Monday, May 05, 2008

Gotta Love Southern Justice


(via Heidi MacDonald from Rome News)

Posted by Unknown at 6:14 PM
Labels: ,

49 comments:

  1. Frag ItMon May 05, 07:02:00 PM EDT

    Ok. This is a good place to discuss this.

    Disclaimer: I don't know that much about the Gordon Lee case so pardon my ignorance.

    Didn't he deserve to be prosecuted? He sold material to children that was for an older age group. He sounded very irresponsible. I wouldn't want GTA IV ending up in a 10 year old's hands. Why should comics be different?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMon May 05, 07:39:00 PM EDT

    Wait, Dixon DID have sex with a minor who was 15, and he was 18 (I believe) at the time. That is statutory rape.

    And Lee did give a mature comic to and underage kid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lee NewmanMon May 05, 07:41:00 PM EDT

    Frag it...

    No, an employee of his erroneously placed a copy of a comic book with nude people and mentions of masturbation in a child's bag on Halloween, it was a mistake and instead of calling the shop and finding out what the deal was, the parents called the police. The prosecutor changed her story serveral times and caused at least one mistrial. In the end, an apology that Lee had offered in the beginning of the case was taken after years of legal proceedings and hundreds of dollars spent out of the Ga taxpayers pocket and the CBDLF's funds. It was a simple case with an overzealous DA trying to make a name for herself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rick RottmanMon May 05, 08:12:00 PM EDT

    Fourthman, how do you know the parents went right to the police? Do you really know anything about the parents?

    Most of what people know about this case comes directly from CBLDF press releases. Press releases that are designed to generate contributions to the CBLDF, not convey the facts.

    Gordon Lee was convicted of distributing obscene materials back in 1991. I recommend that people do a Google search about that case.

    And yeah, Dixon was 18 and had sexual intercourse with a 15-year old girl in a classroom. A 15-year old by law cannot consent to sex. It was statutory rape.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMon May 05, 08:32:00 PM EDT

    The prosecutor didn't "change her story." She had to amend pleadings to correlate with what the aggrieved parties... ie, the two little kids were saying. One instance, they'd say the clerk gave the book to the older one, then the next time it would be given to the younger one.

    So the prosecutor has to change the pleadings and say "paragraph x+1: Papa G gave Kid 1 lude material and Kid 1 gave said lude material to Kid 2" and next week she'd have to amend it and switch Kid 2 for 1.

    The next effect is nothing: the material was still given to someone it shouldn't, BUT you've got to be correct. There's no debate as to the children getting the material, even if the kids couldn't keep it straight who got the book first.

    The CBLDF spun that into "sterile bitch who hates Spider-Man wants is making shit up to piss all over freedom of speech."

    The offer of a written apology... I don't remember Gordon putting it on the table but I'd have to re-look at the earlier pleadings.

    What I do remember is the CBLDF coming in and issuing press releases to a comic news sites presenting an incredibly lop-sided view of things that, had the lawyers themselves actually engaged in would have resulted in severe problems BUT because it was a public interest group the prejudicial statements were allowed.

    And those press releases basically said: blah blah blah, hateful bitch trying to censor comic book guy, blah blah blah, we've got deeper pockets than he does so we're prepared to fight this to the end.

    And quit being such a cynic fourthman. Nobody ever once thinks that maybe, by some stretch of the imagination the parents could be right in being a little outraged at their young child being given a comic with nudity and masturbation jokes, and that the prosecutor might have legitimately tried protecting those parents right to not have that stuff handed to their minors?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lee NewmanMon May 05, 08:34:00 PM EDT

    You can read the newspaper reports that pretty much say the same things or are they just trying to drum up money for the CBDLF as well?

    Also, the prior case doesn't matter as it was for selling illicit materials to adults.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lee NewmanMon May 05, 08:38:00 PM EDT

    and anonymous...

    no, I've said several times that as a parent, I would have never even thought to call the police... I would have called the store and talked to Gordon Lee myself. Sorry, I believe in being a parent first and my daughter would have never seen the book because I would have looked at it.

