I came up with this idea not to long ago but here is the basis of it. I will post a story probably every day and let people here debate if that person should be innocent or guilty. The story could be real or fake but I won't tell you. If you have a story that you want debated, comment my profile so I can find it easier. This thread is just to get people thinking about justice. All stories will be posted in this thread. If you need help finding it, just ask what page it is on. Here is the first story...
A man was walking on a woman's porch holding a knife. He has not entered the home. She notices him and looks out the window. He holds the knife out and laughs. The woman becomes scared and releases her pit bull outside. She calls the police and they arrive 10 minutes later. However, before they arrive, the dog attacks the man and he receives serious wounds. Now we are in the court room. The man says he thought he was at his friend's home. He says that his friend left the knife at his house and was returning it. The man meant no harm to the woman and demands that she pay his medical bills for the dog bites. So, we have a woman who believes it was self defense to let the dog go. She thought he would hurt her and trespassing so she thinks he should be put in jail. She also says she does not have to pay the medical bills. He believes the dog should be put down and the woman pay his medical bills. Who is right and who is wrong? You be the judge.
Remember, you are debating what you think should be done to the man and woman. There really is no right and wrong answer. It is how you feel justice should be carried out.
I know that in Michigan, the law states that the dogs are going to be put down no matter what. The male might be taken in for a psychiatric evaluation, or jail. I think that the woman would only be fined for the dogs' demise.
that was on the first story, on the second. I really think that he shouldn't get any time, if there is no weapon permit in Wisconsin. If he owns the house, he can do whatever he wants. I think that he should be taken in for psychiatric evaluation and maybe some anger management classesa, but I wouldn't give him jail time.
A Darwin Award goes to someone who proves Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest. Basically, a stupid person who gets themself killed doing something dumb. Google it, there are books on it, most are hilarious.
If it is illegal to own a gun where he lives, and/or he didn't have the license/paperwork to own the gun, he should be punished for owning that if it is illegal. And yes, if he is outside, especially in his front yard, he should be punished for disturbing the peace, if he lives in a populated community where the shot could be heard and someone could get really upset about it. I don't think he should get a very harsh punishment, just a small fine, and obviously his gun taken away... possibly not allowed to own a gun for suchandsuch a time, if ever.
i don't know about his state but in mine you do not need a license to own a "long-gun" which are rifles and shotguns without illegal modifications. you do need permits for "short-guns" though, which are any hand held gun like a pistol or revolver.
Sorry guys for not posting a new story. The last story is real and here is what the verdict was.
Nearly $10,000 in fines. 6 years and 3 months in jail.
Interesting how some of you didn't even think he should be put in jail.
Next story...
Two men went to a bar together. One of them is blind. The other man was at least 2 and a half times over the legal drinking limit. He felt drunk driving was worse then blind driving so he gave the blind man directions. Police found them swerving off the road and expected it to be the typical drunk driver. Now we are in the court room. The men both plead that they felt that was the safest way to get home since the blind man could react to noises quicker. Should they be fined and sentenced to jail? You be the judge.
I will post what the final verdict was tomorrow along with a new story.
I would say that the blind man would be at fault and the drunk man isn't. Being a drunk passenger is not a crime. driving without vision is obviously wreck less endangerment, disorderly conduct, public nusaince (sp?), and probably so much more. very strange case but nobody forced the blind man to drive and can't blame the drunk guy for not driving. just my guess though. very strange can;t wait to here the verdict.
The verdict on this one is also sort of interesting. When you say the blind man is at fault, how much fault? I would like to see exactly what people think should be done in each situation.
The are both at fault. Blind man for reckless endangerment, etc. The drunk for being over the legal drinking limit. Simple as that. The drunk would get the appropriate sentence, which I do not know, and the blind man should get a fine and a slap on the wrist, but he will probably end up with years.
