Man will spend six years in prison despite jury finding him 'not guilty'

[Independent voter]

Look at all the trash sites echoing this story

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rama...orgia&start=70

Not a single legit site, something is off.

[Noradin]

Being accused of another crime is a violation. That's what you don't get. Just the fact your name comes up is enough. I'd like to see this changed that you have to be convicted before your original probation can be revoked.

But then, how will the ensure their prisons are kept full?
Won't someone think of the kids of the poor prison wardens who might be out of a job if the the number of inmates drops?

[Eazy]

who think the best use of their time is fighting against political correctness and immigration.

They're also problems. For example - do you think that we(as society) shouldn't fight with hate-crimes because there are "bigger" crimes? That's ridiculous.

[Noradin]

The very concept of an Alfred Plea is silly IMO.

The very concept of allowing pleas is an abnomination in the first place.

[Dangg]

That guy looks guilty to me. The judge probably had the same feeling and he has better intuition to identify criminals than the jury that's for sure.

[Xarkan]

That guy looks guilty to me. The judge probably had the same feeling and he has better intuition to identify criminals than the jury that's for sure.

Looking guilty is not a crime. For some actors it is however a steady source of income.

[Dangg]

Looking guilty is not a crime. For some actors it is however a steady source of income.

Some people can recognize a thug when they see one.

[Xarkan]

Some people can recognize a thug when they see one.

And that is why it is a steady income

Thug A is a role. As is Thug B

That is all you get from looking like a thug. It doesnt make you one.

Edit: Obviously in the specific case he also had priors but i object to the 'looks guilty' part

[Hctaz]

Does he have a history of disproportionately sentencing minorities, or is it that he rules on more crimes involving minorities?

Like, he could just be a harsh judge in general rather than a harsh judge on minorities alone.

I mean I couldn't honestly tell you. From what others have posted it sounds like he's given lighter sentences to non-minority groups. All I can say that I've read is that he seems to dish out proportionally harsher punishments. I would assume that means they have records of non-minorities getting less harsh punishments but that could also be skewed because the one white dude he sentenced did something like get in a domestic fight with his friend over the last beer or something stupid.

[Deleted]

I mean I couldn't honestly tell you. From what others have posted it sounds like he's given lighter sentences to non-minority groups. All I can say that I've read is that he seems to dish out proportionally harsher punishments. I would assume that means they have records of non-minorities getting less harsh punishments but that could also be skewed because the one white dude he sentenced did something like get in a domestic fight with his friend over the last beer or something stupid.

So you have no proof, you just parrot what other posters said?
Ok,

If the story is real the judge should take a long vacation and the guy released but I really feel like parts of the story are missing here.
The guy pleaded guilty to a crime he did commit (which would mean he fucked with his parole) and him going to jail for it is correct.
The title is nothing but race baiting, nothing is proven that this has ANYTHING to do with the color of his skin.

Whole story seems fishy to me.

That being said, I am not an expert on American Law, so what do I know.

[RadmaKanow]

Reminds me one joke:

Inmate 1: Dude, how much you got?
Inmate 2: 12 years.
Inmate 1: For?
Inmate 2: Racist speech.
Inmate 1: Woot? 12 years for racist speech?
Inmate 2: Yeah, I was supposed to get 25 but judge took under consideration it wasn't me.

[Ghostpanther]

Its an injustice. The punishment should be proportional to the crime[/B]. The accused met the terms of his original sentence until something else randomly decided to fuck with his life. On top of that, this is a complete waste of the taxpayer's money. It was originally a non-violent petty crime that the perpetrator showed remorse for.

Furthermore, not guilty does actually mean innocent. If you don't like it, why don't you investigate the case yourself.

Breaking and entering a home is a more serous crime than just stealing the TV. Even if he had not taken anything. Such a situation can lead to deadly results if someone is in the home at the time.

