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.

(NBC News)   The father who lunged at Larry Nassar during his trial won't be facing any charges   ( nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Lawyer, doctor Larry Nassar, Prosecutor, Judge, Randall Margraves, Jury, inherent prosecutorial discretion, Judge Janice Cunningham  
•       •       •

2277 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2018 at 1:43 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-12 10:25:58 PM  
Good.
 
2018-02-12 10:33:43 PM  
Yeah, no prosecutor would want to be known as the guy who charged an angry father & face a slam dunk jury nullification.
 
2018-02-12 11:04:45 PM  
This guy is a real hero. It's too bad the cops rushed in so quickly to stop him. They should have let him get a few punches in. That man has three daughters who went to see Nassar.
 
2018-02-12 11:14:17 PM  
Didn't the judge say this about a day afterwards anyway?
 
2018-02-12 11:42:59 PM  
Prosecutors won't charge man who charged defendant?
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-13 01:29:52 AM  

browneye: Didn't the judge say this about a day afterwards anyway?


That was just regarding contempt charges.
 
2018-02-13 01:48:11 AM  
In before the "But all violence is bad violence, unless they're brown and Muslim" Brigade.
 
2018-02-13 01:48:56 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-13 01:50:45 AM  
The prosecutor is smart enough to realize a public lynching is entirely possible if he tried to put the father in jail.
 
2018-02-13 01:53:59 AM  

OgreMagi: The prosecutor is smart enough to realize a public lynching is entirely possible if he tried to put the father in jail.


A smart prosecutor will let Nassar have an unguarded day in the park, for a proper lynching.  Thousands watch, videos recorded, yet no one seems to know who did it.
 
2018-02-13 01:57:01 AM  
He should face charges.  His behavior cheapens the Rule of Law.
All charges should be dismissed of course.
 
2018-02-13 02:00:05 AM  

OgreMagi: The prosecutor is smart enough to realize a public lynching is entirely possible if he tried to put the father in jail.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-13 02:01:29 AM  

Old Man Winter: He should face charges.  His behavior cheapens the Rule of Law.
All charges should be dismissed of course.


If only he'd had a batman mask, he'd be the perfect vigilante.
 
2018-02-13 02:18:06 AM  
I am going to be the bad guy here, I guess:

There is a reason we have courts of law, and there are reasons why there are very restrictive laws on behavior, which are to be followed in said courts. Literally, the courtroom should be the FURTHEST place from "vigilante justice" one may find.

Things like this? I mean, sure, nobody was hurt today (but the odds are when something like this happens, the injured parties are FAR more likely to be a) the attacker and/or b) employees of the state doing their jobs to protect the criminal). And that's assuming no weapons are involved...

I mean, where is the line? I'd have "not been unhappy" if someone filled Larry full of holes and/or objects at some point... but that doesn't mean that this kind of behavior should be acceptable.
 
2018-02-13 02:20:16 AM  

Old Man Winter: He should face charges.  His behavior cheapens the Rule of Law.
All charges should be dismissed of course.


If a jury found him "not guilty" or a technicality deemed him temporarily insane, or any of that took place, I'd be happy.

But, as you say, he should "face" charges. If this had been anywhere OTHER than a courtroom? I may be a bit more lax...
 
2018-02-13 02:30:54 AM  
Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
 
2018-02-13 02:39:16 AM  
I doubt any jury would convict him, although I think you're only eligible for a jury trial if you're facing at least 6 months in jail.
 
2018-02-13 02:45:30 AM  
That video got to me.

I know why we have the rule of law, and they stopped him for a reason, and they should have stopped him.

I'm an easygoing sort; very little truly offends me, and I'm usually willing to forgive a wrong.

But I have two young nephews, and if I were to face their abuser like that, you would have to stop me from killing him or her with my bare hands.
 
2018-02-13 02:50:16 AM  
There is probably a reasonable middle ground between "no charges at all for what was effectively an assassination attempt in a courtroom" and "throw the book at Papa Wolf." I say charge him with disturbing the peace and fine him one dollar, and then immediately suspend the fine on the condition that he goes a whole week without murdering anyone, including Nassar.
 
