White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'

[sirs]

Bt, you can opine to try and reinforce your original conclusions, based on the circumstances present, all you want.  Square 1 still remains undebunked.  Law still trumps feelings.  At least in the U.S., under this Constitution.  And the 2nd judge accepted the plea, regardless of why you think he did so

You were just as wrong in this thread, as you were in trying to opine religious bigotry with the mosque

[BT]

Law still trumps feelings.

Right. Which is why i posted the law.

Not only the rules for the PA courts which clearly states that a judge is under NO obligation to accept a plea, but also referenced the 14th amendment which enshrines equal protection under the law.

The unaltered version of your story or an embedded link also is where it was stated that the second judge allowed the plea based on the clean record of the defendant.

I have sourced my opinion.

You simply have huffed and puffed.

[sirs]

Bt, you're posting gibberish, in the sense no one is arguing that the Judge can't take advancate of how PA law is written.  A Judge SHOULD rule via the law.  THAT's how the Constitution works.  THAT's how the judicial system is supposed to work.

Back to square 1
Fact, Judge made a deroggatory racial comment in his ruling
Fact, judge disregarded a plea, mutually arranged between the Defense & Prosecution, with no lawful reason (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue, and your continuing to harp on it as if it is, simply undermines your own subsequent conclusions)
Deductive reasoning presents a reason by the Judge that was racially motivated, and not bound in any law, as the judge provided none, your defensive efforts, not withstanding
Fact, judge subsequently recused himself
Fact, a 2nd judge accepted the plea

[BT]

Deductive reasoning presents a reason that was racially motivated, and not bound in any law, as the judge provided none, your defensive efforts, not withstanding

Nonsense. The reason he rejected the plea was because based on personal observation, he saw a preponderance of favorable pleas given to white guys and unfavorable ones given to blacks. You are familiar with the US Constitution? You are familiar with it's various amendments? You do understand that one of them codifies equal treatment under the law? Lawful reason plus some.

How can you claim that he disregarded the plea with no lawful reason, when the law clearly states he doesn't have to accept the plea, period.

[sirs]

That's your guess, and it was nothing more than a perception, not founded by any law or even studies.  That's NOT the function of a judge.  Yes, he "can", but that's not the design of the judicial system, or the Constitution, for Judges to make rulings based on nothing more than some "personal observation" or feelings

VALIDATED again, by the fact that he did recuse himself, and a 2nd judge DID accept the plea. 

[BT]

White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'

I'm sure that is why you modified the contents of the story. Because the judge was not following some imagined protocol you made up out of thin air.

No the reason the judge recused himself is because he used a racially charged descriptor that was out of place for a judge.

That was the original point of your modification.

You know the whole reverse the situation thing to point out hypocrisy or something.

Meanwhile you continue to deflect the possibility that the judges observations were correct, that blacks have a tendency to be offered less favorable plea bargains than whites. And if that was correct, that would violate the spirit and the letter of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Which would give plenty of legal justification to reject the deal.


So what have we learned.

We have learned in PA a judge does not have to accept a plea, no matter his reasoning.

We have learned that the second judge allowed the plea because the defendant had no priors.

We have learned that the prosecutors office denies any favoritism, but we haven't learned whether an independent analysis is in the works, as it should be.

And we have learned that clicking through to links on sirs posts is now something those interested in the truth need to do.

 

[sirs]

White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'

I'm sure that is why you modified the contents of the story. Because the judge was not following some imagined protocol you made up out of thin air.  No the reason the judge recused himself is because he used a racially charged descriptor that was out of place for a judge.

and.................?

Here's a hint....that it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that said judgements following, especially in this case, were also likely racially inappropriate and out of place for a judge.  He didn't make those comments in a bubble.  Especially when you consider he provided no other rationale, outside of his gut feelings on the matter, Especially when you consider that the subsequent judge did accept said plea

Are you finished being debunked yet?

Meanwhile you continue to deflect the possibility ....

I'm not going by your defense of possiblity.  I'm going by events as they stand.  IF, your judge made no such racial slur, THEN you might have a defensive leg to stand on.  IF the judge cited some specific research backing up his feelings, THEN you might have a leg to stand on.  IF the 2nd judge also didn't accept the plea, THEN, you might have yet another defensive leg to stand on. 

So what have we learned.  We have learned in PA a judge does not have to accept a plea, no matter his reasoning.

Never in question, but why stop a good strawman arguement

And we have learned that clicking through to links on sirs posts is now something those interested in the truth need to do.

Close, but no cigar.  That would be a good deflection arguement

[BT]

Are you finished being debunked yet?

