Posted on 06/08/2007 12:23:57 PM PDT by pabianice
A "screaming" Paris Hilton has been dragged off to serve her full 45 days in jail. Reportedly screamed and called to her mother as she was taken away. More.
By that logic no one is allowed an opinion about anything unless it is first weighed against the suffering of American women in Iraq.
Since women are dying in Iraq, then Paris would have to be facing the gallows for driving on a susupended license before it would merit consideration in light of what is going on in Iraq.
sorry but you are legally incorrect.
For purposes of a Violation of Probation hearing the warning can and does come into play.
The fact she was driving at that time can be considered along with the second ticket.
This is similar to cases where a defendant on probation can be found innocent of a subsequent unrelated solicitation charge where the alleged prostitute is an undercover officer but then be convicted of violating probation due to the fact the probationary should not have been talking to prostitutes and the burden of proof to violate probation is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay lower. Shockes the concience test.
In reality, if the judge had become aware of JUST the warning he could still have held a violation of probation hearing on that alone.
Probation means PROBATION.
Of course I am just speaking accademically since she was also chared with a substantive driving on suspended which triggered the core VOP.
PS Geraldo knows nothing about the law given his legal comments and posturing on this case.
LOL! I guess that doesn’t speak well for the people with whom you associate. I don’t know anyone who drives on a suspended license, uses drugs or otherwise scoffs at the law.
That is what really bugs you isn't it? But that has nothing to do with whether her sentence is extraordinary and it is according to article after article that has been linked here including the recent NYT piece.
My conservative values are quite well thanks....and they include a resistance to heavy handed judges preening before the media and using this goofey waif as a pawn in their political battle with the sherrif.
Letting her go and then sending her back is unprecedented and cruel.
Judges and LEOs can abuse power and I feel this one did in this case from the getgo.....for whatever reason. He is using her to prove a point.
His point....the guy has his own press conferences.....it's ridiculous. If I were Arnold, I'd commute her.
Agree....... it’s a lawyers business to try and get a client out regardless of their fiscal status in this world.
Once that Sheriff let her skinny butt out of jail it was HIS violation of the judges order, not hers or her families. She is a cunning little runt an IMO needs a lesson in reality yet this “back to the pokey” media circus ain’t gonna do nothing but put money in her pockets, cost the county of LA a whole lot of money ......... AFTER letting her go on home monitoring it was the sheriffs burden not the prisoners.
I will predict that mommy and daddy’s little gators will get PH a nice piece of the taxpayers duckets all courtesy of this dumbassed sheriff’s reindeer games with the judge.
Wait for it.......
Stay safe WD !
I have experience in this area about probabtion violations but admittedly not for minor crimes in California.
In the Feds, at probation/parole violations, the judge doesn’t really review a question of guilt though he may if he wishes or is compelled but it’s not a trial.
He simply sentences according to the guidleines he must if the original crime was post-1987.
And it only includes the actual infraction for guilt....not allegations at that point.
At the original trial before prison or supervised release takes place, the judge using pre-trial investigators with DOJ who review everything including heresay and may use heresay beyond the charges to enhance the sentencing up to 6 points above the baseline for said offense....or downward if mitigating stuff is relevant. At higher levels these up or down departures are very serious...decades serious.
My beef with Hilton’s sentence is that it is way beyond the usual and that folks seem to take a perverse pleasure in seeing a silly brat taken down. I don’t. I would like to see Charles manson hang or Susan Atkins too but I get no pleasure in seeing this sobbing hysterical girl going to jail for a month and half.....especially for a mid level misdemeanor which no one else in her jurisdiction goes to jail for according to reports we have all seen on TV.
and I loathe preening judges...no decent Fed judge would ever hold a press conference about one of his cases...notorious or not....they are all business and deadly serious
I guess it’s a matter of perspective and mine is different.
I agree. The sheriff made this quite clear.
My sympathy lies with her sentence being extraordinary compared to others just like hers.
County jail is not pretty.
One can have an opinion about county jail without weighing it against Fallujah first.
Compared to Fallujah or Ramadi, eveeything is great...even cancer.
that was my first...or maybe second(lol) thought...they better not have any freepers on that jury..lol
“My sympathy lies with her sentence being extraordinary compared to others just like hers.” OK, so why bring up the conditions of jail in the first place? And, while you may claim the sentence is “extraordinary”, it is half of what he could have given her. It is well within legally accepted parameters, so there is nothing excessive or abusive about it.
“One can have an opinion about county jail without weighing it against Fallujah first.” Yes, and one can have an opinion about it, without comparing it to roses and champagne, too. What’s your point?
