• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

Normal Texas justice ?

You read it in the People's Weekly World and you couldn't believe it?

That's a fairly standard reaction.
 
Looks like there was an unusual attempt at redress.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070421johnson-story,0,635028.story

But still they're walking free.

And the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has successfully sued -- and bankrupted -- a number of neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan groups in the past, is known for its relentless pursuit of damages.

Some small hope for the future then.

Nice quote from the mother of one of the assailants:

His mother, Martha Howell, reflected the attitudes of many white residents of Linden when interviewed about the case in 2005.

"These boys' names are ruined for life," Howell said of her son and the other assailants. "And [Johnson] is better off today than he's ever been in his life. He roamed the streets, the family never knew where he was. Now in the nursing home he's got someone to take care of him."

Linden sounds like a nice resting home for apartheid sympathisers.
 
I hope no morons cry reverse racism. Regardless of the perpetrators' race, they should have gotten life.
 
Really? You just crack wise that it's People's Weekly World and never look to see if the story's true? Bathsheba found reference in the Chicago Tribune, posted a link, posted quotes, and it's still just "Haha, People's Weekly World!"

:rolleyes:

Cleo
 
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (basically the state supreme court for criminal law) kicked the case back to the lower courts to perhaps have even the light sentences overturned:

James Corey Hicks was convicted of injury to a disabled individual by omission. (1) The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that "possession" (2) equated to "care, custody, or control" under Section 22.04(d), and that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to prove that Hicks assumed a duty of "care, custody, or control" over the victim. (3) We hold that the court erred by expanding the language of Section 22.04(d) and reverse and remand this case to the court of appeals.
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=16306
 
Really? You just crack wise that it's People's Weekly World and never look to see if the story's true? Bathsheba found reference in the Chicago Tribune, posted a link, posted quotes, and it's still just "Haha, People's Weekly World!"

:rolleyes:

Cleo

Well in my liberal little country those four would
get the same as they dished out.

Equality can be a b**ch.
 
Back
Top Bottom