Remember The Judge That Screwed My Family?

[BFritz21]

Remember how I posted about that judge that made the worst ruling in the history of rulings and screwed my family?

Well, maybe he is just that stupid because he just sentenced a man to only 25 years for raping a 6-year-old and giving her gonorrhea:

Quote:The man convicted of raping a 6-year old girl who contracted gonorrhea from him was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Monday.
Christopher Esper, 19, was convicted of first degree rape of a child in April but the jury that returned a guilty verdict could not agree on a sentence to recommend.
The possible sentences for his offense were either 20 to 50 years, or life. Prior to going to trial, Esper was offered a 20-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, but he opted to face a jury, even though he had confessed his guilt to investigators from the Covington Police Department. His public defenders on Monday urged Kenton County Circuit Judge Gregory Bartlett to choose the minimum sentence of 20 years since that was the original offer from the Commonwealth's Attorney Office.
"The day before the trial he could have taken 20 years and spared all of us - not the least of which is this child from taking the stand," Bartlett said. "He took his chances and he lost. You can't expect me to forget the trial and pretend it didn't happen."
Bartlett said all that he would consider in the defendant's favor was his age. Esper was 18 at the time of the crime and is now 19. His victim was 6 and was 7 when she took the stand, shaking, according to prosecutors who also said that the girl will suffer for the rest of her life because of the act.
The girl testified at trial that Esper raped her in the bathroom while she was in his care. A doctor from Cincinnati Children's Hospital testified that after the rape, the girl tested positive for gonorrhea.
Esper also tested positive for the sexually transmitted disease.
Bartlett sentenced Esper to 25 years in prison.

25 years when the options were 25 to 50 years, or life?

This little girl testified, so she is obviously old enough to remember it and to have it impact her for the rest of his life, yet this guy only has to serve 25 years?!

Then Bartlett acts like he brought the hammer down on him because he didn't settle when he only added on FIVE YEARS to the minimum sentence.

I'm wondering if he knew all the parties involved and saw them all the day of the incident like he did in my case.

Bartlett's a criminal and should be disbarred.

[Benton]

I don't know how far out that is for the sentence, but I'd have gone with life. Just about anyone who sexually assaults a child should get life. The chance of a repeat offense is too high.

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 12:13 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't know how far out that is for the sentence, but I'd have gone with life. Just about anyone who sexually assaults a child should get life. The chance of a repeat offense is too high.

Especially that young when she has enough of her brain developed to realize what happened.

I can't even describe how pissed I am.

What makes this judge think he can make bullshit rulings just because he thinks he's a God?

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 12:25 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Especially that young when she has enough of her brain developed to realize what happened.

I can't even describe how pissed I am.

What makes this judge think he can make bullshit rulings just because he thinks he's a God?

Don't judges have to get elected or something?  Did you vote for him? Who ran against him? What was his opponent's stance on pedophile rapists?

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 12:28 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Don't judges have to get elected or something?  Did you vote for him?  Who ran against him?  What was his opponent's stance on pedophile rapists?

Wasn't anyone running against him.

I wrote someone in just on the principle that I couldn't vote for him.

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 12:41 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Wasn't anyone running against him.

I wrote someone in just on the principle that I couldn't vote for him.

Ouch.  Well, you tried.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-14-2016, 12:07 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Remember how I posted about that judge that made the worst ruling in the history of rulings and screwed my family?

No, please enlighten us.

Quote:Well, maybe he is just that stupid because he just sentenced a man to only 25 years for raping a 6-year-old and giving her gonorrhea:


25 years when the options were 25 to 50 years, or life?

This little girl testified, so she is obviously old enough to remember it and to have it impact her for the rest of his life, yet this guy only has to serve 25 years?!  

Then Bartlett acts like he brought the hammer down on him because he didn't settle when he only added on FIVE YEARS to the minimum sentence.

I'm wondering if he knew all the parties involved and saw them all the day of the incident like he did in my case.

Bartlett's a criminal and should be disbarred.

25 years for a first adult offense is actually quite a significant prison sentence.  Especially for an eighteen year old.  I am mortally sick of ***** amateurs who think they know about the criminal justice system because they watched an episode of Law and Order.  Are you upset with the People because they offered the guy twenty years in exchange for a guilty plea?

