Message from @JustTom
Discord ID: 510251420960817157
they would if they started being left to suffer from their bad decisions. The problem is they've infested everything so badly that the rest of us would suffer too at this point.
when ever shit goes bad from them its just cuz it wasnt done right
Well, after all, TRUE COMMUNISM has never been tried before.
they never own up to shit and they never learn from their mistakes they just blame it on others
and FEMINIST SNOW PLOWING, well that wasn't actually Feminism.
democratic communism tho
lol i hadnt heard about that lol
and dressing up all in black and attacking people on a regular basis while starting riots... Well, that... That's obviously the Alt-Right Nazis at fault for showing up and stopping that. My god, it's like they don't even support rioting and burning trash and attacking people! ... That is, people who are on the right... not attacking the violent rioters in black, attacking the violent rioters in black is bad.
and if not the violence was ok since it was against tyrany
as for this judge. I support him 100%, because if you read the article, all his cases were going to be re-heard in january anyhow... so the only thing he's actually done is give the voters 2 months of exactly what they asked for, letting all of the brats free, and see where that goes.
ok i just kinda skimed it
https://i.redd.it/lnpvaz7yp4x11.jpg vice going down in flames
but also thats a good lesson but idk if a judge should do somthing like that, if they might b a violent criminal, keep em and try them
if 2 months later, everything is great, then the new judge steps up and starts handing out sentences his way anyhow, so no harm, no foul.
If 2 months later, everything is fucked, then it kinda tells the voters they probably fucked up, didn't they? And it sets a standard for the new judge, so he'll either be forced to keep letting violent teens go wild, or have to step up and be just as strict as the last judge (which they'll hate).
i agree with what hes doing idk if he has the right to
He does though.
He's the judge.
i guess, idk im not to educated on this, it just kinda seems sketch relesing suspected violent crimials
since they're all having their hearings in january anyhow, all he's done is decide wether to hold them in jail until then, or release them until the hearings.
Judges decide stuff like that all the time.
oh
nm
i read the article differently
"The cases will be heard again on 4 January, when Judge Devlin's replacement, Natalia Oakes, takes the bench."
kk ty
as i said i just skimed it
there's multiple hearings before the actual trial, often many cases decided even before going to trial.
ik
i skimed it and just saw this 'In a statement, Sharon Watkins Jones, of the Texas ACLU, said: "It is improper for a judge to make orders motivated by partisan interests or spite as a result of his political loss."
that will teach me to actually read things
ty for the claification
he didn't just have like a hundred trials back to back and tell everyone they can go free, these were just pretrial hearings and he let them all off without bail. Nothing more.
Like I said, it's almost neglect on the surface and as a hard liner, he's on record as him and 1 other judge, collectively, being responsible for 1 in 5 of all juvenilles in jail.
This is really just a solid and fair reaction of "This is really what you want? ... Okay, fine. I'll let the guy you voted in handle it then. Have a nice day!"
if it was actually their trials, the constitution would protect them from having another trial. Double jeopardy. Once they got off, they're free and clear, even if they're disgustingly guilty.
But as I said. not their trials, just a hearing.
k that makes sense that quote was pretty misleading
neat little part of our legal system we learned from the English Aristocracy. Where if they didn't like the outcome of a trial against a peasant, they could bring them back in for trial again over the same charges.
Yeah This article is clearly skewed to try to paint him as just letting major criminals free out of spite. Yes what he did may be slightly spiteful, but it's in no way illegal or even immoral.
This is why you always have to be careful about bais in articles like this. And why I was so eager to just smile and say this guy is a badass.
If any judge actually walked into a bunch of trials and let violent criminals off free, I'd absolutely be pissed and hate that guy.
But there's a HUGE difference.