    And if the DA has to change her pleadings, then she didn't do a very good job of finding out what her witness's story was to begin with. If an adult did the same thing they would be called a liar and the DA would be accused of changing her story, because that's what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  8. UnknownMon May 05, 10:35:00 PM EDT

    Unbiased news sources have, also, accused the DA of idiocy in the Gordon Lee case. Regardless of the merits of the case, I think that the stories changing reflects poorly on the DA's handling and judgment of the witnesses. There's, also, the fact that the DA was directly instructed NOT to do the very thing she wound up doing that caused the last mistrial. Both the judge and the defense were aghast at her actions.

    On Marcus Dixon, the statutory isn't the contention. Legally, it was statutory, even if most prosecutors don't go after cases between teenagers. It appears that the prosecution just threw as many charges as possible in hopes that at least one would stick. The aggravated child molestation only stuck because her hymen being broken satisfied the requirement of an injury being caused. Counting that as an injury is hanging a felony on Dixon by technicality. The letter of the law was followed, but certainly not the spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousMon May 05, 11:45:00 PM EDT

    "even if most prosecutors don't go after cases between teenagers"

    "only stuck because her hymen being broken satisfied the requirement of an injury"

    Nope. You fail. I'll provide a reference to get you into law school so you can see what's wrong.

    And just to play along, I'll say whatever is needed to support my opinion as well. Unbiased newspaper reports also support the contention that Lee screwed up and as a parent my personal opinion of what I think I would have done in a situation I have not been faced with means any deviation is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. UnknownMon May 05, 11:55:00 PM EDT

    Anonymous, you'd be wrong. It is documented that the injury that qualified him for the aggravated child molestation was the taking of her virginity. And a lot of statutory rape cases between teenagers with less than 3 years difference in age are dealt with much differently than this one. Many don't get to the point of a trial.

    Law school won't be able to contradict the actual laws on the books down in Rome, GA. Or how often consensual sex between teenagers does not see a trial. Mind you, the reason why it did in this case is because the prosecution believed the victim that it wasn't consensual.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rick RottmanTue May 06, 04:41:00 AM EDT

    Also, the prior case doesn't matter as it was for selling illicit materials to adults.

    He was convicted of selling two books ,Debbie Does Dallas and Final Taboo to a woman named Sandra Allen. She was the mother of a boy that had gone to Lee's store and purchased porn comics. Because she didn't understand how her boy could buy porn at the local comic book shop, she visited Lee's store to see for herself.

    She found quite a bit of adult material in plain sight and within easy access to anyone visiting the store. She purchased the two before mentioned books and took them directly to the police.

    So yeah, technically he was convicted of selling porn to adults, but if a minor child wasn't able to easily purchase porn at Lee's shop, this never would have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rick RottmanTue May 06, 04:54:00 AM EDT

    There's, also, the fact that the DA was directly instructed NOT to do the very thing she wound up doing that caused the last mistrial. Both the judge and the defense were aghast at her actions.

    That wasn't Leah Patterson. You're referring to prosecutor John Tully. Before opening statements, the defense asked the judge to instruct prosecutors that they could not admit statements from their witnesses alluding to Lee’s character and previous legal actions Lee has been party to. The prosecution agreed saying that they had instructed their witnesses not to say anything about Lee's prior conviction. Then during opening statements in front of the jury, prosecutor Tully said witnesses will testify that Gordon was defensive and that Gordon had told police, “I’ve been through this before.”

    It's one thing not to mention Lee's earlier conviction. It's quite another to testify what the defendant said. There's a reason you are instructed to remain silent and not say anything to the police. What you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Normally, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AndyTue May 06, 08:15:00 AM EDT

    Was anyone really hurt in either case? The kids are fine, and I could imagine the big court case, interviews and attention could be more damaging that seeing a drawing of a penis.

    We are a country of over-reactors, and judging by the comments here there are a lot of people like the parents in these cases.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousTue May 06, 10:28:00 AM EDT

    Rick's needs to be modded up (wait... this isn't slashdot? My bad)

    The opening statements made were a little borderline, but the lawyer had reason to think they were safe. Judges have discretion in determining what's "prejudicial" to the jury. Plus, it's better to scrap a trial at the start than to have an App. Div. remand it.