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 01:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, please enlighten us.

Should say "please enlighten ME because I started threads about it on the old board that had lots of responses, and people even brought it up in unrelated threads, so I'm pretty sure most other people remember it.

Anyways......  


This judge had known all three of us for years.  I had been in his house.  I started over his son in football.  His daughter took care of me when I was drunk one night.  He saw all three of us the day of the wreck.  

Other factors show that he had no business ruling on the trial or even being a part of it.

Furthermore, he ruled that the driver's parents had no way of knowing that he would drink, even though they had caught him drinking in the cemetery before, or drive a car to the cemetery, even though he had driven with his father back in the cemetery before, and related it to a kid's parents being unable to foresee that he would bring a gun to school and shoot his classmates.

Had he ever brought a gun to school before?  Had he ever been violent at school?  If not, how could those two situations be related in terms of the parents foreseeing their actions?

(06-14-2016, 01:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 25 years for a first adult offense is actually quite a significant prison sentence.  Especially for an eighteen year old.  I am mortally sick of ***** amateurs who think they know about the criminal justice system because they watched an episode of Law and Order.  Are you upset with the People because they offered the guy twenty years in exchange for a guilty plea?

So, if this guy happened to be 25 or 30, a 25-year prison sentence would be justified?

Look at the factors I mentioned with her being impacted for the rest of her life and explain why he should get off that light just because he's 18.

I guess I should have expected this kind of response from someone who cheers for a rapist (don't say you don't cheer for him because he's the center of the team, so, by cheering for the team, you cheer for him).

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 01:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I guess I should have expected this kind of response from someone who cheers for a rapist (don't say you don't cheer for him because he's the center of the team, so, by cheering for the team, you cheer for him).

Well that says it all right there.  If you don't think rapists should be put to death then you are cheering for them and their rapey ways.  

EDIT: Oh wait, you're talking about Pig Ben. Meh, the Bengals had a guy who probably statutorily raped underaged girls after plying them with alcohol so I guess Bengals fans cheer for pedo-rapists. Ouch, we're the scum of the earth.

Hell, our pedo-rapist enjoys near saintlike status with us after he died during one of his insane domestic violence issues. I'm probably going to get banned for pointing out what hypocrisy this is, but so be it.

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 01:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Well that says it all right there.  If you don't think rapists should be put to death then you are cheering for them and their rapey ways.  

How did you extrapolate that from what I posted?

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 01:40 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: How did you extrapolate that from what I posted?

See the edit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-14-2016, 01:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Should say "please enlighten ME because I started threads about it on the old board that had lots of responses, and people even brought it up in unrelated threads, so I'm pretty sure most other people remember it.

Anyways......  


This judge had known all three of us for years.  I had been in his house.  I started over his son in football.  His daughter took care of me when I was drunk one night.  He saw all three of us the day of the wreck.  

Other factors show that he had no business ruling on the trial or even being a part of it.

Furthermore, he ruled that the driver's parents had no way of knowing that he would drink, even though they had caught him drinking in the cemetery before, or drive a car to the cemetery, even though he had driven with his father back in the cemetery before, and related it to a kid's parents being unable to foresee that he would bring a gun to school and shoot his classmates.

Had he ever brought a gun to school before?  Had he ever been violent at school?  If not, how could those two situations be related in terms of the parents foreseeing their actions?

Not sure about the details of the case, but if what you're saying is true and he knew you and other principles involved personally he should have definitely recused himself. 

Quote:So, if this guy happened to be 25 or 30, a 25-year prison sentence would be justified?

More justified, yes.  A person's brain isn't fully matured until their mid twenties.  As previously stated, a criminal history would also be a huge determining factor.

Quote:Look at the factors I mentioned with her being impacted for the rest of her life and explain why he should get off that light just because he's 18.

Dude, get off your high horse.  I deal with victims of crime almost every day of my life.  I understand far better than you what this entails.  I'm pointing out that 25 years is a significant amount of time for a first time adult offense.  I've seen negligent manslaughter cases get far less time.  You think the dead person wasn't impacted?

Quote:I guess I should have expected this kind of response from someone who cheers for a rapist (don't say you don't cheer for him because he's the center of the team, so, by cheering for the team, you cheer for him).

