Disgusting....

Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton CA
Edited Date/Time 1/21/2012 4:55pm
This guy runs down a cyclist and get's busted for a hit and run after leaving the guy for dead at the side of the road. The judge won't prosecute him for a felony because he's afraid the guy might lose his job at Morgan Stanley.

Now here's the kicker. The guy he hit was a liver transplant surgeon.

So a banker's job is now more important to the courts than a transplant surgeon?

Fuck me.

Link to story

Just boot Obama out already and hand the keys to the country over to who really runs it. The guys at Goldman Sachs. At least it will be easier to know who to blame if they take the figurehead out of the equation.
|
SteveS
Posts
5600
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WV US
11/8/2010 12:42pm
Banks too big to fail....bankers too important to prosecute.
Void Main
Posts
17017
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
US
11/8/2010 12:44pm
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

The logic is that the guy isn't going to be able to pay medical bills for the victim without a job.
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
11/8/2010 12:49pm
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln

(Full disclosure: I think I read somewhere that the first quote wasn't Jefferson, but I couldn't find it, and I could be confusing it with another quote, so there it is.)

The Shop

flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
11/8/2010 1:01pm
Void Main wrote:
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article: [i]"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in...
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

The logic is that the guy isn't going to be able to pay medical bills for the victim without a job.
I actually agree with this, and it is, amazing as this sounds, in the best interest of Dr Milo.

This now allows Dr Milo to seek compensation and damages in civil court and as long as Erzinger continues to make money while Milo cannot, it only strengthens Milo's case and reason for greater damages.
Void Main
Posts
17017
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
US
11/8/2010 1:06pm
Void Main wrote:
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article: [i]"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in...
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

The logic is that the guy isn't going to be able to pay medical bills for the victim without a job.
flarider wrote:
I actually agree with this, and it is, amazing as this sounds, in the best interest of Dr Milo. This now allows Dr Milo to seek...
I actually agree with this, and it is, amazing as this sounds, in the best interest of Dr Milo.

This now allows Dr Milo to seek compensation and damages in civil court and as long as Erzinger continues to make money while Milo cannot, it only strengthens Milo's case and reason for greater damages.
Agreed. Erzinger is going to pay monetarily or pay by sitting in jail. The Dr can only benefit if he stays out of jail and keeps his job. The public benefits by not having to support him in jail.
Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton CA
11/8/2010 1:08pm
Void Main wrote:
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article: [i]"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in...
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

The logic is that the guy isn't going to be able to pay medical bills for the victim without a job.
So if an unemployed dude hit the guy then they would have thrown the book at him?

How is that equal justice for all?

This isn't civil court, this is criminal court. Ability to pay shouldn't be considered.

So here you have a guy who's getting off easy because they don't want him to lose his job. A job that requires a clean criminal record so that others will feel safe knowing that you don't allow criminals to hold positions of power over your finances. It's a double whammy! The guy has all the ethics of a Mexican drug lord and the courts, rather than do what's right, send him back to work. Right where he shouldn't be since he's a fucking criminal and they have the system in place to keep them out of that line of work.

What does that tell us? That it's OK to turn to crime as long as you do it after you get a high paying wall street job? That the protections in place in the financial industry are only there to be used for people who have a prior conviction and are seeking work? That once you get the job you can be as crooked as you want and the courts will protect you and your high paying job?
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
11/8/2010 1:14pm
If I were the judge, I think I'd have asked the victim and then done that.
Void Main
Posts
17017
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
US
11/8/2010 1:16pm
Void Main wrote:
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article: [i]"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in...
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

The logic is that the guy isn't going to be able to pay medical bills for the victim without a job.
Rooster wrote:
So if an unemployed dude hit the guy then they would have thrown the book at him? How is that equal justice for all? This isn't...
So if an unemployed dude hit the guy then they would have thrown the book at him?

How is that equal justice for all?

This isn't civil court, this is criminal court. Ability to pay shouldn't be considered.

So here you have a guy who's getting off easy because they don't want him to lose his job. A job that requires a clean criminal record so that others will feel safe knowing that you don't allow criminals to hold positions of power over your finances. It's a double whammy! The guy has all the ethics of a Mexican drug lord and the courts, rather than do what's right, send him back to work. Right where he shouldn't be since he's a fucking criminal and they have the system in place to keep them out of that line of work.

What does that tell us? That it's OK to turn to crime as long as you do it after you get a high paying wall street job? That the protections in place in the financial industry are only there to be used for people who have a prior conviction and are seeking work? That once you get the job you can be as crooked as you want and the courts will protect you and your high paying job?
Read my disclaimer in the first sentence. Nerd has a good point. Should have asked the victim in this case. If the victim had died then they should have locked the dude up but I can see the logic in what the judge did. Again, not saying that I agree with it.
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
11/8/2010 1:24pm
Void Main wrote:
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article: [i]"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in...
Not that I agree with the decision I do see the logic. From the article:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

The logic is that the guy isn't going to be able to pay medical bills for the victim without a job.
Rooster wrote:
So if an unemployed dude hit the guy then they would have thrown the book at him? How is that equal justice for all? This isn't...
So if an unemployed dude hit the guy then they would have thrown the book at him?