2018-02-13 02:53:57 AM  

FlyingBacon: Two wrongs doesn't make one right.


But it's not 1+1=2; it's an unknown but known-to-be-huge +1, not even a noticeable difference with any reasonable precision.
 
2018-02-13 02:55:06 AM  

King Something: There is probably a reasonable middle ground between "no charges at all for what was effectively an assassination attempt in a courtroom" and "throw the book at Papa Wolf." I say charge him with disturbing the peace and fine him one dollar, and then immediately suspend the fine on the condition that he goes a whole week without murdering anyone, including Nassar.


Everyone involved seems to want it to just go away, so I'm fine with it just going away.
 
2018-02-13 03:05:10 AM  
Frankly, the whole "victims impact statements" is wrong.

I actually watched some of them from the earlier trial. Extremely poignant, in a large part because the victims in this case are remarkably well educated and poised individuals who have a history of performing under extremely high pressure situations. Those things add up to a strong ability to communicate the impact on them.

What about victims from other backgrounds? Ones who haven't have therapy to help them cope with the impacts on them, who lack that education to express themselves as clearly, who lack the stage presence to deliver their message? Why would we allow such capricious differences in victims affect sentencing?

It's not about justice, it's about vengeance. Sure people want vengeance but it's called a justice system. Civilization is supposed to forgo vengeance for justice. These extreme cases try that concept but that's why you don't want to decide based on the extreme cases.
 
2018-02-13 03:09:43 AM  
to be fair, Nassar called him out right before he lunged.

Tombstone - Johnny Ringo 'Alright lunger let's do it'
Youtube ab57xD0oBz8
 
2018-02-13 03:47:07 AM  
The stage is set for real change in the arena of protecting children from these predators. Nassar, Sandusky, every three card Monty priest shuffled from one parish to another and every frisky uncle are only a small part of the problem. Until society decides to stop willful ignorance that sexual abuse is a frequent, pernicious threat to the mental health of a ridiculously large segment of society the stories will continue. Over and over, the cycle repeats.  Clearly this isn't the work of few bad actors but a societal construct that allows trust to be given to those who shouldn't have it.

I want to know why such a man was allowed to operate so brazenly and publicly for so long without being found out? When did people start worrying about the potential lawsuits instead of knowing that another child was sentenced to the dark hole of shame from being abused and taking action?

In the cases of these Olympians, I can only hope they know that we are with them. Particularly because I don't like when anyone messes with my heroes.
 
2018-02-13 04:06:33 AM  

King Something: There is probably a reasonable middle ground between "no charges at all for what was effectively an assassination attempt in a courtroom" and "throw the book at Papa Wolf." I say charge him with disturbing the peace and fine him one dollar, and then immediately suspend the fine on the condition that he goes a whole week without murdering anyone, including Nassar.


Don't you first have to be important for it to be an assassination?
 
2018-02-13 04:08:24 AM  

camaroash: King Something: There is probably a reasonable middle ground between "no charges at all for what was effectively an assassination attempt in a courtroom" and "throw the book at Papa Wolf." I say charge him with disturbing the peace and fine him one dollar, and then immediately suspend the fine on the condition that he goes a whole week without murdering anyone, including Nassar.

Don't you first have to be important for it to be an assassination?


Or probably just a MAJOR ass. Like an ass squared. That's when you try doing an Assass In.
 
2018-02-13 04:09:00 AM  
This is a good outcome. I suspect that many who are gunning for "the justice system" may be forgetting or not care that it is enormously stressful to face charges for assault (or whatever), the system is slow, and during that entire process, it can shave years off the person's life waiting to find out that "well, sure, of course all is forgiven" because it's never "sure". It's rarely entirely free, either. There's nothing to be gained by docking the man's life expectancy due to stress when he's already probably 20 years down because of what his daughters went through. This was the right decision. Not everything has to be to the letter of the law.

