TOF
Regular Member
Yes
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Tuscon AZ shooter enters Plea....Not Guilty?????
- Thread starter Shawn Mitola
- Start date
Yes
wrightme
Regular Member
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
Well, being the kind of person that I am, I would have never plead "NOT GUILTY" to a crime that I clearly committed in front of (potentially) hundreds of witnesses, despite the fact that my lawyer might try to get me to do so. I have enough personal integrity to stand up and account for my actions (even if they were something similar to Laughner's.) I wouldn't go around trying to blame society, or someone else, for what were clearly my actions.
As for your flippant "...looney and stay in a hospital for a month and leave..." statement, just watch. I have seen far too many "incompetent" people get release back into society after committing heinous crimes after a relatively short period of time. I predict that, if successful with the insanity defense, he will be declared "cured" and released within five years, easy.
I guess the thing that most aggravates me is that the little punk didn't have the guts to own up to what he did -- although he put an awful lot of time and planning into doing it.
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
If we have a shred of common-sense, we will always proceed from the viewpoint that guilt is in question whenever government scoops up a citizen and begins the prosecution process. And, demand that government prove, every time, why they think is guilt is beyond question. Every time, no exceptions.
Of course, the point is not that he is or isn't guilty. The point is to prevent government from successfully prosecuting the innocent.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Just to clarify, you'd be happier if the judge summarily entered a "Guilty as charged" plea on behalf of the accused and and not even bother with something silly like proving guilt?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Why, yes. Of course. Then, for those pesky people who actually enter a not-guilty plea, we can just authorize judges to direct the jury to return a guilty verdict. You know, like, William Penn's judges.
What the hell, all this due process stuff is costing us a fortune. Just skip the arraignment and have the cops conduct the suspect straight to prison and let the warden determine the sentence according to how long he wants to keep him. Problem solved. What's the matter with you anyway?
ETA: Then just delete from the 5th Amendment the words, "nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" [no smiley]
Last edited:
So, being able to form a plan and follow it through precludes someone from insanity? Seems to me that many of the very best schemers are a bit crazy in their own way.
wrightme
Regular Member
It is typical for a judge to enter a "Not Guilty" plea for a defendant in certain instances. For instance, if there is an obvious confusion by the defendant as to what making that plea means. It happened where I live recently.
Defendant plead "Guilty, I guess...."
Judge entered a "not guilty" plea, and spoke to the lawyer a bit.
There is NO indication that this is the case here, as the only articles I have seen clearly state that the lawyer entered the plea for the defendant.
Defendant plead "Guilty, I guess...."
Judge entered a "not guilty" plea, and spoke to the lawyer a bit.
There is NO indication that this is the case here, as the only articles I have seen clearly state that the lawyer entered the plea for the defendant.
Last edited:
2
28kfps
Guest
Great discussion. The laws supposed to protect the people and accurlety find and punish the correct villain. He was tackled with the firearm and it’s still hot barrel from rapid firing over 30 rounds in his hands as he was reaching for another fully loaded magazine. Therefore, they have the right guy. Many witness saw a premeditated mass murder. No issue, no action, no mental state, no amount of money can justify his action. Our system should be set up where in such situations punishment is applied within a week.
Shawn Mitola
Regular Member
Now I question the credibility of the source but if I am correct there was a law trying to be passed in Texas that said that if there were 3 or more credible witnesses to your crime that you skip to the front of the line on death row. Not that it would ever pass but what an awesome idea. An express lane to the execution chamber.
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
is that not for the jury to decide?
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
outstanding. so the bloods can go out, shoot up a competing gang member, then all line up to the cops and bear witness against any other competing gang member, BOOM, headshot.
great play.
NRAMARINE
Regular Member
He'll probably pi$$ himself at the psych eval, act goofy and get put in a hospital forever.
rickc1962
Regular Member
They will find him guilty, whether he is insane or not should be irrelevant to his punishment, BUT it won`t! Maybe i`m to 1800s` but my thoughts are, they try him within 90 days, once they find him guilty, he has 90 more day for appeal, when he losses that, then within 30 days they take him to the county courthouse, walk him up the stairs to the gallows, put a noose around his neck, and hing him to hes` dead for all to see. It won`t happen that way, and whether he spends the rest of his life in prison, a mental hospital, or he gets the death penalty, we as tax payers will still have to pay for him for the rest of his life. And even on death row that could be 30 years.
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
Just to clarify, why was he NOT allowed to enter a plea for himself? That is my primary question. Is it standard procedure to take the possibility of entering a plea for oneself away from a defendant? I ask because I do not know, your 'tude nothwithstanding.
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
Why, yes. Of course. Then, for those pesky people who actually enter a not-guilty plea, we can just authorize judges to direct the jury to return a guilty verdict. You know, like, William Penn's judges.
What the hell, all this due process stuff is costing us a fortune. Just skip the arraignment and have the cops conduct the suspect straight to prison and let the warden determine the sentence according to how long he wants to keep him. Problem solved. What's the matter with you anyway?
ETA: Then just delete from the 5th Amendment the words, "nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" [no smiley]
Your smart-aleck sarcasm aside, I'm still waiting for an answer to the judge entering a plea. It was a legitimate question, though admittedly not worded well. And, for the record, I did not imply that someone's "not guilty" plea should be overturned by the judge. You certainly setup that straw man well.
Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV
Regular Member
Wrightme:
Thank you for a coherent answer. Much more useful than the asinine pontificating that some others have taken it upon themselves to do. I was wondering if something like that might be the case, but having never encountered this before, I was not sure.
Thanks again.
2
28kfps
Guest
In our civilized US legal system and on paper I suppose you are correct. Not that anyone would want this to happen however if we were to see a man brutally raping our daughter would we need 12 people to tell us he is guilty?
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
Now, just to clarify, it is NOT a fact that the judge entered a plea for the defendant in this case. In fact, the articles I found indicate that the lawyer did enter the plea.