    Andy; the "is anybody really hurt" argument is such a loaded question. There are a lot of ways to do something to someone without "hurting" them. If someone takes nudes shots of you, and just uses them for their own entertainment, is there any harm? It's not like anyone but you and the photographer know about them. There's no publicity.

    Spreading child pornography (and don't give some slippery slope that pornography gives way to child molestation) doesn't "hurt" the children because many don't realize they're being photographed inappropriately, and once out there, the harm was done so the photo being in 5 mens possession or 50 doesn't change things.

    What if I just walk through your house and look at your stuff? I didn't break in, the door was open. But where's the harm in looking?

    Someone is called a derogatory name... oh well... you would have been happier not hearing it, but now that you have, you should get over it, you're "fine", and anyone upset is an over-reactor.

    BTW, nobody here seems to be over-reacting, we're just sharing a relatively civilized debate about the trial, the publicity surrounding it. You'll find life a lot easier to understand if you accept the fact that when someone finds something offensive, and you don't share that belief, that you can both have valid, but different points, without yours being right and theirs being an over-reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  15. UnknownTue May 06, 02:29:00 PM EDT

    Rick and Anon: the prosecution was instructed not to introduce the past issues into the trial and then they did by using the Gordon Lee quote. It was a stupid attempt to sneak in what he was instructed not to bring in.

    Regardless of whether it was Patterson, Rick, it is just kind of ridiculous that something like this was kept going as long as it was. Patterson was behind that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rick RottmanTue May 06, 03:18:00 PM EDT

    It's one thing to not introduce Lee's prior conviction for distributing obscene materials. It's quite another to not allow a police officer to testify to what Lee told them when they first paid a visit to his shop in connection to this matter.

    I don't think it's asking too much to ask retailers not to give small children adult comic books. Gordon Lee screwed up here. He did something he shouldn't have done. Do I think he should have gone to jail? No, of course not. I do think both he and the CBLDF wanted this case to go to trial. I'm not so sure Leah Patterson wanted this case to continue as much as some have accused her of.

    ReplyDelete
  17. UnknownTue May 06, 03:25:00 PM EDT

    Rick: Patterson was the one in control of whether it kept going to court. Who would you suggest was responsible?

    And I believe it was a mistake by an employee that led to the kid getting the book, not a direct action by Gordon himself. He's still liable, as it is his business, but let's not imply involvement where it didn't happen.

    And, no, Rick, when the judge says that the past issues can't be introduced, it covers all ways of introducing it. And it wasn't the cop that said it...it was the lawyer in his opening statement. If it slipped out of the cop's mouth later on, there might not have been a mistrial declared.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousTue May 06, 03:52:00 PM EDT

    "when the judge says that the past issues can't be introduced, it covers all ways of introducing it"

    Gee whiz! You're right! If only someone at some point had said "thou shalt not give nude pictures to underage children" then this whole thing could have been avoided. It would have covered all ways of giving masturbation jokes to kiddies!

    Damn, if only someone thought to put that into a law or something we'd have no problems what so ever.

    (queue Huxford's attempt to explain mens rea, and everyone just deciding what level of intent should be applied to this case with no concern for what standards should actually have been in place)

    ReplyDelete
  19. UnknownTue May 06, 04:23:00 PM EDT

    Ummm...Anonymous (if that is really your name...), your sarcasm doesn't negate the fact that the prosecutor knowingly and stupidly disregarded the judge's direction in a court of law.

    And the particulars of a case are normally brought into consideration to decide how to deal with it. So are the facts, normally, which seems to be something you're critical of my sharing here. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rick RottmanTue May 06, 06:30:00 PM EDT

    Prosecutors don't make the laws. The grand jury decided to charge Lee, not Patterson. Could she have ignored the law and not taken the case to the grand jury? I guess, but she really wouldn't be doing her job. I'm not so certain that Patterson is the boogieman (or boogiewoman) that some people paint her as being.

    The mistrial was declared because state prosecutor John Tully in his opening statement to the jury said that detectives will testify that when they arrested Lee, he told them that he had “been through this before and beat it.” This wasn't about his prior conviction -- because he did not beat it -- but about his statements to detectives when he was arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousTue May 06, 07:41:00 PM EDT

    Only misogynists would pick on a female prosecutor like this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. UnknownTue May 06, 09:40:00 PM EDT

    Rick: it was still about past events that the prosecutor was instructed NOT to introduce into the proceedings.