How is that equal justice for all?

This isn't civil court, this is criminal court. Ability to pay shouldn't be considered.

So here you have a guy who's getting off easy because they don't want him to lose his job. A job that requires a clean criminal record so that others will feel safe knowing that you don't allow criminals to hold positions of power over your finances. It's a double whammy! The guy has all the ethics of a Mexican drug lord and the courts, rather than do what's right, send him back to work. Right where he shouldn't be since he's a fucking criminal and they have the system in place to keep them out of that line of work.

What does that tell us? That it's OK to turn to crime as long as you do it after you get a high paying wall street job? That the protections in place in the financial industry are only there to be used for people who have a prior conviction and are seeking work? That once you get the job you can be as crooked as you want and the courts will protect you and your high paying job?
No one really says it's "right" but it may be the best thing for the victim, and I agree that the prosecutor should have discussed it with the victim.

But to assume that the driver is going to get zero punishment is likely not accurate, seeing as that Milo will hire a lawyer on contingency, Erzinger is going to pay out the ass for his, then likely lose and then pay what will amount to judgements in the millions for lost wages, pain and suffering, legal fees and more.....Erzinger's life and lifestyle will most surely be impacted on a large scale.

Erzinger's punishment will be to damage or take away the life and lifestyle he's become accustomed to.
Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton CA
11/8/2010 1:38pm
Milo, who lives in New York City with his wife and kids, is furious about the dropped charges, Vail Daily says. The doctor's line of work, like Erzinger's, has been threatened by the incident. "His ability to deal with the physical challenges of his profession -- liver transplant surgery -- has been seriously jeopardized," Haddon, Milo's lawyer, said. Here's Milo, from the Vail Daily:

"Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway," Milo wrote. "Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case."


So do I understand correctly that you guys think it's OK to let a guy off on a crime as long as he can afford to pay monetarily for what he's done? Even when it's opposed by the victim? How much will it cost me if I want to burn down my neighbors house with them inside? It's the same kind of wanton disregard for human life. Do I need to work on wall street or just be rich?

You guys now have the banana republic you deserve.
Void Main
Posts
17017
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
US
11/8/2010 1:40pm
Rooster wrote:
[i][b]Milo, who lives in New York City with his wife and kids, is furious about the dropped charges, Vail Daily says. The doctor's line of work...
Milo, who lives in New York City with his wife and kids, is furious about the dropped charges, Vail Daily says. The doctor's line of work, like Erzinger's, has been threatened by the incident. "His ability to deal with the physical challenges of his profession -- liver transplant surgery -- has been seriously jeopardized," Haddon, Milo's lawyer, said. Here's Milo, from the Vail Daily:

"Mr. Erzinger struck me, fled and left me for dead on the highway," Milo wrote. "Neither his financial prominence nor my financial situation should be factors in your prosecution of this case."


So do I understand correctly that you guys think it's OK to let a guy off on a crime as long as he can afford to pay monetarily for what he's done? Even when it's opposed by the victim? How much will it cost me if I want to burn down my neighbors house with them inside? It's the same kind of wanton disregard for human life. Do I need to work on wall street or just be rich?

You guys now have the banana republic you deserve.
Nope, I missed that part and now I would definitely say he should have been jailed. Carry on. Smile
flarider
Posts
25499
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL US
11/8/2010 1:50pm
and like I said, the prosecutor should have conferred with the victim first, but I do understand the prosecutor's point, as well as the victim's

The asshole should pay, period
Either through jail or financially or both
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
TX US
11/8/2010 2:11pm
I don't think I ever heard of a criminal case being decided on the basis of the wealth of the defendent - at least not explicitly. The wealthy people own America today. It's that simple.

My son was just doing an English assignment about poverty in South America, and I told him that the history of the human race was that a small number of people always wind up controlling all the wealth and power unless there are specific socio-political structures in place to prevent it. The systems that were put into place in our country to prevent it are being ignored and bypassed, and the predictible result is that a smaller and smaller number of people control all the power and all the wealth. Turn out the lights, the party's over...
raynmann
Posts
173
Joined
8/4/2007
Location
Montgomery, TX US
11/8/2010 2:38pm
Fuck the banker. Lie to him for now, tell him to pay his debt to the doc, after he pays, go pick his ass up off of his yacht, throw him in the pokey.
J.F.S
Posts
4385
Joined
10/20/2008
Location
Stockholm SE
11/8/2010 2:56pm
Call me commie, but the dude should go to jail no doubt. WTF!

Post a reply to: Disgusting....

The Latest