Let's say some psycho chick accuses you of something you didn't do, just to be vindictive.
She goes public with accusations that you did this, that, and the other thing to her, even though you didn't. But, you've already been tried and convicted in the public's mind. You could go to prison for a long time, even though you're innocent, and I'll it's happened plenty of times. Every now and then, you'll hear of a man who has spent decades in prison, and then the accuser gets a case of remorse, and retracts.
The boys pleaded guilty on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Dietrich says she was unaware of a plea agreement until just before it was announced in court.
They pleaded guilty before she tweeted their names.
Did you bother to read the article? There are PICTURES and the scum pleaded guilty in order to get a lighter sentence.
I hope she starts a defense fund. I’ll donate.
The boys pleaded guilty on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Dietrich says she was unaware of a plea agreement until just before it was announced in court.
There were photos taken of the sexual assault and they passed around, while she lay there passed out. And she did not learn of the photos until a few months later after they were passed around.
She has every right to speak her mind about this, being the sentance was so lenient. The judge’s orders need to be damned! The judges is protecting the sex perverts.
She is willing to go to jail over this freedom of speaking out. It would really be crazy if she were to serve time in jail for speaking out the names of the sex perverts, and the sex perverts get to walk free.
This one isn't done yet ~ she's already attracted the attention of a lawyer who sees money to be made ~
Let's say some psycho chick accuses you of something you didn't do, just to be vindictive.
The boys pleaded guilty to both the felony and the misdemeanor charges.
She and her parents show up for the trial, the plea is announced and THEN the judge orders all not to talk about it.
So, if some "psycho chick" accuses you of something you didn't do, don't take a plea and plead guilty.
RE: Sorry, but if she was instructed not to make comment, she should have abided by that.
WAS she convicted in the case of doing something to herself? piss off I would demand max sentance prove it jury trial
Being instructed might not be legitimate. Many courts seem to think of themselves as the ultimate arbitrator of law... even in cases wherein they ought to have no power. One such case was that TN case where the divorced mom got in trouble for the son getting baptized.
TN Constitution:
Art 1, § 3. Freedom of worshipAs you can see such a contract as their divorce agreement is illegitimate precisely because of the requirements imposed on the son's religion.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Let's say some psycho chick accuses you of something you didn't do, just to be vindictive.
The sad truth is that this case is quite common, and even though it is illegal they do not get prosecuted often. (In fact it's rather unusual when they do get prosecuted.)
It does not apply in this case.I agree otherwise.
I completely disagree. "The contempt charge carries a possible sentence of 180 days in jail and a $500 fine." If she thinks telling the truth is worth $500 and perhaps more jail time than the rapists got, then I'm okay with her speaking out. She'll feel a whole lot better for the rest of her life if she stands up for herself and gives those predators the public humiliation and other girls a public warning about those guys. That's well worth $500 in my book. Judges are not magic. They and their orders deserve only the respect and obedience that are due based on the justice of their decisions. In this case, that's no respect at all.
By the way, those boys have the right to sue her, if she accused them of something falsely, don't they? They have a remedy. Why don't they use that remedy? (Because they took a plea deal and because there is evidence? "Psycho chick" forged all that?)[Do you teach your children to be obedient to every government official's whim, even if it's outside the law?]
The boys were found guilty. She deserves to say whatever the Hell she pleases about it. Sexual predators need hanged not jail.
Fly vomit. The pics of her sexual assault get passed around, but she must remain silent? She was violated, her privacy is violated, but their reputation must be protected? Sick.
“Let’s say some psycho chick accuses you of something you didn’t do, just to be vindictive.”
Hey pal, they were guilty! Someone ought to take the judge to task for improper sentencing. My guess is that the “perpetrators” lawyers wheedled some sort of a Faustian deal with the judge at the expense of the victim!
What an absolutely weird post and line of thought. That’s not the scenario at all.
Sorry, but if she was instructed not to make comment, she should have abided by that. Otherwise, put yourself in their shoes.
**************
When did it become a crime to accuse somebody of a crime? The remedy for the accused is to sue for libel, not to get a judge to bar the raped her 1st Amendment rights. The judge had no business issuing a gag order on her.