Ahaha, you're such a tool.  I've worked my ass off only to watch a man who robbed and beat an old lady to near death get off with a slap on the wrist.  I've seen real injustice in many forms, this isn't one of those times.  This guy is a POS and he's going to prison for a long time.  Go back to watching law and order and thinking you know a damn thing about the criminal justice system you clueless prat.

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 01:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Well that says it all right there.  If you don't think rapists should be put to death then you are cheering for them and their rapey ways.  

EDIT:  Oh wait, you're talking about Pig Ben.  Meh, the Bengals had a guy who probably statutorily raped underaged girls after plying them with alcohol so I guess Bengals fans cheer for pedo-rapists.  Ouch, we're the scum of the earth.

Hell, our pedo-rapist enjoys near saintlike status with us after he died during one of his insane domestic violence issues.  I'm probably going to get banned for pointing out what hypocrisy this is, but so be it.

Chris Henry bought the girls alcohol, which might have been wrong, but he never raped anyone, which is evident by the girl changing her story.

Furthermore, Chris had changed his life and wasn't given the Saint-like status until after his death, and he wasn't the center of our team, either.

[Millhouse]

(06-14-2016, 01:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 25 years for a first adult offense is actually quite a significant prison sentence.  Especially for an eighteen year old.  I am mortally sick of ***** amateurs who think they know about the criminal justice system because they watched an episode of Law and Order.  Are you upset with the People because they offered the guy twenty years in exchange for a guilty plea?

The guy should be castrated first off, then beaten within an inch of his life if not dead. Then serve the longest term he can in the worst part of the prison he goes to. Child rapists are the worst, first time offense or not, or whether 'his brain has matured'. It was a 6 year old for crying out loud. Hope he suffers every day in there and never makes out. 

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 01:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure about the details of the case, but if what you're saying is true and he knew you and other principles involved personally he should have definitely recused himself. 

The details are irrelevant but only further prove the point that he should have removed himself from the case.

(06-14-2016, 01:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More justified, yes.  A person's brain isn't fully matured until their mid twenties.  As previously stated, a criminal history would also be a huge determining factor.

lol!

I understand about the brain being more developed when you're in your mid-twenties, but you're trying to say that he didn't understand that raping a 6-year-old was wrong?!

(06-14-2016, 01:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, get off your high horse.  I deal with victims of crime almost every day of my life.  I understand far better than you what this entails.  I'm pointing out that 25 years is a significant amount of time for a first time adult offense.  I've seen negligent manslaughter cases get far less time.  You think the dead person wasn't impacted?

So, because other people have gotten far less time, that makes it ok?

Because he hadn't committed a significant crime before, it makes it less of a crime?

Get off my high horse, though?  You're the one that's sounding like you're on a high horse.  I'm just pointing out how early in her life he damaged this girl in a way that she will never fully recover from, but you think that, because other people have gotten less, it makes it ok?

(06-14-2016, 01:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahaha, you're such a tool.  I've worked my ass off only to watch a man who robbed and beat an old lady to near death get off with a slap on the wrist.  I've seen real injustice in many forms, this isn't one of those times.  This guy is a POS and he's going to prison for a long time.  Go back to watching law and order and thinking you know a damn thing about the criminal justice system you clueless prat.

Once again, because the justice system screwed up many times before, that makes this ok?

It's comical how clueless you are.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-14-2016, 01:51 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Chris Henry bought the girls alcohol, which might have been wrong,

Buying underage girls alcohol might be bad?  Someone's saying more about themselves then they intended.

Quote:but he never raped anyone, which is evident by the girl changing her story.

You know having sex with an under aged girl is always rape as they cannot legally give consent.  Again, someone's saying more about themselves then they likely intended to.

Quote:Furthermore, Chris had changed his life and wasn't given the Saint-like status until after his death, and he wasn't the center of our team, either.

So he killed himself in the midst of a domestic violence episode but the fact he died doing it made him saint like?  Someone's saying more about themselves then they likely intended to.

[BFritz21]

(06-14-2016, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Buying underage girls alcohol might be bad?  Someone's saying more about themselves then they intended.

It was bad, but lots of people do it, even more-so back then.

