TheRobotLives wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I think you are stretching a lot to get to the conclusion you want to get to. This isn't a mercy offer; it was part of an official review on the actions of a corrupt cop. The guilty plea is not meaningful; people plead guilty to trumped up charges all the time because they simply don't see an option. I can't say if his hands were perfectly clean, but clean enough for the district attorney to sign off on the clemency request. District attorneys and parole boards don't make these recommendations for politics or to be nice; they do it because their departments failed someone and they do not believe justice was served. Why do you insist on second guessing them?
I do my own thinking.
Just like if governor Abbot rejects the request, I expect you won't blindly follow his authority.
I assume, then, that you have read all the information that never made it to court because it was concealed or altered by the corrupt cop?
We don’t have the information required to pass judgement on this. In the absence of that, the question becomes, to me, who is likely to be making the most honest, non-political assessment, and what are they saying?
It is impossible to live without ever defaulting to trusting someone else’s judgement. Your position relies on assumptions grounded in someone else’s rendering of the details, just like mine does. Your trust is in the judge who oversaw the case decades ago, mine is in the professionals who did an updated review.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
07 Oct 2021, 11:54 am