He acted like a human farking being with real -- and completely appropriate -- human emotions. Glad to see it's been handled humanely.
 
2018-02-13 04:16:41 AM  

Smoking GNU: camaroash: King Something: There is probably a reasonable middle ground between "no charges at all for what was effectively an assassination attempt in a courtroom" and "throw the book at Papa Wolf." I say charge him with disturbing the peace and fine him one dollar, and then immediately suspend the fine on the condition that he goes a whole week without murdering anyone, including Nassar.

Don't you first have to be important for it to be an assassination?

Or probably just a MAJOR ass. Like an ass squared. That's when you try doing an Assass In.


res.cloudinary.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-13 05:19:54 AM  
He should not have do that I Court. That being said, I think the man was just so distraught that he couldn't contain it any more. I might have run over the guy before the police got to him. I believe that child molesters and serial killers can not be redeemed. There is something evil in them and they will not stop until they are dead. We should execute them instead of keeping them housed and fed for many years at our expense.
 
2018-02-13 06:03:57 AM  

wademh: Frankly, the whole "victims impact statements" is wrong.

I actually watched some of them from the earlier trial. Extremely poignant, in a large part because the victims in this case are remarkably well educated and poised individuals who have a history of performing under extremely high pressure situations. Those things add up to a strong ability to communicate the impact on them.

What about victims from other backgrounds? Ones who haven't have therapy to help them cope with the impacts on them, who lack that education to express themselves as clearly, who lack the stage presence to deliver their message? Why would we allow such capricious differences in victims affect sentencing?

It's not about justice, it's about vengeance. Sure people want vengeance but it's called a justice system. Civilization is supposed to forgo vengeance for justice. These extreme cases try that concept but that's why you don't want to decide based on the extreme cases.


Yes, how dare we give victims of crime the ability and opportunity to tell their assailant how their attack made them feel in a controlled environment.  My god, that may make the poor convicted person feel bad.  Thankfully you and most of society have a differing view of vengeance.  Sitting and listening to how you impacted the lives of your victims is not vengeance, no matter how much if offends your delicate sensibilities.
 
2018-02-13 06:32:07 AM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: wademh: Frankly, the whole "victims impact statements" is wrong.

I actually watched some of them from the earlier trial. Extremely poignant, in a large part because the victims in this case are remarkably well educated and poised individuals who have a history of performing under extremely high pressure situations. Those things add up to a strong ability to communicate the impact on them.

What about victims from other backgrounds? Ones who haven't have therapy to help them cope with the impacts on them, who lack that education to express themselves as clearly, who lack the stage presence to deliver their message? Why would we allow such capricious differences in victims affect sentencing?

It's not about justice, it's about vengeance. Sure people want vengeance but it's called a justice system. Civilization is supposed to forgo vengeance for justice. These extreme cases try that concept but that's why you don't want to decide based on the extreme cases.

Yes, how dare we give victims of crime the ability and opportunity to tell their assailant how their attack made them feel in a controlled environment.  My god, that may make the poor convicted person feel bad.  Thankfully you and most of society have a differing view of vengeance.  Sitting and listening to how you impacted the lives of your victims is not vengeance, no matter how much if offends your delicate sensibilities.


Where did I invoke the feelings of the convicted? Hint: I didn't, you just made that up out of nothing. These "victim impact statements" are intended to affect sentencing, not to be catharsis for victims. If you want to have a catharsis event where victims get to confront someone who was convicted, do that but make it be about that not as part of determining sentencing.

As argued (up above in the part you didn't pay attention to), victims have great variability in their ability to express themselves. That variability is unrelated to how great or small the harm to them was. Does someone get a lesser sentence because their victims do not express themselves as well? Does another get a greater sentence because their victims are very skilled at expressing themselves? That makes no sense.
 
2018-02-13 06:54:57 AM  

wademh: HideAndGoFarkYourself: wademh: Frankly, the whole "victims impact statements" is wrong.