Let me know when you start with a valid debunking.

But in the meantime, perhaps you should go through your links and see if there is any reason given by the second judge to accept the plea.

Then perhaps you should look at other pronouncements by the first judge that deal with race and see whether there is a pattern to his favoritism of members of his race.

Thirdly The bad choice of phrasing by judge #1 does not negate the possibility that what he saw as a pattern favoritism towards whites didn't exist. And those are the facts as they stand.

Quote from: BT on Today at 11:03:20 AM
So what have we learned.  We have learned in PA a judge does not have to accept a plea, no matter his reasoning.

Never in question, but why stop a good strawman arguement

Sure it was. Half this thread is devoted to your claim that the judges rejection of the plea was unlawful. Are you now abandoning that argument?

Quote from: BT on Today at 11:03:20 AM
And we have learned that clicking through to links on sirs posts is now something those interested in the truth need to do.

Close, but no cigar.  That would be a good deflection arguement

Well, i can't speak for others, but i certainly plan to verify that what you copy and paste from an article is in fact what was written originally.

[sirs]

IF, you had been paying attention, vs trying to pigeon hole me in this thread, like you tried in the whole mosque debacle, "half of this thread" was in demonstrating that despite having the legal right to do X, doesn't make doing X the right thing to do

The other half was in demonstrating how this Judge's comments were not made in some bubble of accidental innocence.  So despite the "possibility" that he is a perfectly rational, God fearing, bible thumping member of the tea party, his rhetoric combined with all those legs you have no standing with, clearly debunks much of your opinion, on this matter

But by all means, continue to whittle what toothpicks you still have left.  And please, read the links.  That's why they're posted

[BT]

IF, you had been paying attention, vs trying to pigeon hole me in this thread, like you tried in the whole mosque debacle, "half of this thread" was in demonstrating that despite having the legal right to do X, doesn't make doing X the right thing to do

I'm sure that is why you used terms like lawful, legal and other such terminology to indicate that the judge did not have the authority to reject the plea.

The other half was in demonstrating how this Judge's comments were not made in some bubble of accidental innocence.  So despite the "possibility" that he is a perfectly rational, God fearing, bible thumping member of the tea party, his rhetoric combined with all those legs you have no standing with, clearly debunks much of your opinion, on this matter

Oh. You can give examples of other racist pronouncements he has made from the bench? Why haven't you shared this with us before?

[sirs]

I'm sure you'll be able to find where I posted that the Judge didn't have the legal authority.  NOT where i referenced that he provided no lawful reason, NOT where I referenced what the lawful, and more so Constitutional parameters of a Judge are SUPPOSED to be.  No, show us were I claimed the judge had no legal authority to deny the plea.  That's your claim, let's see it, minus the 6 steps to Kevin Bacon tact

And as far as your other "request", since this was the only current story reported on this Judge, we're gonna have to go by it, in full context, minus your "possibility bubble".  Your legs remain missing, btw

[BT]

Please explain the difference between lawful and legal.

And as far as your other "request", since this was the only current story reported on this Judge, we're gonna have to go by it, in full context, minus your "possibility bubble".  Your legs remain missing, btw

Another race issue arose last week before Williams when Freedom Bey, a black man from Larimer convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, asked for a new trial because the jury was all white.

Williams denied the request, saying that he agreed jurors probably didn't understand Bey's rough upbringing, but that some issues transcend cultural differences.

"Things are not perfect, but some of us manage to get through it without killing people, without dealing drugs, without hurting other people," the judge said last week.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_702927.html

This was referenced by the link to your unaltered MSNBC story.

[sirs]

Please explain the difference between lawful and legal.

There is no real difference.  If anything, legal has a more technical component, I suppose.  The issue is in how I applied the terms, and where.  I'll still wait patienty for your presenting where I opined that the Judge had no legal/lawful authority to deny the plea agreement

[BT]

Fact, judge disregarded a plea, mutually arranged between the Defense & Prosecution, with no lawful reason (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue, and your continuing to harp on it as if it is, simply undermines your own subsequent conclusions)

If the law says the judge can reject a plea,with no conditions set forth in that law, why continue to harp on the fact that he gave no lawful reason, when a) he did, unless you are saying the constitution and it's amendments are not the law of the land and b) he doesn't have to give a reason, no matter your feelings on the issue.

[sirs]

Fact, judge disregarded a plea, mutually arranged between the Defense & Prosecution, with no lawful reason (yes, he can lawfully do that, but that was never the issue, and your continuing to harp on it as if it is, simply undermines your own subsequent conclusions)

[/color]