In my opinion, I don't believe Timothy Boomer should've been sentenced under guilty for the 'crime' he comitted.
From how I looked at this case, it doesn't make any sense how the judge came to the conclusion of his decision anyhow. According to this, it said that witnesses didn't hear him cuzz the 'f' word more than three times.
Unless they were lying about it, it's a big stretch. Either the prosecutors are right, or the witnesses... 75 times to 2-3 times.
Then the judge talked about how yelling the 'f' word to children is vulgar or indecent. Although he has a point there, I don't understand why he brought up New York or LA; it's like he's saying 'Well, we're trying to make a good example, unlike other people... and by own beliefs, I say he should be guilty.'
All in all, I believe the case was sorta lacking, in terms of the evidence, and the authority who was ruling the case. The case has a problem, it has some information (with two major-different opposing sides of the story)... but the way the judge handled it sounded unprofessional. It sounded like his ruling was more 'his opinion', than 'how the law bids it'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You write:
ReplyDelete>>I don't understand why he brought up New York or LA<<
Perhaps to show that this is different kind of town? Sort of a "we don't roll that way in Northern MI" type of ruling. I definitely think they wanted to make an example of the guy, but it may have had less to do with the law than the values the town wanted to espouse.