has not been convicted of murder. The first trial was ruled invalid due to illegal actions by the prosecutors (In 1980s Texas, consider what sort of actions those entailed).

Since there have been a lot of variations on this post written, from the above document,

In 1977, a Texas jury convicted Jerry Hartsfield of the capital murder of Eunice Lowe.  Jurors sentenced him to death.  Hartfield appealed on numerous grounds.  On September 17, 1980, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed his conviction.  Hartfield v. State, 645 S.W.2d 436, 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).  The court held that the State had violated Hartfield's constitutional rights by striking a juror for cause because of her reservations about the death penalty.  See Witherspoon v. Texas, 391 U.S. 510, 520-23 (1968); see also Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 43-45 (1980) (applying Witherspoon to the specific procedure Texas employs in capital cases).

Witherspoon only affected the sentence and not the determination of guilt.  Nevertheless, Texas law at the time required an entirely new trial in such circumstances.
 
2014-04-17 05:32:24 PM  

Comic Book Guy: StanTheMan: Magorn: according to the Internets an IQ score of 55 put this guy in the "Barely able to function on his own" range and only about 10 points above Chimps or Dolphins.  Not only would it probably be unconstitutional to execute him, but the prosecutor's ability to get a conviction that will stand up on appeal given the lack of witnesses and evidence at this point is virtually nil.  Why the hell is TX willing to take the PR hit and re-try this guy instead of realizing that he's already done 3 decades in jail and basically just spring him for time served

There's some SCOTUS judicial activism that needs to be reversed. I don't care if your IQ is 55, you murder someone with premeditation and deliberation, you get the needle. Call it equal protection.

One problem with this made-up rule is that now all murder suspects attorneys hire IQ expert witnesses (i.e., whores) to show how dumb they are.

If you can prove that someone with an IQ that low engaged in premedidation and deliberation, then yes, I agree with you.  That's a pretty high bar to reach, however.

That said, the only thing that he should be touting is that his conviction was vacated and sentence commuted in preparation for a new trial that was falsified by the Texas prison system.  Really, that's all that needs to be said.  Unless he actually sees the inside of a courtroom for a new murder trial, which the prosecution is bound to lose based on the lack of murder weapon, 30+ year old information form witnesses assuming they are still alive, and a "confession" that was coerced, then let the guy go.

As bad as it sounds though, his quality of life might be better in prison.  I can't imagine someone of his purported intelligence making it on their own, much less if they've been institutionalized and haven't had to for the last 30 years.


The farking judge had THIS to say about a new trial...

 The judge reached this conclusion in the same ruling in which he acknowledged that Hartfield's ability to mount an effective defense has been diminished by the passage of time and the loss of witnesses and evidence.

He can't have an effective defense because of a lack of evidence and witness? What the fark?
 
2014-04-17 05:33:49 PM  

Mikey1969: Comic Book Guy: StanTheMan: Magorn: according to the Internets an IQ score of 55 put this guy in the "Barely able to function on his own" range and only about 10 points above Chimps or Dolphins.  Not only would it probably be unconstitutional to execute him, but the prosecutor's ability to get a conviction that will stand up on appeal given the lack of witnesses and evidence at this point is virtually nil.  Why the hell is TX willing to take the PR hit and re-try this guy instead of realizing that he's already done 3 decades in jail and basically just spring him for time served

There's some SCOTUS judicial activism that needs to be reversed. I don't care if your IQ is 55, you murder someone with premeditation and deliberation, you get the needle. Call it equal protection.

One problem with this made-up rule is that now all murder suspects attorneys hire IQ expert witnesses (i.e., whores) to show how dumb they are.

If you can prove that someone with an IQ that low engaged in premedidation and deliberation, then yes, I agree with you.  That's a pretty high bar to reach, however.

That said, the only thing that he should be touting is that his conviction was vacated and sentence commuted in preparation for a new trial that was falsified by the Texas prison system.  Really, that's all that needs to be said.  Unless he actually sees the inside of a courtroom for a new murder trial, which the prosecution is bound to lose based on the lack of murder weapon, 30+ year old information form witnesses assuming they are still alive, and a "confession" that was coerced, then let the guy go.

As bad as it sounds though, his quality of life might be better in prison.  I can't imagine someone of his purported intelligence making it on their own, much less if they've been institutionalized and haven't had to for the last 30 years.

The farking judge had THIS to say about a new trial...

 The judge reached this conclusion in the same ruling in which he acknowledged that Hartfield's ...


Have you found and read the judge's opinion?
 
2014-04-17 05:33:59 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Not legally, he did not. See, that's what happens when a conviction is overturned and a sentence vacated. It's like the trial never happened.


They overturned it on a technicality.  There is no evidence that anyone, including his lawyer, is arguing that he didn't commit the murder.

jso2897: Or are you one of those guys who regards the law and the Constitution and stuff like that to be "technicalities"?


Go fark yourself, troll.  What I actually wrote : "It certainly shouldn't have been handled the way it was handled, but there is exactly zero evidence that this guy is actually innocent. "

What you twist it into "You have no regard for the law or the constitution".

