Doesn't matter if he HAD to register as a sex offender, he didn't want to register as one on his own accord, which would make it seem like he knowingly and willingly commited a sexual offense. Sort of like the Tookie situation...He could have admitted to those murders, but he believed he didn't do it, and was not going to admit, no matter the circumstances, that he murdered those people.
Black teen receives 10 Years imprisonment for oral sex
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
I don't believe you.
1. It doesn't matter because he was already found GUILTY.
2. There ARE provisions in the law that allow you to plead guilty AND fight the plea at the same time.
3. Again, they offered him the deal before AND after the conviction. And like I said he was already found guilty.
BS. They think he deserves something. If they didn't think he deserved jail time why did they prosecute him to begin with? Why offer FIVE YEARS OF JAIL TIME INSTEAD OF TEN?
I don't think he will. I hope he does, but I don't think so. The reason I don't think so is because too many people are passing the buck right now and not taking responsibility. In addition, when they redesigned the law, they left NO PROVISION for him to get out, and the rewriting of the law was because of his case.
see above.
1. It doesn't matter because he was already found GUILTY.
2. There ARE provisions in the law that allow you to plead guilty AND fight the plea at the same time.
3. Again, they offered him the deal before AND after the conviction. And like I said he was already found guilty.
BS. They think he deserves something. If they didn't think he deserved jail time why did they prosecute him to begin with? Why offer FIVE YEARS OF JAIL TIME INSTEAD OF TEN?
I don't think he will. I hope he does, but I don't think so. The reason I don't think so is because too many people are passing the buck right now and not taking responsibility. In addition, when they redesigned the law, they left NO PROVISION for him to get out, and the rewriting of the law was because of his case.
see above.
I actually did read the link, and seriously I did read it. Ok since he pleaded innocent, and ended up being convicted guilty, should he still accept the bargain, so that he could be free? Then again he'd be living a lie. They messed him up in a bad way, obviously from his skin color, leaving him no option but to accept the bargain, it's not just a matter of pride, it's a matter of believing the truth. I would have done the same thing, but since I'm not in his position, I can't really speak as of now.
Yes. They already sentenced him to ten years WITHOUT the possibility of parole. They came with five years before and after the conviction. Take the five, get out early and move on (like the other guys did) or take the five and fight while serving your time.
By pleading not guilty he would be living a lie. He broke the law, and they had him on taping breaking the law.
What IS the truth? That he didn't have sexual relations with the girl? They have it on tape.
And you would be an idiot for doing so.
By pleading not guilty he would be living a lie. He broke the law, and they had him on taping breaking the law.
What IS the truth? That he didn't have sexual relations with the girl? They have it on tape.
And you would be an idiot for doing so.
OK get back to this at the bottom
I was going to use the rest of the US and our morals but then I'd be digressing. I might edit if I change my mind, in hopes that I can get my point across and not digress.
The Truth is that he was within the Age range to have sex with a girl her age. He didn't deny having sexual relations with the girl, the truth is that he is not a sex offender. Would you like to live with a rep around the community labeled as a sex offender? I sure wouldn't, because it was a consensual act.
I remember a thread a while back, and I made a suggestion about accepting something, and you said "why don't you just accept the mark then?" Can I ask the same for you? You see where I'm getting at?
I was going to use the rest of the US and our morals but then I'd be digressing. I might edit if I change my mind, in hopes that I can get my point across and not digress.
The Truth is that he was within the Age range to have sex with a girl her age. He didn't deny having sexual relations with the girl, the truth is that he is not a sex offender. Would you like to live with a rep around the community labeled as a sex offender? I sure wouldn't, because it was a consensual act.
I remember a thread a while back, and I made a suggestion about accepting something, and you said "why don't you just accept the mark then?" Can I ask the same for you? You see where I'm getting at?
He was within the age range to have sexual intercourse with her. He was NOT within her range to have oral sex with her.
So why plead not guilty?
The truth is, the spirit of the law may or may not be applicable in this case, and he may not be the type of person the law was designed to punish, but because of his conviction he is a sex offender. Do I think he is one? No, but it doesn't matter what I think.
No, but he pleaded NOT GUILTY but was found GUILTY. And because of the conviction he was REQUIRED to register. Again, you have no point.
