• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lee Malvo [DC Sniper] Sentences Overturned

truthatallcost said:
I just researched the judge who decided the case, David Hale. To no ones surprise:

•Appointed as US Federal Prosecutor of Western KY by Obama.
•Appointed as US District Court Judge by Obama.
•On March 31, 2017, Hale ruled against the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of inciting violence against protesters in Louisville, Kentucky.

He's a pet of the DNC.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the DNC is colluding with constitutional law? Pretty serious allegations.
 
reinoe said:
He's a scumbag but also technically a child. While plenty of "children" get charged as adults, the fact that the argument that he was being manipulated by an adult needs to be taken into consideration. I suspect his unusually harsh sentence was racially motivated.
Click to expand...
Unusually harsh? So is sniping, random innocent people. They call it "terrorism"
 
reinoe said:
He's a scumbag but also technically a child. While plenty of "children" get charged as adults, the fact that the argument that he was being manipulated by an adult needs to be taken into consideration. I suspect his unusually harsh sentence was racially motivated.
Click to expand...

Your racist instincts are intact. This judge was appointed to the Virginia Supreme Court by the Democratic Governor (Terry McAuliffe) in 2015. He’s probably racist too, or why else would he appoint her. And she’s a woman. So there you have it, she no doubt hates minorities and therefore unduly punished this poor misguided young man because he was black. Nothing to do with the fact he terrorized an entire community and killed 10 people.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Unusually harsh? So is sniping, random innocent people. They call it "terrorism"
Click to expand...


Cvir said:
Your racist instincts are intact. This judge was appointed to the Virginia Supreme Court by the Democratic Governor (Terry McAuliffe) in 2015. He’s probably racist too, or why else would he appoint her. And she’s a woman. So there you have it, she no doubt hates minorities and therefore unduly punished this poor misguided young man because he was black. Nothing to do with the fact he terrorized an entire community and killed 10 people.
Click to expand...

The fact that she was appointed by a Democrat increases the likely hood that she's racist against Blacks. A 17 year old should not receive life without parole even though the crime was heinous.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
The fact that she was appointed by a Democrat increases the likely hood that she's racist against Blacks. A 17 year old should not receive life without parole even though the crime was heinous.
Click to expand...

You think she should have shown her true racist motive and sentence him to death? How about 10 years for each life he took? And none of this to run concurrently crap. 10 years for taking a life is pretty lenient.
 
calamity said:
Seems the judge had no choice.



Pesky that there Constitution. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it talk about life sentences or minors for that matter?
 
reinoe said:
He's a scumbag but also technically a child. While plenty of "children" get charged as adults, the fact that the argument that he was being manipulated by an adult needs to be taken into consideration. I suspect his unusually harsh sentence was racially motivated.
Click to expand...

Unusually harsh... :lol:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Just make all four of them into 30 or 40 year sentences but make them consecutive - problem solved and still no chance for parole until after 100 to 153 years. ;)
Click to expand...

Hell, look lenient (because he is a kid) and make it 15 years per sentence... that is 120.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So you are arguing that life in prison is cruel for everybody?
Click to expand...

No. But, the SCOTUS ruled that life in prison for crimes committed by juveniles is.
 
calamity said:
No. But, the SCOTUS ruled that life in prison for crimes committed by juveniles is.
Click to expand...

So it is not in the Constitution... got it.
 
calamity said:
It is if SCOTUS sees it as being in there. You should know that by now. :roll:
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution is it? Which Article?
 
calamity said:
Article Three covers how SCOTUS can choose to interpret Amendment 8. :roll:
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It just says that they have judicial power about cases that fall under the law and the Constitution.

It says nothing about interpret. Additionally, cruel and unusual punishment traditional referred to suffering, pain and humiliation.

None of those relate to life in prison.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No it doesn't. It just says that they have judicial power about cases that fall under the law and the Constitution.

It says nothing about interpret. Additionally, cruel and unusual punishment traditional referred to suffering, pain and humiliation.

None of those relate to life in prison.
Click to expand...
You don't get to interpret the Constitution. They do. There. Is that simple enough for you to understand the whys and hows?
 
calamity said:
You don't get to interpret the Constitution. They do. There. Is that simple enough for you to understand the whys and hows?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court decided that they get to interpret the Constitution in the Marbury Decision 1803. It is an implied power that they determined that they have. It is not in the Constitution, as you are well aware, otherwise you would have pointed it out already.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The Supreme Court decided that they get to interpret the Constitution in the Marbury Decision 1803. It is an implied power that they determined that they have. It is not in the Constitution, as you are well aware, otherwise you would have pointed it out already.
Click to expand...

It is what it is.
 
calamity said:
It is what it is.
Click to expand...

Oh my God!!!

I just did this huge HUGE post in Sports about GOAT and the different era's and it ****ing timed out and I lost it!!!

:lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Hell, look lenient (because he is a kid) and make it 15 years per sentence... that is 120.
Click to expand...

Check your math: 4 sentences of 15 years allows parole after about 50 to 60 years. With consecutive sentences you must serve all of the first (three in this case) sentences but are parole eligible after serving 1/3 to 2/3 of the last sentence.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Check your math: 4 sentences of 15 years allows parole after about 50 to 60 years. With consecutive sentences you must serve all of the first (three in this case) sentences but are parole eligible after serving 1/3 to 2/3 of the last sentence.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure somebody here said 8 sentences...

VanceMack said:
So since he has 8 life sentences, commuting life to say 40 years apiece to run consecutively should give the poor little feller the relief he is looking for.
Click to expand...

Just going off that... math really isn't that hard. ;)
 
reinoe said:
The fact that she was appointed by a Democrat increases the likely hood that she's racist against Blacks. A 17 year old should not receive life without parole even though the crime was heinous.
Click to expand...

OK let him out when he's 90. win win
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom