Obese murderer claims cruel and unusual punishment after losing 105 pounds - Page 2

kombayn · 04-30-2008, 01:00 AM

If he's convicted of murdering someone and then is able to win money of the state for such a bullshit lawsuit then someone needs pistol whip the Superior Court Justice System.

NOTE: Then again, if food was never invented, he wouldn't have been sued... [Looks to 7960.] Come on... Come on... See... I have a little bit of a sense of humor. [Goes off topic] How about them LAKERS?!!! SWEEP!!!

Just wait until they destroy Boston... That's unless Atlanta destroys them first! :P

Kytro · 04-30-2008, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

so then you disagree with the entire concept of bail?

Not the concept, the implementation. I understand that given serious accusation there needs to be an investigation, and it may be, depending on the circumstances, necessary to restrict the movement of the accused, but it should be done in such a manner that they not placed with any serving criminals and that they are generally allowed other freedoms, monitored if need be.

7960 · 04-30-2008, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by kombayn

If he's convicted of murdering someone and then is able to win money of the state for such a bullshit lawsuit then someone needs pistol whip the Superior Court Justice System.

totally agree

NOTE: Then again, if food was never invented, he wouldn't have been sued... [Looks to 7960.] Come on... Come on... See... I have a little bit of a sense of humor.

if the stomach was created smaller then he'd feel full sooner and wouldn't be fat.....BLAME GOD!

[Goes off topic] How about them LAKERS?!!! SWEEP!!! Just wait until they destroy Boston... That's unless Atlanta destroys them first! :P

The lakers sweep??

WickedLou9 · 04-30-2008, 09:44 AM

So even if a person is not convicted of any crime you think we should treat them the same as a convicted killer? That seems odd to me.

I'm not saying that this person has a real case, but the prevalent attitude in this thread has been that this kid is a convict and doesn't deserve anything.

7960 · 04-30-2008, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So even if a person is not convicted of any crime you think we should treat them the same as a convicted killer? That seems odd to me.

No. He's in jail, not prison. So he's not been convicted or anything and is awaiting trial (or was convicted of a misdemeanor, but that's not this case). If he was a convicted killer he'd be in prison.

I'm not saying that this person has a real case, but the prevalent attitude in this thread has been that this kid is a convict and doesn't deserve anything.

He's not being treated like a convicted killer. He's being treated like someone who has a shitload of evidence against him and can't make bail.

WickedLou9 · 04-30-2008, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

No. He's in jail, not prison. So he's not been convicted or anything and is awaiting trial (or was convicted of a misdemeanor, but that's not this case). If he was a convicted killer he'd be in prison.

He's not being treated like a convicted killer. He's being treated like someone who has a shitload of evidence against him and can't make bail.

Jail, prison, whatever. a rose by any other name...

He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We should not be treating innocent people like convicts until they actually are convicts.

Linzyhop · 04-30-2008, 10:03 AM

he's guilty cause he's a fat fuck.

JaJae · 04-30-2008, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Jail, prison, whatever. a rose by any other name...

He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We should not be treating innocent people like convicts until they actually are convicts.

Jail is very different than prison. That's why we have both. You have to hold some people for their court date or they won't show up and the criminal justice system would fall apart. The only way to do that safely is through a jail system. He's likely going to a maximum security prison around other murderers and rapists after his trial. But for now he's sitting next to your neighbor who hasn't paid child support in three years. There's a big difference in the atmosphere and the environment.

motivez · 04-30-2008, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I was not arguing that he should be, I was merely arguing until a formal process has been undertaken he shouldn't be treated like a criminal. That will happen when and if he is found guilty.

As long as he's a suspect though, doesn't the state have a justifiable reason to try to prevent him from being on the streets if there's enough evidence for a judge to deny bail?

And if so, why should he be in a separate facility, costing the taxpayers more money?

I wouldn't oppose some segregated unit that houses only non-convicted people though, I definitely think your suggestion about that is reasonable.

7960 · 04-30-2008, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Jail, prison, whatever. a rose by any other name...

He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We should not be treating innocent people like convicts until they actually are convicts.

Of course he's innocent until proven guilty. That's why he's not being treated like a convicted murderer........he was offered bail so he could be free until his trial. Last I checked convicted murderers aren't allowed to be free.

kombayn · 04-30-2008, 01:04 PM

He is innocent until proven guilty, but with the evidence is against and him the lead suspect in the case, they have him in jail. I don't want some guy who may in fact just killed someone running around the street, who can possibly bail for another state or country. Fuck that.

P.S. He's a fat fucker. (Off-T: And to 7960, you missed the Lakers sweeping the floor with the Nuggets? It was great. Just like the Hawks evening the series with the Celtics! :P)

Kytro · 04-30-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

As long as he's a suspect though, doesn't the state have a justifiable reason to try to prevent him from being on the streets if there's enough evidence for a judge to deny bail?

And if so, why should he be in a separate facility, costing the taxpayers more money?

I wouldn't oppose some segregated unit that houses only non-convicted people though, I definitely think your suggestion about that is reasonable.

I just mean seperated from convicted people, it does not have to be an entirely seperate facility. If taxpayers want restirct the freedom of someone who isn't convicted yet, they need to pay for that in some reasonable manner.

Kytro · 04-30-2008, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by kombayn

I don't want some guy who may in fact just killed someone running around the street, who can possibly bail for another state or country. Fuck that.

Which is reasonable, but they still should not treat them as though they are already guilty and mix them with those serving time

nbiggershaft · 05-01-2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Which is reasonable, but they still should not treat them as though they are already guilty and mix them with those serving time

I don't know if you have paid attention to the jail vs prison distinction. There is no indication here that he is being abused in any way.

7960 · 05-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't know if you have paid attention to the jail vs prison distinction. There is no indication here that he is being abused in any way.

he's lost weight and only gets 2" cookies, OF COURSE he's being abused!

Kytro · 05-02-2008, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't know if you have paid attention to the jail vs prison distinction. There is no indication here that he is being abused in any way.

M position is he shouldn't be held with anyone actually serving any sentance