I actually watched some of them from the earlier trial. Extremely poignant, in a large part because the victims in this case are remarkably well educated and poised individuals who have a history of performing under extremely high pressure situations. Those things add up to a strong ability to communicate the impact on them.

What about victims from other backgrounds? Ones who haven't have therapy to help them cope with the impacts on them, who lack that education to express themselves as clearly, who lack the stage presence to deliver their message? Why would we allow such capricious differences in victims affect sentencing?

It's not about justice, it's about vengeance. Sure people want vengeance but it's called a justice system. Civilization is supposed to forgo vengeance for justice. These extreme cases try that concept but that's why you don't want to decide based on the extreme cases.

Yes, how dare we give victims of crime the ability and opportunity to tell their assailant how their attack made them feel in a controlled environment.  My god, that may make the poor convicted person feel bad.  Thankfully you and most of society have a differing view of vengeance.  Sitting and listening to how you impacted the lives of your victims is not vengeance, no matter how much if offends your delicate sensibilities.

Where did I invoke the feelings of the convicted? Hint: I didn't, you just made that up out of nothing. These "victim impact statements" are intended to affect sentencing, not to be catharsis for victims. If you want to have a catharsis event where victims get to confront someone who was convicted, do that but make it be about that not as part of determining sentencing.

As argued (up above in the part you didn't pay attention to), victims have great variability in their ability to express themselves. That variability is unrelated to how great or small the harm to them ...


IANAL but I don't think victim impact statements affect sentencing that often. The victim can try to do that by getting in touch with the pre-sentencing probation officer in between conviction and the sentencing hearing. In practise, VIS are mostly a sort of restorative justice in that the victim has a chance to say what she wants to say to the perpetrator. So really it's how much guidance the victim gets in getting in touch with the probation officer, how much time he gives her, and how/what she says to him, and how he interprets it, that would be the variable rather than the VIS. (I'm sure this depends on jurisdiction too as far as how it functions.)
 
2018-02-13 07:22:49 AM  
#1, is the prosecutor an elected official?  If so, it's all clear now.
Or, they could have charged him and put them both in the same cell.  Accidentally.
 
2018-02-13 07:43:21 AM  

wademh: HideAndGoFarkYourself: wademh: Frankly, the whole "victims impact statements" is wrong.

I actually watched some of them from the earlier trial. Extremely poignant, in a large part because the victims in this case are remarkably well educated and poised individuals who have a history of performing under extremely high pressure situations. Those things add up to a strong ability to communicate the impact on them.

What about victims from other backgrounds? Ones who haven't have therapy to help them cope with the impacts on them, who lack that education to express themselves as clearly, who lack the stage presence to deliver their message? Why would we allow such capricious differences in victims affect sentencing?

It's not about justice, it's about vengeance. Sure people want vengeance but it's called a justice system. Civilization is supposed to forgo vengeance for justice. These extreme cases try that concept but that's why you don't want to decide based on the extreme cases.

Yes, how dare we give victims of crime the ability and opportunity to tell their assailant how their attack made them feel in a controlled environment.  My god, that may make the poor convicted person feel bad.  Thankfully you and most of society have a differing view of vengeance.  Sitting and listening to how you impacted the lives of your victims is not vengeance, no matter how much if offends your delicate sensibilities.

Where did I invoke the feelings of the convicted? Hint: I didn't, you just made that up out of nothing. These "victim impact statements" are intended to affect sentencing, not to be catharsis for victims. If you want to have a catharsis event where victims get to confront someone who was convicted, do that but make it be about that not as part of determining sentencing.

As argued (up above in the part you didn't pay attention to), victims have great variability in their ability to express themselves. That variability is unrelated to how great or small the harm to them ...


No, I didn't make it up, it was my deduction from your staggeringly stupid post and your misguided view of what vengeance actually is.  I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding this basic reading construct.  Judges are given wide leeway (by the law) in what they can use to determine the length of a sentence, so lets not pretend that judges are basing sentencing only on how well a victim is able to express themselves at sentencing.