Go suck some cock like your daddy taught you.
 
2014-04-17 05:37:03 PM  

keypusher: Dr Dreidel: scarmig: ZeroPly: As that great "lib" H. L. Mencken once said:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Favorited, because Mencken.

My favorite Mencken quote: "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."

// though I just found this also: "If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."

Then there's:

I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him.


Given that the first person to quote Mencken clearly referred to him (in a just-as-clearly tongue-in-cheek manner) as "that great "lib" ", do you really think you're educating us with these quotes you're adding, telling us something we don't already know?
 
2014-04-17 05:39:15 PM  

Mikey1969: The farking judge had THIS to say about a new trial...

The judge reached this conclusion in the same ruling in which he acknowledged that Hartfield's ability to mount an effective defense has been diminished by the passage of time and the loss of witnesses and evidence.

He can't have an effective defense because of a lack of evidence and witness? What the fark?


Okay, fine. Makes sense. So he can't be tried and is now a free man.

THIS IS WHAT THAT SHOULD MEAN, TEXAS, YOU IDIOT OF A STATE!
 
2014-04-17 05:41:40 PM  

DrBenway: keypusher: Dr Dreidel: scarmig: ZeroPly: As that great "lib" H. L. Mencken once said:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Favorited, because Mencken.

My favorite Mencken quote: "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."

// though I just found this also: "If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."

Then there's:

I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him.

Given that the first person to quote Mencken clearly referred to him (in a just-as-clearly tongue-in-cheek manner) as "that great "lib" ", do you really think you're educating us with these quotes you're adding, telling us something we don't already know?


Yes, I have absolutely no doubt of it.
 
2014-04-17 05:45:28 PM  

ShadowKamui: Its the same stupid shiat that let McDuff out


The Crime Dog? What was he in prison for?!
 
2014-04-17 06:23:50 PM  

JuggleGeek: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Not legally, he did not. See, that's what happens when a conviction is overturned and a sentence vacated. It's like the trial never happened.

They overturned it on a technicality.  There is no evidence that anyone, including his lawyer, is arguing that he didn't commit the murder.

jso2897: Or are you one of those guys who regards the law and the Constitution and stuff like that to be "technicalities"?

Go fark yourself, troll.  What I actually wrote : "It certainly shouldn't have been handled the way it was handled, but there is exactly zero evidence that this guy is actually innocent. "

What you twist it into "You have no regard for the law or the constitution".

Go suck some cock like your daddy taught you.


You were treated that way because you implied he needs to provide evidence of his innocence. That's not how our justice system works on a fundamental level.
 
2014-04-17 06:28:52 PM  

JuggleGeek: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Not legally, he did not. See, that's what happens when a conviction is overturned and a sentence vacated. It's like the trial never happened.

They overturned it on a technicality.  There is no evidence that anyone, including his lawyer, is arguing that he didn't commit the murder.

jso2897: Or are you one of those guys who regards the law and the Constitution and stuff like that to be "technicalities"?

Go fark yourself, troll.  What I actually wrote : "It certainly shouldn't have been handled the way it was handled, but there is exactly zero evidence that this guy is actually innocent. "

What you twist it into "You have no regard for the law or the constitution".

Go suck some cock like your daddy taught you.


I read that pretty much straight up accurate, especially after you doubled down on the derp.  You clearly don't care about the law or the constitution.  The prosecution broke the law, hard, so their case was wiped out.  Then the State did, hard, and now a guy who may be a murderer has a potentially damning case.  Heck, he might even walk.  The guy?  He is accused of breaking the law.  Even if he's convicted he could get sentenced to time served and still walk out.

The rules/constitution, how do it work?

/Mikey1969, who invited all the junk-bangers?
//Stealing that, BTW.  Hope you don't mind.
 
2014-04-17 06:38:04 PM  

StanTheMan: HemorrhagingKarma: StanTheMan: Fark him, the murdering scumbag was sentenced to death and should have been executed a long time ago. RTFA.

FTFA: "On March 4, 1983, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally vacated Hartfield's conviction."

Did you RTFA?

Yes I did. And it was because he couldn't get a juror who was against the death penalty? Really?

This PoS should have been needled 30 years ago.


The Governor of Texas Commuted his sentence to time served in 1983.   Even without his conviction being overturned, he should have been released way back then.
 
2014-04-17 06:44:13 PM  

Magorn: Delta1212: The judge literally called the 33 years he spent in jail "pre-trial detention."

and further noted the guy didn't seem to mind being locked up. IN PRISON. FOR 30 YEARS, so no harm, no foul... "there is no evidence that Hartfield has suffered any anxiety relating to his pretrial detention."

The decades-long delay in a retrial actually benefited Hartfield, Judge Estlinbaum concluded last week, because it is far less likely today that he will be sentenced to death than it would have been had he been retried in the 1980s. The judge reached this conclusion in the same ruling in which he acknowledged that Hartfield's ability to mount an effective defense has been diminished by the passage of time and the loss of witnesses and evidence.


