Reply With QuoteYou are completely clueless as to what actually happened and to the history of this guy.
As a Norwegian I sigh a bit at the sad fact that like I said before, getting caught in another country than your own is dangerous, there are prescious few judicial systems in the world you can trust at being impartial.
Infact, I'd say you'd be best of getting the heck out of there quickly.
That said, he probably should have lost his licence, or have a fine, but whatever nuttery was going on, nothing else was damaged other than his nose.
You are completely clueless as to what actually happened and to the history of this guy.
Does this mean you know what actually happened, and the history of this guy? Or are you just driving by, delivering vague sentences that imply you know something the rest of the world doesn't?Originally Posted by Jason Becker
Based on what we do know, he's not like someone who keeps his nose clean.
Washington Post article on the incident.
The most surprising thing about this case? That a town actually has an annual music festival based off of a single line in an ancient Eagles song.
He has a totally irrellevant history, however he should be punished for his actions, but does the crime fit the punishment?
I mean, its not even a near miss.
I didn't want to start a new thread, but since there has been some comparison of prison systems here... TIL that escaping from a Belgian prison is not a crime in itself. Committing violence while doing so is a crime. And indeed the "theft of a prison uniform" is a crime. But if no other crime is committed, it's okay. One cite. It seems that this is true of other countries as well. Has anyone here heard of this?
Apparently it does. There are plenty of witnesses saying that he was yelling and driving erratically and trying to hit people. And he has a history of trying to hit people with his car when he's angry. Who are we to say if it's true?
In any case, he was convicted...now he gets to do his time.
I now share the sentiment that you are totally clueless about what happened, or choose to be blind to what he was actually convicted of.
Last edited by Destarius; 04-28-2012 at 09:38 PM.
Our newspaper listed a few things he's been involved in, at no point was trying to run over a person on a bike on that list.
He's had some incident with a school, which is irrelevant, and 2 people who beat him up at some point, also irrelevant.
Relevant is that one lady said he screamed 'I will kill you' and another witness told she'd heard him say 'I'll sneak through'
The first witness was believed, thus starting the 2nd degree murder charges.
Its a bit like kangaroo court.
Aggravated assault, a bit different.
So a 21 year sentence for killing 77 people is crazy, while a lifetime sentence or a death sentence for killing 77 people is just as crazy. So what sentence in your world wouldn't be "crazy"?
For the sake of completeness, the other purpose usually cited is that knowledge of the sentence acts as a deterrent. But that pretty demonstrably doesn't work.
Apparently it's the same in Germany, I've heard it cited as a hangover from WWII era concentration camps, but I don't know how accurate that is. The philosophy is usually described as "It's a prisoner's duty to try to escape, it's the prison's duty to keep him in." If you're caught, you get brought back to serve out your original sentence, but no additional time is added for the escape attempt.
Assuming that prison is punitive rather than rehabilitative, unless you can build a Ghost Rider Penance Stare device, all sentences are equally inadequate. A person is capable of inflicting far more damage than any individual can feel.
But the original author did not use the term "inadequate" he used "crazy".
Posting Permissions