There are two reasons to get rid of victim impact statements.  To stifle the voices of the victims or spare the feelings of the accused.  Whichever side of the fence you wanna fall on is on you.  Thankfully you're the minority.

It's also worth noting that Nassar accepted the plea agreement that specifically said that any victims who wanted to speak could and he had to listen to them.  That's probably of no importance though, right?
 
2018-02-13 07:54:12 AM  
He's no hero until somebody explains something. Three daughters and none of them ever said anything to him? Three daughters and no recognition of post-traumatic personality change? Methinks something was said, and he ignored it, and now he's all punchy because that's easier than listening to his daughters.
 
2018-02-13 08:09:08 AM  

MeatBrains: He's no hero until somebody explains something. Three daughters and none of them ever said anything to him? Three daughters and no recognition of post-traumatic personality change? Methinks something was said, and he ignored it, and now he's all punchy because that's easier than listening to his daughters.


Interesting theory. Some kids have tremendous abilities to cover shiat up. Particularly so if they have been threatened with something worse or harm to their families. You never really know.
 
2018-02-13 08:09:31 AM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: No, I didn't make it up, it was my deduction from your staggeringly stupid post and your misguided view of what vengeance actually is.  I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding this basic reading construct.  Judges are given wide leeway (by the law) in what they can use to determine the length of a sentence, so lets not pretend that judges are basing sentencing only on how well a victim is able to express themselves at sentencing.


That's so full of non sequiturs that it's hard to unpack them. Where do you get "only"? Nobody said only. That's an attempt to insert a false dichotomy, that sentencing is only about VIS. I'm clearly saying that sentencing should be completely independent of the erratic nature of VIS for many reasons including that the ability of victims to deliver Victim Impact Statements is uncoupled to the nature and severity of the actual impact. The identical crime, with the identical impact upon someone who can express themselves well and one who cannot would produce two radically different VIS. Whatever the proportional effect they would have would be injust. Does a convict get off easy just because their victim can't express themselves well? Absurd.

And yes, your "deduction" was made up. Again, I never invoked the feelings of the convicted. Don't care about their feelings, didn't invoke them. Argued something entirely different. You just made it up, inserted it, and have the temerity to label doing so a "deduction". Deductions are based on evidence, not your wild imagination. 

HideAndGoFarkYourself:  There are two reasons to get rid of victim impact statements.  To stifle the voices of the victims or spare the feelings of the accused.  Whichever side of the fence you wanna fall on is on you.  Thankfully you're the minority.

You assert that there are only two reason. That's in your mind. It's not in anything I wrote and it conflicts with reality. You imported that to what I wrote while ignoring what I wrote. What I wrote was a completely different reason. You can try to ignore it by covering your eyes, plugging your ears and singing LALALALA but it remains. Repeating, The reason to remove VIS is because they are an unreliable accounting of what they pretend to be, an account of the impact of the crime on the victim --- because victims are unequally able to communicate that impact. That is the reason I've argued. It is different from the two you assert are the only two possibilities.

In summary, you're wrong that there are only two possibilities. You put blinders on about there being other possibilities to ignore what I wrote. You then substituted your preconceptions for what I actually wrote. And then you accused me of being an advocate for what you substituted for what I actually wrote. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Do you do that sort of thing often? Use your mind reading skills to read my mind now.
 
2018-02-13 08:39:13 AM  
Obvious tag.  Unless the prosecutor wasn't interested in being elected as a prosecutor in the future, or having any political prospects after working as a prosecutor, that's really not a wise move.

Also as already mentioned, no jury is going to convict that guy.
 
2018-02-13 08:56:14 AM  
dpoisn.comView Full Size


Too bad he didn't get to land any good punches.
 
2018-02-13 09:58:05 AM  
It's called "prosecutorial discretion" for a reason, you know.

Did he break any laws besides contempt of court? No? Then what exactly should he be charged with?
 
2018-02-13 10:19:41 AM  
I bet he was white.
 