LOL! I guess that doesn’t speak well for the people with whom you associate. I don’t know anyone who drives on a suspended license, uses drugs or otherwise scoffs at the law.
Well, it's indicative of those who tend to isolate themselves from people, except for a small group that they wish to associate with. In my history, of working with people in all positions in society, you find this is true. You come across them from my varied background over many years, from college days to later work years, to working with the police to interacting with people in many public situations.
In one of my capacities that I worked in, I had to work with the police in a downtown situation, a lot, with building security. And you get to talk to a lot of police and find out how they operate. Besides that, you end up talking with a lot of people and you don't end up in a "dialog" with them, if you are condemning. It's an art to be able to engage in such conversations, know and understand where they are coming from and what they do, while at the same time, not necessarily condoning what they may be doing, and certainly not looking down your nose at them. Security people and/or police will have to develop that kind of interaction with the public, while they also enforce the law, and also decide which of many things they will simply let go and ignore for other reasons.
In another capacity, of working with social service agencies, you come across a lot of people, in the same way. And also, in that capacity, you don't condemn or criticize, but seek to help people find "ways out" of where they are at. In the process of helping them find "ways out" -- of course you're going to find out what their present situation is.
And in another area, where it has to do with the living situations of a lot of people (residences), you end up finding out a lot of information about people and how they really live. Again, this is another area where you don't criticize or condmemn.
One of the things you find out right away -- is -- if on a "one-on-one" level, you get condemning and critical, people will clam up and not say or share things. But, if you're not that way, but are open and able to dialog, you'll find them telling you things that they basically would tell no one else. I've always been able to get people to open up in private, one-on-one situations with no problems. It's never been a problem for me.
So, it's actually more indicative (in my case) of being able to dialog, one-on-one, in such a way that people feel comfortable in revealing things that are normally kept hidden and quiet. And that's the key -- and that's how you find out. I find that a lot of people can't do that.
And furthermore, most families have all sorts of these kinds of "stories" buried in the past, in one thing or another or some kind of trouble that a family member or two have gotten into. Normally people are not going to volunteer this sort of information. There's probably not a single family around, that can't find one of these stories in their extended family. I know I sure can. People that don't think so, just don't listen close enough or pay attention.
In listening to people about their own families (extended and otherwise), I've come to the conclusion that there is no "normal" family around -- it's more or less, something that exists for "appearances" more than anything else. When you get "down to the facts" -- every family has all sorts of skeletons that are buried and talked about in whispers and in quiet corners.
And the Bible bears this out, in that it makes it very clear that the "heart" is desperately wicked and that all have sinned and that this sin is so bad that it is absolutely putrid to God and His righteousness. There are simply a lot of people running around pretending to be righteous, while keeping a lot of secrets.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Man....this little girl really gets to some of you gals doesn’t she?
I don’t whine dear.
You are the one suing Iraq horrors as your backdrop for comparison, not me.
I would like some candor as to why you and several other women on this thread despise Hilton so much and get such glee out of this.
For the record, I don’t find her attractive particularly, I think her folks raised her poorly but I have nothing against her being rich.
I’m glad to be on the opposite side of this issure from Al Sharpton btw...
The bottom line is her sentence is extraordinary and you know it but don’t care for whatever reason....you seem to revel in it actually.
God forbid you ever do dear.
Correction — post 712, which responded to 695.
I’m confused now...have a nice weekend.
“Yeah, it’s nothing more than this hatred of the rich, anyone who is perceived to have more advantages than another group — and a desire to see them “get theirs”, to even up this “disparaity” that they feel so oppressed about. It’s not justice, but simply “gladiator politics” of justice, in which certain people get to vicariously beat up those who have those benefits that some feel they’ve been deprived of. “
Star Traveler, you do realize don’t you that you sound just like George Bush telling his conservative base what he thinks of them for opposing the new immigration legislation?
Could it be that people simply think that the judge did the right thing in this case?
As long as the judge stayed within the law when he sentenced her he did nothing wrong. I cannot look into his soul and discern his motivations anymore than you can look into mine and discern why I agreed with it.
Why do you feel the need to demonize those who disagree with you?
Just read post 712. I don’t think it is that confusing. Also, for the record it never crossed my mind that you would defend her for her looks. I don’t think most men on FR think that way and, from the looks of your own gorgeous family, I can see that Paris wouldn’t rate anyway. What I do find odd is that someone who claims to be on the front lines of the culture war can’t see how Hilton’s example is destructive to the culture. But have a nice weekend anyway!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.