Truck Driver Gets 110 Years After His Brakes Fail

[whYME]

Many say it was his company's fault.

1. Yes, to a large degree they were responsible, and that's why they paid big $$$$.

2. At the end of the day he was the one driving and is responsible for his actions.

[aygart]

All we can go by is what the jury found him guilty of according to the law.

That tells us nothing about whether the law is just. The purpose of executive pardon is to be a balance for when the law is over encompassing.

[CountValentine]

That tells us nothing about whether the law is just. The purpose of executive pardon is to be a balance for when the law is over encompassing.

The jury did their job. The sentence was reduced reaffirming the jury did their job. He was guilty of the charges.

[aygart]

The jury did their job. The sentence was reduced reaffirming the jury did their job. He was guilty of the charges.

Correct. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise here

[CountValentine]

Correct. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise here

When they bring up "Some say it was his company's fault" what they are insinuating seems obvious.
What some say is meaningless.

[Yo ssi]

What some say is meaningless.

True, it's what I say that counts.

[aygart]

When they bring up "Some say it was his company's fault" what they are insinuating seems obvious.
What some say is meaningless.

It can just as easily mean that the jury was correct in their interpretation of a flawed law. A flawed law can give the same result.

[CountValentine]

It can just as easily mean that the jury was correct in their interpretation of a flawed law. A flawed law can give the same result.

WOW what a can of worms.
KR got off on a flawed law.
OJ got off on a flawed law.
JD was convicted on a flawed law.
JWG was convicted on a flawed law.
The list will go on and on.

Sentenced was reduced not because of a flawed law!!!

[aygart]

WOW what a can of worms.
KR got off on a flawed law.
OJ got off on a flawed law.
JD was convicted on a flawed law.
JWG was convicted on a flawed law.
The list will go on and on.

Sentenced was reduced not because of a flawed law!!!

So why was it reduced?

[CountValentine]

So why was it reduced?

Because on mandatory sentencing.

 "After learning about the highly atypical and unjust sentence in your case, I am commuting your sentence to 10 years and granting you parole eligibility on December 30, 2026."


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/truck-driver-rogel-aguilera-mederos-sentence-reduced-to-10-years-after-public-outcry/ar-AASjrn8
“This was not an accident, it was a series decisions on the part of the driver that caused [four] deaths,” Duane Bailey stated. “The jury heard the evidence and convicted him.”

[Yehuda57]

Because on mandatory sentencing.

 "After learning about the highly atypical and unjust sentence in your case, I am commuting your sentence to 10 years and granting you parole eligibility on December 30, 2026."

So mandatory sentencing is a flawed law

[aygart]

Because on mandatory sentencing.

Sounds like a flawed law to me.

[CountValentine]

So mandatory sentencing is a flawed law

He was not "convicted" on a flawed law. The jury has nothing to do with a mandatory sentence.

[aygart]

He was not "convicted" on a flawed law. The jury has nothing to do with a mandatory sentence.

So the jury was correct in their conviction.

[CountValentine]

Sounds like a flawed law to me.

No one is arguing the 100+ years. The question was is 5 years enough for taking four lives. 

Then the pretzel started about a flawed law. 

[CountValentine]

So the jury was correct in their conviction.

So then here is the question?

The question was is 5 years enough for taking four lives.

[Yehuda57]

He was not "convicted" on a flawed law. The jury has nothing to do with a mandatory sentence.

If mandatory sentencing can be flawed, so can the rest of the laws. The jury could have returned the exact legal verdict based on their instructions, and the instructions could have been wrong, misapplied, or based on bad laws.

KR was acquitted on the gun charge based on a badly written law.

[CountValentine]

If mandatory sentencing can be flawed, so can the rest of the laws. The jury could have returned the exact legal verdict based on their instructions, and the instructions could have been wrong, misapplied, or based on bad laws.

Anything could have happened.

[aygart]

No one is arguing the 100+ years. The question was is 5 years enough for taking four lives. 

Then the pretzel started about a flawed law. 

That happened from an irrelevant distraction about the jury deciding. If 100 years is too much and that is what the jury's conviction leads to then according to your logic it should end there. Mr. Count, the jury decided! How dare you suggest he should get less!

[CountValentine]

Note to self. A Jew will never admit to being wrong.