(06-14-2016, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You know having sex with an under aged girl is always rape as they cannot legally give consent.  Again, someone's saying more about themselves then they likely intended to.

The one that accused him of having sex with her, and then changed her story, was 18.

Even if she didn't change her story and take it back, she wasn't an underaged girl.

Someone is saying more about themselves than they intended to because they think everyone is too stupid to see through their bullshit.

(06-14-2016, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So he killed himself in the midst of a domestic violence episode but the fact he died doing it made him saint like?  Someone's saying more about themselves then they likely intended to.

Domestic violence episode?  He was trying to stop his fiancee (I believe his children's mother) from leaving, but he's a criminal for that?  

Someone is saying more about themselves than they intended to because they think everyone is too stupid to see through their bullshit.

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2016, 02:04 AM)Millhouse Wrote: The guy should be castrated first off, then beaten within an inch of his life if not dead. Then serve the longest term he can in the worst part of the prison he goes to. Child rapists are the worst, first time offense or not, or whether 'his brain has matured'. It was a 6 year old for crying out loud. Hope he suffers every day in there and never makes out. 

Why don't we castrate and beat every rapist to death?  Adults can suffer massive long-term effects due to being raped.

(06-14-2016, 01:51 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Chris Henry bought the girls alcohol, which might have been wrong, but he never raped anyone, which is evident by the girl changing her story.

Furthermore, Chris had changed his life and wasn't given the Saint-like status until after his death, and he wasn't the center of our team, either.

Meh, stories changed in the Pig Ben cases and he may very well have turned his life around, too.  I hate defending the filthy jerk, but you're the one who brought up "cheering for rapists" and I'm just hearing a lot of excuses so you don't have to feel bad for rooting for the Bengals during Chris Henry's time here.

Anyways, I'm not really here to drudge up negative things about a dead man, but I just wanted to point out that I think you're being a bit unfair (and making me defend the Steelers is giving me a rash) and leave it at that.

[MrRager]

(06-14-2016, 01:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I guess I should have expected this kind of response from someone who cheers for a rapist (don't say you don't cheer for him because he's the center of the team, so, by cheering for the team, you cheer for him).

For the love of god, man, can you please stop using this and the Ravens fans=love murders insults? They are literally the lowest hanging fruit insults and the most generalizing shit I see on here. People can separate their lives from football, except you. You literally think every single Steeler's fan opinion is wrong because, according to you, every single one of them is fine with rape (because they cheer for Pittsburgh) so they're dumb. It such a small and stupid way to view people and it's so embarrassing every time you say it. 

You then ignore or rationalize everything a Bengals player has done. Jeremy Hill statutory rape? Pssssshhh fine. Chris Henry's 23874839 offenses? Fine. Pacman's insane past and recently hitting a woman in the face? Fine. Burfict being generally dirty on the field? Fine. But Ben Roesthlisberger was accused of rape and charges weren't even filed and ALL STEELERS FANS LOVE RAPE AHHHHH!!! Would you quit being a Bengals fan if they signed Hardy? Suggs? Ben? etc. in the twilight of their careers? I know I wouldn't. I'd hate the signing, but I would still cheer for the team I have loved for over 20 years. That doesn't mean I support rapists and can't have an opinion things.

Stop bringing it up, especially in threads that don't involve fandom. It's a middle school joke. Being a Steelers fan doesn't take away his experiences being in law enforcement and being close to situations like these. Being a Bengals fan doesn't give you some moral high ground. It literally has nothing to do with the topic at hand, yet you bring it up constantly. You always complain about "preconceived notions," but you are the one generalizing people and going off what you think about them instead of what they actually say.

(06-14-2016, 02:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It was bad, but lots of people do it, even more-so back then.

I like how this argument, "Well, everyone was doing it and it was just the way back then," makes sense to you, but looking at past precedence in court cases similar or even worse to this one is crazy. 

[CKwi88]

I don't know much about other states, but in my experience judges usually follow along the lines of the sentences that are recommended to them. This case doesn't seem any different. The judge followed the prosecution's recommendation of 20 years and probably tacked on the extra 5 because he wasted everybody's time going to trial.

Instead of raving about personal vendettas and castration (seriously, read the Bill of Rights) people should try and understand better how the criminal justice system works in their state.