Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (158906)	1/25/2003 3:34:57 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580037

Please explain why Mr. Pickering seemingly was unconcerned with the 17 year old's lack of a sentence even though he had shot into the couple's home and was the ringleader but instead Mr. Pickering was most concerned that Swan who was not even his client get a sentence that was proportional to the 17 year old's who got off scott free? Your allegation doesn't comport with the facts. It was Swan who was at trial and not the 17-year old, and Pickering could have had no impact whatsoever on the sentencing of the 17-year old. That said, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Pickering was "unconcerned" about the 17-year old's light sentence; in fact, his entire position was based on the fact that he felt the 17-year old, who was more responsible for the crime, had received a lighter sentence. I'm not sure why you're unclear on this. The 17 year old received no sentence suggesting that the system already had broken down. Therefore, how can you compare Swan's sentencing with that of the 17 year old. That's like using a ruby as a standard for determining the quality of diamonds. We already know something very wrong happened with the 17 year's case even before Swan went to trial. In the meantime, a jury of Mr. Swan's peers finds Mr. Swan guilty of two crimes......now neither one of us knows the details that came out during the trial but its clear he was convictable on two counts or his attorney would have asked for a new trial, and yet, Mr. Pickering took it upon himself to lighten the sentence. Again, I say to you.......there is not much clarity in Mr. Pickering's behavior. And again, I ask is this the best the GOP has to offer. Please answer the question. ted

To: i-node who wrote (158906)	1/25/2003 3:40:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580037

Sorry, big guy, but that's all it takes for me to suspect this man and I don't want him sitting on a court of law in this land. You conveniently fail to respond to my post pointing out his positions that clearly refute the notion of his being "racist". Excuse me........I did answer that post; however, I am one person...I can only posts so fast. I regret I can not do it at the pace you would like. This is all about politics with the Democrats. ALL POLITICS. Maybe for some of the senators but not for me. Pickering is a questionable choice. I would be critical of him even if the Pope was the nominator. ted