Posted on 07/09/2021 1:01:15 AM PDT by wannabegeek
“I’m shaking at this point. I don’t like where this is going,” said Sylvaun Latham who decided on the terms of the vaccine in the moment. “I feel like it is an overstep especially when he asked me if I’d get it and I said I really don’t want to get it,” said Latham.
So far, Latham has not received the vaccine and plans to contact the ACLU. Judge Frye told WSYX that he does not know yet what he will do if any of the offenders ordered to take the vaccine refuse.
“That’s not like picking up trash,” said Latham. “I know I’m in your courtroom and you have the absolute say-so over things but I feel like, that’s my health.”
Neither the Ohio Attorney General or the Franklin County Prosecutor wanted to comment on the matter.
Washington State offers free marijuana to vaxxed people. Private organizations in Arizona and Washington D.C. are doing the same. And of course, there are the lotteries. New York, Maryland and California offer vaxxed people a chance to win thousands and even millions of dollars with their vaccination cards. These programs even have cute little names like “Vax & Scratch” and “Vax-A-Million.”
Ohio governor Mike DeWine started the dystopian vaccine lottery trend. The city of Columbus, Ohio is even offering people $100 to get the experimental shots. Now Ohio is using its criminal justice system to force experimental injections.
What were the gun charges?
Probation appears a bit weak.
Da judge made a medical decision without consulting a doctor? Uh, oh.
Is this really that much different than forcing someone to get sterilized in order to keep collecting welfare or other public benefits? I imagine the ACLU would be all over that kind of a mandate. A forced vax (that is really still experimental at this point) as a condition of release or parole seems more than a bit Orwellian.
-PJ
"Is this really that much different than forcing someone to get sterilized~"
Witchdoctor threat. ❎
Witchdoctors use fear.
Come against this in the Blood Name of Jeseus!⛪
Why? The defendant had a choice. Maybe a bad one, but still a choice. Otherwise any sentence would have been stiffer and within sentencing guidelines.
“The defendant had a choice.” - 5 years probation or 1 year probation plus vaxx
How does that make any sense logically or legally?
Nothing about how this vaccine has been handled by public officials makes any sense, unless seen from a 1984 perspective. This whole thing is trending in the direction that a similar “choice” is coming for us too: FEMA camps or Vaccine
As someone remarked in an earlier thread, once probation is over how do I turn off the vaccine? It's not like an ankle bracelet that can be removed or a passport that can be returned. The vaccine is forever, but the probation is not.
-PJ
Kind of along the lines of what I too was thinking. I wonder if the Judge had a sheepskin on the wall behind his throne? Did he prove that he had a medical degree to be decreeing mandated vaccines? Is he a judge or a doctor?
“Washington State offers free marijuana to vaxxed people. Private organizations in Arizona and Washington D.C. are doing the same.”
They call it “DOPE” for good reason.
Sterilization fits the crime associated with it.
Mandatory vaccination has nothing to do with the crime or rehabilitation.
No, he can’t do that. Kick him out of office.
I think you’re taking liberty with cruel and unusual. Checking in with a probation officer is cruel and unusual? I bet there are many people who would gladly exchange 5 years of probation for 2 years of incarceration.
Again, he had a choice. If it doesn’t make sense, then take the longer probation. I think his main peeve is he had a deal worked out that the judge chose not to accept. Which is the judges prerogative. Now if the judges only sentence was a shot then I see the issue.
I know he had a choice, but it’s the logical connection between a jab (health issue) and probation time punishment/repayment/public safety (related to crime). They are not connected and his lawyer should appeal.
In other words, say that the judge’s job is to assess a fair sentence from a punishment/repayment/public safety perspective. Which apparently was the least-time probation. The jab is extraneous and outside his scope and a slippery slope, tyrannical ruling.
If his standard sentence would have been 5 years, I don’t see the problem. Unless there are strict guidelines, the judge has discretion in what he considers the greater good. Like having to help the victim with household chores or picking up trash along the highway in exchange for a reduced sentence.
Can a judge force a conservative to work on the Biden campaign?
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.