    And, again, Patterson's office decided what charges to bring into court and what cases to prosecute. You're practically absolving her of all involvement. It is one thing to think that she's not the boogiewoman others make her out to be, but to act like everything was out of her hands is a bit disingenuous.

    And Anonymous...if that's your real name...that comment seems to signal the end of mature and educated discussion on the topic. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rick RottmanWed May 07, 05:20:00 AM EDT

    Disingenuous? And to think I thought only the anonymous people leveled insults. I give up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. AnonymousWed May 07, 10:47:00 AM EDT

    YOU ARE A TROLL IF YOU DISAGREE WITH KEVIN HUXFORD. Or maybe a damn, untrustworthy woman.

    -Anonalicious

    ReplyDelete
  25. UnknownWed May 07, 01:04:00 PM EDT

    Oh c'mon, Rick...disingenuous isn't some insult and isn't a comment worthy of comparison to anonymous trolls. Taking all control and responsibility out of Patterson's hands is going to the complete opposite and ridiculous extreme from the side you're arguing against.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rick RottmanWed May 07, 02:38:00 PM EDT

    Oh c'mon, Rick...disingenuous isn't some insult and isn't a comment worthy of comparison to anonymous trolls. Taking all control and responsibility out of Patterson's hands is going to the complete opposite and ridiculous extreme from the side you're arguing against.

    Really? I've tried to be honest and truthful and to look at this issue from all sides. I've tried to go past just reading the same old CBLDF press releases that everyone else seems to regurgitate and to find out as much about this case that I can. I think I've been anything but disingenuous.

    Not once have I ever argued for "taking all control and responsibility out of Patterson's hands". I generally don't speak in such absolutes. I think there is more then enough blame to go around when it comes to this case. I just know that some of the stuff said about Leigh Patterson isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
  27. UnknownWed May 07, 03:09:00 PM EDT

    Prosecutors don't make the laws. The grand jury decided to charge Lee, not Patterson. Could she have ignored the law and not taken the case to the grand jury? I guess, but she really wouldn't be doing her job.

    Funny, I didn't argue that the prosecutor made the laws, either. I suggested that she would take into account the circumstances a little bit better, like many prosecutors do.

    You say the grand jury decided to charge Lee, as if they were responsible for the charges that were presented to them to decide on. So you lay the blame on them, instead of Patterson, and then suggest that possibly NOT including aggravated child molestation when it hinged on the taking of her virginity as the injury that satisfied the requirements would be her doing the people an incredible disservice.

    You're not coming into this with a less extreme view than the side you're arguing against, Rick.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rick RottmanWed May 07, 06:28:00 PM EDT

    I didn’t say you were arguing that prosecutors made laws. I was trying to point out that there were a good many people involved in taking this case to court. The lawmakers that enacted this law, the law enforcement officers that made the arrest, the prosecutor’s office that took the case to the grand jury and the judges that proceeded over the hearings and other various motions before the court. Everyone had a job to do.

    I’m not laying the blame or responsibly on one single person. Far from it. I am instead saying that there are a great many people that have at least some responsibility in this matter.

    What I do find to be suspicious though is how this one woman seems to bear the only criticism in all this. Not Lee who could have shown just a little more care in what books he was setting out of young trick-or-treaters. Not the police who could have looked at the situation and decided not to do anything about it. Not the grand jury that could have refused to indict Lee. Not any of the judges who could have thrown out all of the charges against Lee at any time. No, it’s Leah Patterson that gets made out to be the monster in all this. You even mistakenly blamed her for the opening statements before the jury that resulted in the mistrial.

    Did she make some mistakes in this case? Sure, but so did a lot of other people.

    And I have no clue what you are referring to about me suggesting something about child molestation or the taking of someone’s virginity. I said no such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. UnknownWed May 07, 10:18:00 PM EDT

    Rick, the aggravated child molestation charge is the one I've been consistently saying Patterson should have never thrown in at Marcus Dixon. It was a slimy move that was not done in the spirit of the law. I'd hazard a guess that many of the lawmakers never intended for the breaking of the hymen to satisfy the requirement of injury laid out in the law, but that's exactly what Patterson's office used to justify the inclusion of the charge...leaving the juries in no position do anything but affirm the charge and find Dixon guilty of it, technically.

