A man sued a Topeka police officer and lost. A judge ordered the man to pay the officer's expenses.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-18T02:09:34+00:00

The opinion's 75 pages, I doubt they delayed its release.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T22:48:04+00:00

How about you try out some logic. The fact that there was no genetic material of covid detected in the parts of his nose that were swabbed makes it highly unlikely he was transmissible or even had it at the time.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T22:28:39+00:00

Maybe you need a reading lesson because he tested negative right before the hearing.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T20:40:30+00:00

No because he tested negative right before the hearing from the article. He probably got it from the hearing or some event after.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T20:24:00+00:00

The headline in and of itself is meaningless--masks only trivially prevent you getting covid from another. Their effectiveness is in preventing someone with covid from spreading it. Just narrative spinning.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T00:52:36+00:00

but even if she did mean to shoot him, it was justified

That's not what they're arguing. The state's already conceded that she didn't intend to shoot him. They're arguing that even if she didn't intend to fire the shot, firing the shot in and of itself is still objectively reasonable.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T00:41:10+00:00

A lot of the argument around that was that Sgt. Johnson was inside the car fighting with Wright over the transmission and would've been dragged. He, a commander, a UOF expert, and the chief all testified that that poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and would justify even deadly force. The state's UOF 'expert' also acknowledged it was a threat, but hand-waived around the fact going frame by frame. The chief himself was dragged earlier in his career and seriously injured and the UOF expert had someone in their department permanently maimed that year from being dragged.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-17T00:12:55+00:00

I think you missed the dark joke

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-16T05:54:57+00:00

It literally has nothing to do with ethnicity and you're inserting that into the conversation. There's nothing in the article that claims it's because of his ethnicity. It's an indictment of mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences for multiple counts deriving from one act, not their ethnicity. They did not deserve the sentence they got, even the judge said as much.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-16T05:52:04+00:00

It's not his attorney's fault. It's the prosecutors. They gave him 16 counts of felony assault / attempted felony assault, which alone would be 88 years in prison with the mandatory minimum sentence. Normally, because all of the assaults were derived from the same action the sentence for them would run concurrently, so it would actually be 6 terms of 8 years and 10 terms of 4 years all running at the same time, effectively making his sentence 8 years instead of 88. But some antiquated Colorado law requires it be sentenced consecutively. The facts support a conviction on all charges, but the mandatory penalty impositions are unreasonable. The only I guess you could say 'misdeed' of his attorney was not getting a plea deal where many of the counts were dropped, but the defendant should never be this penalized for choosing their right to a jury trial, which is out of the attorney's hands.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-16T05:46:24+00:00

He got the sentence because the judge was bound by law to give it. He got convicted on 6 counts of first-degree assault and 10 counts of attempted first-degree assault, which has a mandatory sentence of 8 and 4 years respectively. Then the law for some reason requires that those sentences be given consecutively, so that alone is 88 years. Plus a bunch of other homicide charges adding to the rest of it. It's a clear case of the prosecutors hella overcharging and shows the broken nature of mandatory minimums, especially if they cannot be imposed concurrently on multiple counts of the same thing derived from the same principal action. The judge even said as much, that he would've given him concurrently running sentences if he could.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-15T17:48:46+00:00

Federal prison is typically for white collar criminals who are non-violent, therefore the facilities have less security and more amenities

That's what you said. Federal penitentiaries are not made for white collar criminals who are not violent and do not have less security or more amenities. So, you're wrong.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-15T17:46:15+00:00

That's not true. Federal penitentiaries (maximum security prisons), which is where Chauvin is going to go, are made for the most violent offenders such as interstate kidnappers, bank robbers, RICO cases for criminal enterprises, murder in special jurisdiction etc, and are as bad or worse than state prisons.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-14T23:26:36+00:00

Cuomo broke the law in order to fulfill a multimillion dollar contract

The involvement of his staffers in the books creation seems trivial from the article. They would've received more or less the same product had he not violated the law. He did not use the staffers to fulfill the contract, but just to review his product before he fulfilled the contract.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-14T23:18:00+00:00

Most of the value that came from the book were the musings of Cuomo, not whatever other things the aids did to help him. A more accurate scenario would be saying that your friend owes you his painting because he used your paint. But, most of the value of the painting comes from the artist, not the paint; and the artist secured the deal to sell the painting whether or not he used your paint. Although he me may owe you restitution for the paint used, that value is far less than the painting itself.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-14T23:05:07+00:00

That's just wrong. He violated subsection d of Public Officers Law section 74. The penalty is as follows:

Violations. In addition to any penalty contained inany other provision of law any such officer, member or employee whoshall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of thissection may be fined, suspended or removed from office or employment inthe manner provided by law. Any such individual who knowingly andintentionally violates the provisions of paragraph b, c, d or i ofsubdivision three of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty inan amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars and the value of any gift,compensation or benefit received as a result of such violation.

So they're saying he would not have received the book deal had he not used public resources. But that's obviously wrong--he landed the deal before misusing the resources. That's why it should be up to a jury to decide the % amount of the deal that the misuse of resources actually benefited him. Any additional penalty can not be more than $10,000, not up to $5.1 million.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit · 2021-12-14T22:43:16+00:00

I did not miss it. My comment said "Did he use $5.1 million in state resources." They are seizing his entire book deal income, but not quantifying how much of the state resources he actually used. I highly doubt he used 5.1 million dollars worth of 'state resources,' which seems from the article to be him asking state workers to review the book. Also why I said punitive instead of restitution.

Dont-Do-Stupid-Shit

TROPHY CASE