2018-02-13 10:31:09 AM  
In a U.S. court does a 'lunge' actually count as an assault b/c dad never actually touched him...

/ 50 sec video of the lunge
Victim's dad lunges at Nassar
Youtube RywTPN8w-Kw

/ looks like the officers did more damage to the dad whilst tossing him to the ground, frankly
 
2018-02-13 10:51:12 AM  

Gyrfalcon: It's called "prosecutorial discretion" for a reason, you know.

Did he break any laws besides contempt of court? No? Then what exactly should he be charged with?


Assault comes to mind.  Would have been battery, but the bailiffs intervened.

Attacking someone in court with intent to do harm isn't an act to be casually dismissed. But yes I agree, that not charging him is the obvious choice in this situation.
 
2018-02-13 11:18:56 AM  

MeatBrains: He's no hero until somebody explains something. Three daughters and none of them ever said anything to him? Three daughters and no recognition of post-traumatic personality change? Methinks something was said, and he ignored it, and now he's all punchy because that's easier than listening to his daughters.


Two of his daughters are in the video, they appear rather young.  I went back to see what I could find, which not much can be expected because details are not going to be very forth coming at this time.  But here's my possible theory, his daughters could be the state's first witnesses that testified in June of last year.  If they are, then it sounds like they did speak up right away, and was part of getting the ball rolling.  I can't prove it one way or the other, but his daughters sure aren't the first victims.  You can go on assuming the worst of people if you want.
 
2018-02-13 11:32:13 AM  

Recoil Therapy: Yeah, no prosecutor would want to be known as the guy who charged an angry father & face a slam dunk jury nullification.


We really don't want prosecutors doing this, regardless of the emotion involved.  If they have the case and the evidence they do their job no matter if it's a guy who is seen as a hero or a cop or whatever else.

Let the jury nullify, but do your job.  And yes that means letting a case go where you can get a conviction but you know the evidence is weak and or the person may be innocent.  The "can I/we win this" being the only litmus test for a case is the cornerstone of our horrible justice system.
 
2018-02-13 11:41:21 AM  

nanim: In a U.S. court does a 'lunge' actually count as an assault b/c dad never actually touched him...

/ 50 sec video of the lunge
[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/RywTPN8w​-Kw]
/ looks like the officers did more damage to the dad whilst tossing him to the ground, frankly


Assault and battery laws vary from state to state.

In Florida, Papa Wolf's actions would be "Assault," a misdemeanor. Not "Battery" since he didn't actually land a hit, and not "Aggravated Assault" because he didn't use a deadly weapon while trying to deliver justice to Nassar (fists don't count as deadly weapons unless the person has some sort of formal training i.e. karate).
 
2018-02-13 11:50:59 AM  

IRQ12: Recoil Therapy: Yeah, no prosecutor would want to be known as the guy who charged an angry father & face a slam dunk jury nullification.

We really don't want prosecutors doing this, regardless of the emotion involved.  If they have the case and the evidence they do their job no matter if it's a guy who is seen as a hero or a cop or whatever else.

Let the jury nullify, but do your job.  And yes that means letting a case go where you can get a conviction but you know the evidence is weak and or the person may be innocent.  The "can I/we win this" being the only litmus test for a case is the cornerstone of our horrible justice system.


I agree. My, not very well explained, point is/was that the prosecutors that I know/know of these days seem to be much more concerned with their 'win/loss' record than if the guy was actually guilty/deserved charges in the first place.  None of them would want to try this case as there's a high percentage chance of it being a 'loss' for them in the end.
 
2018-02-13 12:35:53 PM  
He was right in thought, bad in execution
 
2018-02-13 02:31:27 PM  
He should have his daughters taken away.  He looks like some neat hero when he really should have been a good father to his THREE daughter that got fingerbanged.
 
2018-02-13 04:21:07 PM  

supichoo: He should have his daughters taken away.  He looks like some neat hero when he really should have been a good father to his THREE daughter that got fingerbanged.


You sound like the type of person that fingerbangs children.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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