dumbed down juries, idiot people

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
fired cop found guilty of violation of civil rights

A jury on Wednesday found fired Milwaukee police officer Ladmarald Cates guilty of violating a woman's civil rights by raping her after he responded to her 911 call in July 2010.

Despite being acquitted on a second count, Cates, 44, faces a maximum penalty of life in prison when he is sentenced April 11. He will likely serve far less time under federal sentencing guidelines.

The jury deliberated for just three hours. In their split verdict, they found Cates not guilty of using a firearm in a crime of violence. They also found that although Cates committed a rape that qualified as aggravated sexual abuse, it did not result in bodily injury to the victim.
 
What is your point?

Boyle also emphasized that a medical examination of the victim after the incident showed no injuries to her vaginal area.
 
you sound like rumsfeld explaining that waterboarding isn't torture because there is no physical damage being done. pitiful.

anybody who can even rationalize that rape isn't physically assault and bodily injury needs to be assraped once.
 
Boyle also emphasized that a medical examination of the victim after the incident showed no injuries to her vaginal area.

How could the jury be at fault for a finding consistant with the medical examiner's testimony?
 
Return of Dune said:
Boyle also emphasized that a medical examination of the victim after the incident showed no injuries to her vaginal area.

How could the jury be at fault for a finding consistant with the medical examiner's testimony?
Click to expand...
i repeat, stupid people that believe being raped, no matter how gentle the rapist is, doesn't commit bodily injury, they are too stupid for private enterprise work and should be government employees.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you sound like rumsfeld explaining that waterboarding isn't torture because there is no physical damage being done. pitiful.

anybody who can even rationalize that rape isn't physically assault and bodily injury needs to be assraped once.
Click to expand...

It is obvious there was physical assault, the jury never disagreed with that. I'm pretty sure that there are specific legal definitions involved, which probably involves the other person breaking a bone or wounding. If being raped alone were enough to qualify for the definition, then there'd be no reason to ask the jury about it. What's the point of an enhancement if every crime qualifies for it?
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
It is obvious there was physical assault, the jury never disagreed with that. I'm pretty sure that there are specific legal definitions involved, which probably involves the other person breaking a bone or opening a wound. If being raped alone were enough to qualify for the definition, then there'd be no reason to ask the jury about it. What's the point of an enhancement if every crime qualifies for it?
Click to expand...

that would be part of the point. there should be no 'enhancement' with a crime. you either did it, or you didn't.
 
I suppose that when there's a crime so heinous, it's kind of rude to specifically go out of your way to point out that there's anything the perpetrator didn't do to the victim, though. As if the rape someone isn't a big deal because no other serious physical injuries were caused. On the surface, whenever you're writing the law, sure, it is kind of common sense that a crime which occurs with physical injuries is worse than one that occurs without. But it sounds different when said out loud and applied to real circumstances. This particular enhancement is always insensitive sounding, and if they seriously feel that they need it they should describe it as "no other physical injuries" rather than "no physical injuries".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top