Chicago Kidnapping/Torture.... here we go...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2017, 04:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: UPDATE: The woman who recorded it all, and narrated it was only given probation.

Kidnapping a mentally disabled teen in a stolen vehicle, torturing him while shouting hate speech, and streaming it all live on the internet, and she got probation.

Apparently even when criminals are literally recording their crimes to the internet while they do them, they still get plea deals and cupcake sentences?

I've mentioned this before, it's very uncommon for a first time felon to serve any prison time, unless the felony is one of the more serious felonies.  What happens is you are given a suspended sentence which you will not serve if you comply with and successfully complete your grant of probation.  If you fail you will have sentence imposed at a violation hearing and you will get no credit for prior progress under probation.  I'd also be interested if part of her plea deal involves testifying against the others (especially the males).  This is the way the criminal justice system has been moving for years, this outcome isn't surprising at all.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-11-2017, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've mentioned this before, it's very uncommon for a first time felon to serve any prison time, unless the felony is one of the more serious felonies.  What happens is you are given a suspended sentence which you will not serve if you comply with and successfully complete your grant of probation.  If you fail you will have sentence imposed at a violation hearing and you will get no credit for prior progress under probation.  I'd also be interested if part of her plea deal involves testifying against the others (especially the males).  This is the way the criminal justice system has been moving for years, this outcome isn't surprising at all.

It's also very uncommon for a first time felon to literally live broadcast their crime to the entire internet.

Stealing a car, using it to kidnap a mentally disabled person for TWO DAYS while they tortured him with punches, kicks, knives, making them drink from a toilet bowl, while shouting racist things at them while laughing and broadcasting it to the world with pride. That's not a "oh, it's your first time, so lets not throw you in prison because you might still turn out to be a good person". At that point, as an adult already, you're pretty much decided. If you have it in you to do that, you're NEVER going to be reformed.

The judge said he wasn't putting her in jail because he "I'm not sure you'd be coming out any better". That's not how it's supposed to work, because now there's a victim out there who's kidnapper/torturer got off with a slap on the wrist. She got 200 hours of community service and 4 years probation/4 year ban from social media for kidnapping, torture, and hate crime.

- - - - - - - - -

She doesn't need to testify against the others because they are literally recording themselves doing it. It was never a question of if they were innocent or not. That's what makes this case "uncommon".

The only thing the prosecution needs to do is press play on the video, let it run for the jury, and then press stop on the video and tell the judge the prosecution rests. That would be it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2017, 05:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's also very uncommon for a first time felon to literally live broadcast their crime to the entire internet.

Stealing a car, using it to kidnap a mentally disabled person for TWO DAYS while they tortured him with punches, kicks, knives, making them drink from a toilet bowl, while shouting racist things at them while laughing and broadcasting it to the world with pride. That's not a "oh, it's your first time, so lets not throw you in prison because you might still turn out to be a good person". At that point, as an adult already, you're pretty much decided. If you have it in you to do that, you're NEVER going to be reformed.

The judge said he wasn't putting her in jail because he "I'm not sure you'd be coming out any better". That's not how it's supposed to work, because now there's a victim out there who's kidnapper/torturer got off with a slap on the wrist. She got 200 hours of community service and 4 years probation/4 year ban from social media for kidnapping, torture, and hate crime.

You're preaching to the choir here, I'm just telling you how things work.

- - - - - - - - -

Quote:She doesn't need to testify against the others because they are literally recording themselves doing it. It was never a question of if they were innocent or not. That's what makes this case "uncommon".

This isn't true at all.  If you want a custodial sentence then every shred of evidence you can get is helpful.  Getting one of the four to flip is a good way to ensure prison time for the other three.

Quote:The only thing the prosecution needs to do is press play on the video, let it run for the jury, and then press stop on the video and tell the judge the prosecution rests. That would be it.

I get what you're saying, but it's considerably more complicated than that.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-11-2017, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're preaching to the choir here, I'm just telling you how things work.

- - - - - - - - -



This isn't true at all.  If you want a custodial sentence then every shred of evidence you can get is helpful.  Getting one of the four to flip is a good way to ensure prison time for the other three.


I get what you're saying, but it's considerably more complicated than that.

Yeah, I am just trying to say that while that is how things may normally work, I can't see how it could be applicable to this case. I mean, how often do the criminals provide every bit of evidence needed to convict them without question? Let alone for such a disgusting crime.

- - - - - - - - --

Yeah, it may have been oversimplified a bit, but I honestly can't imagine how it'd be significantly more complicated to get a guilty verdict. I can't think of a jury that could watch 42-ish minutes (if I recall correctly) of the torture of a mentally handicapped man while the defendants are openly showing their face, and not give a quick guilty verdict.