some black people are fucking morons $.02
 

Judge Lets Armed Robbers Off With Probation - Video

Judge Lets Armed Robbers Off With Probation- Three men who held a family at gunpoint and robbed them won't get jail time because this Judge was offended by the statement of the 3 year old victim.

He says "it won't affect my decision" lol
Will the people appeal this shit?

Brassmonkey in 3 ...2 ....2..............1.....

ok so if the robbers were white she would be afraid of her parents???

:1orglaugh nicely foretold

Who is going to win the kentucky derby?

Do you understand she is 3 years old?
Anyway, it is not the point. The point is judge giving free pass to the perps because he was offended by 3 year old logic.
Why do I bother though, you can not comprehend even the simplest things..

All she knows is that someone that looks and acts very distinctively different from her and her parents and family terrorized her. Now she has post traumatic stress and is afraid of similar people. That doesn't require a psychology degree or Klan robe to understand.

Stop being obtuse and go back to robbery, murder, extortion, drug dealing, prostitution and drive-by shootings like any good Crip should.

it is a point :2 cents::2 cents: thats your opinion. its not a free pass they still were punished. its just not what you see as justice.

well she needs treatment thinking all of a certain race are bad.

He said that it won't affect that he is offended. At least that is what he says.

But I find it funny that the other guy says "This was home invasion.. (it should have stopped in here, but he continues).. there were husband and a wife and a three year old girl."

What is the fucking difference? You rob someone's house, does it really matter what people end up being in there? Unless it is especially taking advantage of old age, disability, etc. You know, planning it beforehand.

So if a white cop shoots a black guy (who is resisting in one way or another 100% of the time), white people must be racist. And when an armed black guy invades the home of white family with a 3 year old girl present and robs them.....well hell white people are racist again.

Maybe because home invasions with people inside are punishable more than empty house invasions? Basically (I assume or guess) he was suggesting that usual sentence for such a thing is harsher than probation.
As for what people were inside - circumstances probably matters as well, lets say your chances of getting some mercy if you invade a single adult male are higher than if you invade a family with small child. I do not know, just assuming.

Indeed. Thank moronic guilters and similar scum for introducing such a way of thinking.

thanks judge, for reinforcing that little girl's fears.

a dad moment.

killed shot and killed

the cop in question has a pattern of stopping and harming blacks. did these thieves in this case hurt any of the victims?

So, you are punished for something that is more like a "luck" factor? I can understand if it is intentional to rob a house with people in, but if that is just a coincidence, it is not a very good reason to add up into sentence.

home invasion crime includes the perps knowing/expecting in advance that the home is occupied and committing a violent crime against the occupiers.

Your kid watches much trials? :)

your kid drink a lots of vodka?

Yes, if it can or should be assumed with enough certainty that the house is habitated, that makes sense. But what about the people those end up being in there? Extra penalty if there happens to be a kid? A wife? Lonely pervert?

Not really. Actually I haven't drinked at all for a over a month (I usually drink weekly basis). And it is not usually vodka if I drink that kind of stuff, although the difference is semantic.

http://www.lansi-savo.fi/sites/defau...?itok=oSgjyTpb

Not sure if there is much luck. There are crews who only do empty houses, there is no luck in predetermining that. :2 cents:

Again - I am just guessing, but since "home invasion" is separate thing than invading empty houses we could assume sentencing guidelines are different for both cases.

absolutely. it's called assault with a deadly weapon, etc et al on&on, more. yadda yadda.

Allow me to fix the title, "Some people are fucking morons."

There is brassmonkey in every crowd

Really....................?

Again, as I said - your chances of getting mercy are higher if you attack healthy male VS if you attack a female with a child as an example.

She's 3 years old retard. If it was a circus clown that broke into her home and threatened to kill her family, she'd be afraid of circus clowns. It's a very normal response. You need therapy for somehow making the 3 year old the villain... when the two din do nuffin idiots who actually committed a violent crime against her, should be in prison for many years but aren't, and you're cool with that.

What if you are sucky criminal? :)

I though we are talking about robbing a house, not conducting some kind of attack. Or is this some USA style that it is either shooting to dead or nothing, whether you are police or criminal?

:2 cents::2 cents: judges do all kinds of things. a judge in Az said illegals aliens have the green light to find work in Az. :Oh crap Op made it about race

Yes, we are talking about robbing a house. As in robbing a house with a single male as opposed to robbing a house with family with small child.
You asked if there was a difference, I answered about the chances of judge being harsher or softer based on that.

Yes, you answered so, but I didn't ask what your judges think about it. It was general thinking about what is right and wrong.

Justified sentences are part of a right and wrong in civilized societies, not just; "Witch, burn her!".. oh sorry, I meant "Criminal, burn him!"

Same as everywhere n everything. For example you may speed your car and hit a deer, you may speed a car and hit a man. You would be charged differently, although you may have been just "unlucky".
Or you may be a doctor who mixes up meds by mistake, one can mix up to something not dangerous, another can mix up to something deadly. Second one would be charged more, just because he was "unlucky".
So your argument is strangely stupid here...

Judges think that because it is accepted way of thinking of what is right and wrong by general population.

Usually it is considered whether it was accident or not. Hunting men with a car or speeding and accidentally hitting someone aren't exactly the same things.

I assume you mean US population. Though judges giving some sentence doesn't mean that it is a consensus amongst the population too. Like you can see from this thread; read the first post and a few other.

sure they are in his mind :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Since you still do not understand simple things, let me lay out another analogy.

So we established that robbing empty house gets you softer sentence than invading house with people.
You claim that it should not be so because it is "accident" weather you invade empty or full house.

My analogy:
Imagine perp 1 and perp 2.
Both robs a liquor store. Both decides to shoot attendant in the leg. One aims at a leg and shoots it, another aims at a leg and misses and kills the guy accidently.

Would you claim that both should be sentenced the same way because it was just accident that one was a bad shooter and missed? No? So same with the houses - if you were bad at planning empty house and accidently got full house - you get harsher sentence for home invasion instead of for robbing empty house.
How is that difficult to grasp?

Wrong, he completely misunderstood my point by posting that ridiculous "conclusion". So I laid out a better analogy for him, hopefully he will finally understand the simple point. There is hope because while he is pretty dumb, he is a genius compared to you.