    Back to your suggestion that the police officers could have chosen not to arrest Lee. No. Just plain no. Police officers don't have the option of interpreting the law when an injured party chooses to press charges. Many police officers choose to make their own calls on so many other issues, but when a citizen reports a crime, the police officer is supposed to record the complaint and any decision being made on how to handle the offense is made above their head. In this case, with the prosecutor's office.

    You can make the argument that a case should have initially been made against Lee. But on a relatively minor issue (no pun intended), Patterson's office chose to throw good taxpayer money after bad while her office looked fairly incompetent (justly or not) at every turn. That's plenty reason to be critical of Patterson; it is her office and the buck stops at her desk. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, Rick.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AnonymousThu May 08, 01:31:00 AM EDT

    Rick, you'll never have the time, nor the ability to mischaracterize and misrepresent situations, that Huxy has. He's already started the insults, attempts to discredit your argument with logistical falacies (you can't possibly mean what you say, because that sounds like the arguments of people who say the opposite, and we're both rational enough to know THOSE people are crazy), the sweeping generalizations, the absolute lack of knowledge in the field to which he talks...

    Also of note, how in most discussions of this matter, Lee's actual responsibility is brought up, acknowledged, and then the rest of the thread is just a game of grab-ass where the challenger is supposed to defend each and every step of the prosecution.

    The head is heavy, but it is not blessed with precognition. Saying the Prosecutor's office is the and all and most responsible party here ignores a fundamental of the human condition: It is less burdensome to prevent the mistake than to correct it. You blame the prosecutor for not ignoring the valid complaints of concerned parents who are outraged that this man actually violated the law when it's just as easy to say the buck stops at the perpetrator of the crime. Had the law not been violated, there would be no need for the punishment.

    And why do people keep bashing the anons? They seem to be among the most intelligent posts I've read on this blog.

    So speaketh Anonomotopia, king and/or queen of the anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  31. UnknownThu May 08, 01:53:00 AM EDT

    Insults? Honestly, I like Rick and he knows this. But if anyone (including Rick) thinks "disingenuous" is an insult, they're being entirely too sensitive to engage in a discussion on the intarwebz.

    Of course you think the anonymous posters have the most intelligent posts. Sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rick RottmanThu May 08, 07:32:00 AM EDT

    Speaking as someone who goes out of their way to look at all sides of an issue and to only factor in known facts when it comes to forming an opinion, I do take umbrage with the word "disingenuous" being applied to my words. I can be accused of quite a lot of things.

    Disingenuous ain’t one of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  33. UnknownThu May 08, 03:35:00 PM EDT

    Rick, I believe you're well aware that police officers aren't allowed to pick and choose what warrants they serve and that juries (grand and otherwise) are given strict instructions on the charges before them. To present either of them as having the same leeway or wiggle room as a prosecutor's office clearly is dising...ummm...not completely hones...ahem...just ain't right. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rick RottmanThu May 08, 06:09:00 PM EDT

    Police officers aren't allowed to pick and choose what warrants they serve?

    It was the Rome Police Department that decided to arrest Gordon Lee under the Georgia Distributing Material Depicting Nudity or Sexual Conduct law. It wasn't the DA's office. It wasn't Leah Patterson.

    This same police department was at the heart of the civil lawsuit successfully brought against the City of Rome by Gordon Lee. This same police department refused to return over 300 articles of pornography that had been confiscated during the execution of a search warrant of Lee's shop in an earlier case. A case in which Lee was not only convicted, he lost the appeal.

    There's more to this case then what appears on the CBLDF press releases. This case didn't start with Leah Patterson. It started with the Rome Police Department. She didn't get involved until an arrest had already been made. I'm not saying that she doesn't bear some responsibility in how all this went down. Not knowing that there were two children involved was a huge mistake. If anything, it showed she wasn't giving this particular case all that much attention.