[Deleted]

Care to show me where being accused of a crime is enough? I've been on probation myself and that was never part of the deal.

He did plead guilty to a crime, a lesser one but a crime non the less.
Again, something seems off on the story, missing a lot of information.

[Rudkobing]

And they certainly don't an interstellar future for humanity!

The Future is now.

[Deleted]

No, he tried to enter an Alford plea(this is different than a guilty plea) unsuccessfully. That was rejected so he never actually officially entered that plea, hence him going to trial. A jury then found him not guilty and the judge decided that even though he was innocent he still violated his probation somehow.

Well, he admitted he did a crime by entering an alford plea so "somehow" is a bit weird.
But like I said, I don't think we have the whole story here, just seems stringed together.

[Hctaz]

So you have no proof, you just parrot what other posters said?
Ok,

If the story is real the judge should take a long vacation and the guy released but I really feel like parts of the story are missing here.
The guy pleaded guilty to a crime he did commit (which would mean he fucked with his parole) and him going to jail for it is correct.
The title is nothing but race baiting, nothing is proven that this has ANYTHING to do with the color of his skin.

Whole story seems fishy to me.

That being said, I am not an expert on American Law, so what do I know.

Well he didn't plead "guilty-guilty" he pleaded "guilty" in an Alford Plea meaning which is an admission of guilt by an innocent person who knows that by pleading guilty their sentence would be reduced. Basically, he thought that he was going to get screwed by this judge one way or another and his lawyer advised him to taking this plea for a less severe sentence. Pleading not guilty and then being found guilty could have royally screwed him while an Alford plea allows him to plea guilty but still have a trial.

So like... it's a guilty plea from an innocent man trying to reduce his possible sentence should he be tried and convicted. It comes from a trial where, had the man pleaded not guilty and convicted, the death penalty was a real threat. His lawyer advised him to plead guilty so save his life but he was later pissed about it saying that he only pleaded guilty because he was told to or he'd die.

[Raelbo]

An expert opinion on this:

Niedrach didn't overturn or vacate an aquittal.

From what I could find, Ramad Chatman was on probation at the time of the armed robbery in which he was implicated. Chatman initially tried to enter an Alford plea -- pleading guilty while maintaining innocence -- on a reduced charge, but the Court refused the plea deal.

At trial on the armed robbery charge, Chatman was acquitted. An acquittal means only that the high burden of proof -- beyond reasonable doubt -- was not satisfied. It doesn't mean the accused did not commit the crime. As such the Judge was within his power to use the fact he was brought to trial at all, meaning the burden of probable cause was at least satisfied, as evidence of a probation violation.

Proving a probation violation requires only a preponderance of the evidence standard, higher than probable cause, and you are not entitled to a jury trial on that either. As such he was found to have violated his probation. Again the judge did not vacate his acquittal since the judge has no power to do so -- see US v. Ball, 163 US 662 (1896). But the evidence in the trial may still be used against him to support other charges, such as a probation violation.

In layman's terms, the court could not find that Chatman actually committed the crime he was accused of, but there was sufficient evidence to show that what he did do violated the terms of his parole.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

How awful. We need to take a stand against this! Meanwhile we have angry people who think the best use of their time is fighting against political correctness and immigration.

Why not fight against all three?

[Ivanstone]

Breaking and entering a home is a more serous crime than just stealing the TV. Even if he had not taken anything. Such a situation can lead to deadly results if someone is in the home at the time.

If its a serious crime then why did he only get probation in the first place?

- - - Updated - - -

Some people can recognize a thug when they see one.

Yeah look at him with his black skin. Obviously a thug.

[Deleted]

If its a serious crime then why did he only get probation in the first place?

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah look at him with his black skin. Obviously a thug.

Please stop your race baiting bullshit.
A white guy can be a thug, a orange guy can be a thug (trump) a Chinese guy can be a thug.
Just because you have some shitty agenda in your head doesn't mean all of us do.