This is a fallacy on your part. And if you want to go the spiritual route we can do so. Did this man sin when he had relations with her? Yes or no? No need to go into detail just give me a yes or no. If you answer YES you have no logical reason for even comparing the mark of the beast to this. If you answer no you are a hypocrite.
So why plead not guilty?
The truth is, the spirit of the law may or may not be applicable in this case, and he may not be the type of person the law was designed to punish, but because of his conviction he is a sex offender. Do I think he is one? No, but it doesn't matter what I think.
No, but he pleaded NOT GUILTY but was found GUILTY. And because of the conviction he was REQUIRED to register. Again, you have no point.
This is a fallacy on your part. And if you want to go the spiritual route we can do so. Did this man sin when he had relations with her? Yes or no? No need to go into detail just give me a yes or no. If you answer YES you have no logical reason for even comparing the mark of the beast to this. If you answer no you are a hypocrite.
This is similar to the Salem Witch Hunt, is it not? I know the system has significantly changed since then. One had to admit or lie about being a witch in order for them to have a chance at living the rest of their lives. Those that may have not been witches, denied the bargain of living their life as long as they admitted it, but so they chose death. So then, he would lie in order to become free. I know he's already be found guilty, but then why lie and go along with it?
Actually, you can compare it. Just bare this quick moment with me brother man. I know you're opinion on the matter could mean little or no importance in the eyes of the court, but why not change the focus on the man Above. Actually H, you can compare this to countries that persecute our own brethren. My mother told me, when she was working in Saudi Arabia, that the executioner would give the Christian in Persecution to give up the name of His God, either to denounce Jesus or Claim allah, and many forfeited the name of Christ. You might say well this has nothing to do with Jesus, IMO I think it does. If a man accepts denying his God, and a man accepts being guilty even though, beyond what man considers the Law of the Land, which is corrupt, what purpose is their to live freely, if you're going to live a lie? Pretty much accepting the Mark of the Beast.
Actually, you can compare it. Just bare this quick moment with me brother man. I know you're opinion on the matter could mean little or no importance in the eyes of the court, but why not change the focus on the man Above. Actually H, you can compare this to countries that persecute our own brethren. My mother told me, when she was working in Saudi Arabia, that the executioner would give the Christian in Persecution to give up the name of His God, either to denounce Jesus or Claim allah, and many forfeited the name of Christ. You might say well this has nothing to do with Jesus, IMO I think it does. If a man accepts denying his God, and a man accepts being guilty even though, beyond what man considers the Law of the Land, which is corrupt, what purpose is their to live freely, if you're going to live a lie? Pretty much accepting the Mark of the Beast.
Explain your question.
First of all, if he is "sinning" he caused HIMSELF to be in that position. He is NOT being PERSECUTED because of his religious convictions, rather, he is being PROSECUTED for BREAKING what was THE LAW at the time of the incident. Remember, the mark of the beast will be FORCED upon you BECAUSE of your religious beliefs. This guy is in his situation because he CHOSE to do something that you say is a sin, so why are you comparing the two? Remember, in this mans case, pleading innocent IS living a lie, because he DID break the law and have him on tape. So why LIE in this instance?
Remember, this man was CONVICTED, and because of the conviction he is required to register as a sex offender. If being labeled a "sex offender" is "living a lie" he might as well take the 5 years they offered AFTER the fact because he was already labled a sex offender.
So, my question to you, which will further destory your argument, is a simple one. How is pleading guilty living a lie?
First of all, if he is "sinning" he caused HIMSELF to be in that position. He is NOT being PERSECUTED because of his religious convictions, rather, he is being PROSECUTED for BREAKING what was THE LAW at the time of the incident. Remember, the mark of the beast will be FORCED upon you BECAUSE of your religious beliefs. This guy is in his situation because he CHOSE to do something that you say is a sin, so why are you comparing the two? Remember, in this mans case, pleading innocent IS living a lie, because he DID break the law and have him on tape. So why LIE in this instance?
Remember, this man was CONVICTED, and because of the conviction he is required to register as a sex offender. If being labeled a "sex offender" is "living a lie" he might as well take the 5 years they offered AFTER the fact because he was already labled a sex offender.
So, my question to you, which will further destory your argument, is a simple one. How is pleading guilty living a lie?