    ReplyDelete
  35. UnknownThu May 08, 06:30:00 PM EDT

    Rick, it started with the civilians that wanted to press charges. The cops aren't exactly the cog in the machine responsible for judging the merits of the complaint in this situation, regardless of how much you want to make them out to be.

    By the way, are you defending the competency of a prosecutor by saying she wasn't paying enough attention to the case? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rick RottmanThu May 08, 06:51:00 PM EDT

    Why are you twisting what I say? When did I ever say that I wanted to make the cops the "cog in the machine"? I'm trying to point out that facts in this case. And I'm not trying to defend the competency of Leah Patterson. I'm merely saying she's not the monster that some in the online comic book community make her out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  37. UnknownThu May 08, 06:56:00 PM EDT

    Rick, you're looking to put the emphasis on the wrong part of that sentence. Not only was there nothing to say you called the cops a cog in the machine, the point was that you're placing responsibility in the matter on a party that doesn't carry that responsibility.

    And the point of the cartoon? That Patterson has given Rome two black eyes. Demon or incompetent, the lionshare of the responsibility for those two black eyes fall on Patterson. How she managed to cause them (through intent or stupidity) doesn't exactly matter.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rick RottmanThu May 08, 07:15:00 PM EDT

    I would think the lionshare of responsibility in the Dixon case would go to the 18 year old male that decided to have sex with a 15 year old girl on school grounds. A girl who because of her age was incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult. In the Gordon Lee case, it was the guy passing out comic books containing full nudity and references to masturbation and oral sex to small children. Why assign blame to them when I can be just like everyone else and blame the one woman involved in both these cases?

    When in doubt, blame the woman.

    ReplyDelete
  39. AnonymousFri May 09, 12:34:00 AM EDT

    "The cops aren't exactly the cog in the machine responsible for judging the merits of the complaint in this situation, regardless of how much you want to make them out to be."

    "Not only was there nothing to say you called the cops a cog in the machine, the point was that you're placing responsibility in the matter on a party that doesn't carry that responsibility"

    Read together. Twist at will.

    And statutory rape is... well... statutory. It's a strict liability issue, and is designed as such to impress the seriousness of the issue upon those who may be involved. It is not there to be applied willy nilly, nor is it, as Kevin seems to think, a trumped up charge that prosecutors routinely ignore unless they want to victimize someone.

    It is designed so that when the elements of the case are present, it does not matter that there was only 3 years between victim and victimizer, or that it was consensual. You'd be surprised at how many underage sexual assault victims consented to sexual intercourse either as horny teenagers or ignorant kids.

    ReplyDelete
  40. UnknownFri May 09, 01:55:00 AM EDT

    Are you really that dense or is it just a joke, most recent Anon? I've not hinged my argument on the idea that the statutory rape charge shouldn't have been applied. I did point out that there have been times where the age difference was this slight (2 1/4 years) that charges weren't filed.

    But the crux of my argument was that the more serious of the two charges that initially stuck, aggravated child molestation, should never have been brought against him. The Supreme Court of Georgia tossed out that conviction...the one that led to the serious time for a young adult who was found to have had sex with a willing minor.

    You're one of those people that is so desperate to win that you have to make shit up as you go along, eh? :)

    ReplyDelete
  41. UnknownFri May 09, 02:01:00 AM EDT

    And Rick? Shame on you for trying to make it a sexism issue. Gender has nothing to do with this discussion and it says a lot about you that you'd stoop to something like that to try to win an internet debate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rick RottmanFri May 09, 04:46:00 AM EDT

    And Rick? Shame on you for trying to make it a sexism issue. Gender has nothing to do with this discussion and it says a lot about you that you'd stoop to something like that to try to win an internet debate.

    Win an Internet debate? Is that what you think I've been trying to do here? I could care less about winning arguments on the Internet. What I've been trying to do here is counter some of the misinformation surrounding the Gordon Lee case. God knows there's a lot of it going around. I also can't help but notice that some people seem fixated on attacking the female prosecutor and blaming her for everything, even things outside her control. You blamed her for the opening statements to the jury which resulted in the judge granting the mistrial. When I pointed out that it was John Tully and not Leah Patterson that made the opening statements, you still blamed Patterson.

