Since that guy's crime revolved around leaves, he should be hanged from a tree like a leaf. (That first 30-day judge should probably be hanged too.)
Posted on 09/09/2019 6:42:19 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
The Sixth Circuit ruled the light sentence was 'substantively unreasonable'
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 30-day prison sentence of the man who attacked Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.), ruling that federal guidelines did not permit so lenient a sentence.
In 2017, Paul was tackled from behind by his next-door neighbor Rene Boucher over a mundane disagreement about lawn clippings. Paul was left with six broken ribs and a substantial hospital stay that forced him to take a leave of absence from the Senate. Paul testified that he suffered constant "intense pain" as a result of his injuries, and later required further surgery in August 2019.
Boucher was originally charged with misdemeanor assault under Kentucky law, but the state charges were dropped in lieu of a federal felony prosecution. Boucher could have received up to 10 years in prison for an assault of a member of Congress that inflicted personal injury, but prosecutors sought 21 to 27 months in light of his acceptance of responsibility.
District Court judge Marianne O. Battani instead sentenced Boucher to only 30 days, arguing that Boucher had an "excellent background," was "an educated person," and "participated in the community in [his medical] practice and in [his] church." The Clinton-appointed judge also cited the character witnesses who testified on Boucher's behalf, including his pastor and the developer of his gated community.
Prosecutors appealed the case, arguing that the light sentence was "substantively unreasonable" compared with similar cases. The Sixth Circuit agreed Monday, noting that Congress specifically instructed courts not to give undue weight to class and education when sentencing defendants.
"To prioritize a defendant's education, professional success, and standing in the community would give an additional leg up to defendants who are already in a privileged position," wrote Obama appointee Jane Stranch for a three-judge panel. "Indigent defendants are less likely to impress a sentencing court with their education, employment record, or local reputation. But they are no less deserving of a reasonable and compassionate sentence."
The judges concluded there was "no compelling justification for Boucher's well-below-Guidelines sentence" and vacated the lower court's ruling. The court remanded the case back to district court, where Boucher will be resentenced based on the ruling.
LORD...Please apply this same standard to the top officials of our Goventment that orchestrated a “coup” against a sitting President...
” was “an educated person,””
So an uneducated person deserves a stricter sentence?
Not only that, he was a MD who knew precisely where and how to hit his victim to do the most damage and carried it out by charging down a 60 yard slope to deliver a total sucker tackle that easily could have killed or crippled Senator Paul. There was just about as much malice and premeditation in that attack as there was in the shooting of Steve Scalise.
Wonder if they’re still neighbors.
Hopefully the 30 days will become at least 30 months, and in a regular prison, not a country club setting.
Ever heard of Ethan Couch?
That judge was a political pos.
If he had attacked that Clinton judge, the courts would have thrown the book at him. Thirty days was a crime.
He could have easily killed a United States Senator.
Maybe not a chiropractor, but how about a thoracic surgeon.
You are correct. In this case he used his body as a weapon and did great physical harm to Senator Paul.
This violent attacker got a slap on the wrist by a POS partisan liberal judge. She should be booted off of the bench and do all the time that she did not sentence him to.
Thought experiment:
What if a crazy rich doctor in Kentucky did this same crime to Senator Hillary Clinton, or Speaker Pelosi?
Sentence????
Prison doctors get unlimited sex. Side benefit. Correction-rear benefit.
Re: “mundane disagreement over grass clippings”
This wasn’t about “grass clippings”.
I guess he never took the oath.
Ethan Couch
Born April 11th, 1997
Known for The “affluenza” defense
Criminal charge Intoxication manslaughter
Penalty Initially 10 years’ probation.
Date June 15, 2013
Killed 4 Injured 9
Ethan Anthony Couch (born April 11, 1997) is an American man who at age 16 killed four people while driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs on June 15, 2013, in Burleson, Texas.
He was intoxicated, driving on a restricted license and speeding in a residential area when he lost control, colliding with a group of people assisting another driver with a disabled SUV.
Four people were killed in the collision and a total of nine people were injured.
Two passengers in Couch’s truck suffered serious bodily injury, one with complete paralysis.
Couch was indicted on four counts of intoxication manslaughter for recklessly driving under the influence.
In December 2013, Judge Jean Hudson Boyd sentenced Couch to ten years of probation and subsequently ordered him to therapy at a long-term in-patient facility, after his attorneys argued that the teen had “affluenza” and needed rehabilitation instead of prison, saying that he didn’t know boundaries because his rich parents didn’t give him any.
Couch’s sentence, believed by many to be incredibly lenient, set off an emotional, angry debate that has stretched far beyond the North Texas suburbs.
Couch became the subject of a manhunt and was listed in the National Fugitive Database on December 11, 2015, after his probation officer was unable to contact him.
On December 28, 2015, authorities detained Couch and his mother in the Mexican resort city of Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco. On April 13, 2016, he was sentenced to serve two years in prison.
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.