Homebody go re-animate Gen Sherman, I'm off to buy a shiatload of matches and Kerosene.   It's time.


You remember Sherman's March to the Rio Grande too?
 
2014-04-17 07:39:25 PM  

Magorn: according to the Internets an IQ score of 55 put this guy in the "Barely able to function on his own" range and only about 10 points above Chimps or Dolphins.  Not only would it probably be unconstitutional to execute him, but the prosecutor's ability to get a conviction that will stand up on appeal given the lack of witnesses and evidence at this point is virtually nil.  Why the hell is TX willing to take the PR hit and re-try this guy instead of realizing that he's already done 3 decades in jail and basically just spring him for time served


If he can figure out to hide in an attempt to say he didn't get a "speedy trial", I somehow doubt he had an IQ high enough to barely function on his own.  In any event, he might have only hurt his own chances of getting out when he should've, so it is at least clear that he is no genius.
 
2014-04-17 07:42:48 PM  

ShadowKamui: ChubbyTiger: limeyfellow: StanTheMan: LordJiro: StanTheMan: Fark him, the murdering scumbag was sentenced to death and should have been executed a long time ago. RTFA.

Because Texas has never sentenced an innocent man to death, right?

Except there is not even an allegation he is innocent, dipwad.

Texas has never officially executed an innocent man. After the execution, all records are sealed and cannot be investigated anymore.

Cameron Todd Willingham. Yes, they have. And this is why, while I'm fine with the death penalty in theory, I am no longer willing to support it in practice.

The key word is offically


Well, he's officially dead.
 
2014-04-17 08:35:01 PM  

LarryDan43: 51 is considered a genius in Texas.


Only in College Station.
 
2014-04-17 10:03:11 PM  
Texas.

Because F**K YOU YER NOT THE BOSS OF ME BESIDES I AM A CHRISCHTIAN!!
 
2014-04-17 10:13:40 PM  

The Homer Tax: You were treated that way because you implied he needs to provide evidence of his innocence. That's not how our justice system works on a fundamental level.


No, I didn't.  I said that he was tried and found guilty.  The case was dropped after that fact due to technicalities, not do to any claims of innocence.  Even then, I also stated that he state screwed up and that it shouldn't be handled this way.

Why do you think that claiming I said crap that I didn't say will go anywhere?  Are you the alt of the known troll?  I know he's a troll.  I don't know  you.

pjkraatz: You clearly don't care about the law or the constitution


You're clearly brain damaged.  You're making up shiat I didn't say.

The prosecution broke the law, hard, so their case was wiped out.  Then the State did, hard, and now a guy who may be a murderer has a potentially damning case.  Heck, he might even walk.  The guy?  He is accused of breaking the law.  Even if he's convicted he could get sentenced to time served and still walk out.

The prosecution screwed up, yes.  Despite your lies, I never denied that.  The state farked up bad, yes.  Again, I never denied that.  In fact, I specifically stated that it should not have been handled the way it was handled.  You can lie about it all you want.

Yes, he might walk.  At this point, he probably should walk.  None of that means that he didn't actually kill the girl.
 
2014-04-17 10:26:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Once global warming raises the oceans enough to cover Florida, we WILL get our Texas tag.

So we have that going for us.  Which is nice.


Screw waiting! I think we need a Texas tag ASAP!
 
2014-04-17 11:08:44 PM  
So let me get this straight:  If you are severely retarded, you kill somebody and get fairly convicted on the evidence, you get to go free on a technicality?

\\\ Duh.
 
2014-04-17 11:16:01 PM  
wtf?
 
2014-04-17 11:27:47 PM  

olddinosaur: So let me get this straight:  If you are severely retarded, you kill somebody and get fairly convicted on the evidence, you get to go free on a technicality?

\\\ Duh.


So, when do you get this straight?
 
2014-04-17 11:43:09 PM  

olddinosaur: So let me get this straight:  If you are severely retarded, you kill somebody and get fairly convicted on the evidence, you get to go free on a technicality?

\\\ Duh.


If you are mentally handicapped enough to not be able to discern right from wrong, or to make decisions of that nature, then punishment would be useless. Part of the reason for punishment is to penalize the convicted for their transgression against society... but how do you punish someone who can never understand what they did?

There is no "fairly convicted on the evidence", because that would mean the defendant could not only think and decide whether or not to commit the crime, but could understand the possible ramifications of the act. It's the same reason why there's an "insanity" defense... if the voices in your head are screaming loudly enough you will eventually do what they say, and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
 
2014-04-17 11:50:24 PM  

Mikey1969: He can't have an effective defense because of a lack of evidence and witness? What the fark?


Simple logic. Without evidence against him, his legal counsel has nothing to refute, no one to question, and nothing to oppose. There is can be no defense because there is no offense. Think of it as a football game where the entire defensive lineup from one team is on the field while the one offensive lineman from the other team that showed up sits on the bench.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report