    One of the things I've noticed about this case is that an awful lot people choose to only blame the woman in all this. Not the police that believed Lee broke the law and chose to arrest him. Not the grand jury that heard the evidence presented by the DA and decided to charge Lee. Not the judge that refused to throw out all of the charges against Lee. No, everyone seems fixed on blaming the female prosecutor for everything concerning this case. Prosecutors prosecute. That's what they do. Even the ones who are female.

    ReplyDelete
  43. UnknownFri May 09, 01:29:00 PM EDT

    The point, Rick, is you're the ONLY PERSON HERE FIXATED ON GENDER. And you introduce it after all your unsuccessful attempts to build an argument that others in the process have just as much leeway as a prosecutor does.

    So, again, shame on you for trying to make this sexism when it isn't that at all. I would have thought that was beneath you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Rick RottmanFri May 09, 01:54:00 PM EDT

    Fixated? I wouldn't use that particular word to describe myself on this matter, but I guess you are welcome to your opinion. And I never argued that the others in the process had just as much leeway as the prosecutor. If anything, I would argue that she had less leeway then the others. Once the grand jury agreed to charge Lee, only the judge could change that decision.

    Even when she worked out an agreement with Lee's lawyers, the judge had to approve the deal. She couldn't just drop the charges. The judge could, but she could not. Even though the judge had much more power in this case, I don't every remember anyone on a message board or in a blog referring to him as a "power hungry bitch".

    Let me make it clear that I am not accusing you of sexism when it comes to the DA. I can't say the same with everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  45. UnknownFri May 09, 02:13:00 PM EDT

    Alright, Rick...it just seemed to come out of nowhere because I missed where anyone went with the "power hungry bitch" angle here.

    If the prosecutor came up with deals that the judge rejected, I'd be able to agree with your argument.

    But the prosecutor kept decided to keep it going and going and going, spending taxpayer money to do so...which is what the readership of the above posted cartoon would be judging her on. Whether you thought Lee should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or not, that was one incredibly expensive apology.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rick RottmanFri May 09, 02:46:00 PM EDT

    No, the sexist comments I was referring to were mostly things I read over on Newsarama back when this case was getting discussed a lot. The moderators would usually delete the most egregious ones ("bitch") as soon as they saw them. You know how it goes over there sometimes. ;)

    Because of the CBLDF's no-plea bargain policy, I don't even know if any deals were even offered. That left the DA with the choice of either dropping the charges completely or prosecuting it to the max. I always thought this case should have resulted in a $50 fine and maybe a year of unsupervised probation. Because Lee was not open to even discussing a plea bargain, the case had to go on. And on. And on.

    ReplyDelete
  47. UnknownFri May 09, 03:05:00 PM EDT

    Oh...I know how things can go on Newsarama. ;)

    Isn't the acceptance of an apology a plea bargain of sorts? I mean...you called it just that in your blog (which is the top result if you search for Gordon, Lee, Rome and plea, btw). ;)

    And I seriously don't think that the CBLDF would have turned down a plea bargain of a small fine. Looking up the example you use to determine no plea bargains are accepted, it included pleading guilty to the two felony charges, with just an agreement of attractive sentencing.

    Then again, this was a misdemeanor...you don't have a lot of room to plea down. ;) The defense contends that an apology was offered from the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Rick RottmanFri May 09, 03:23:00 PM EDT

    Well, I certainly thought it was a plea bargain, but I think I'm the only one that had that opinion. I think the difference is that Lee didn't actually plead guilty to anything. I think from reading up on the CBLDF's viewpoint, pleading guilty even if it meant $1 fine and no probation would have been unacceptable. Not that I am in any position to speak for them. :)

    I think most misdemeanors are resolved with a plea bargain. From what I read, it's kind of rare for a trial to be held for a misdemeanor. If every misdemeanor went to trial and required a jury trial, the courts would be even more clogged then they already are.

    ReplyDelete
  49. UnknownFri May 09, 03:58:00 PM EDT

    Yeah...most prosecutors would have plea bargained that down immediately. So quick that the CBLDF wouldn't have had a chance to get in the picture. ;)

    You and I will have to agree to disagree on whether CBLDF's stance is that hard line that a misdemeanor wouldn't be allowed to plea bargain, rather than the whole felony thing.

    ReplyDelete

It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)