Colorado Gov. Polis Commutes 110-Year Sentence for Trucker in Deadly Crash, Pardons Hundreds of Marijuana Convictions
Rogel Aguilera-Mederos faced harsh punishment under the state’s mandatory minimum sentences for insisting on the right to a trial.

Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis ended 2021 using his executive power to provide some mercy, commuting the controversial 110-year prison sentence of a trucker who killed four in a crash and pardoning more than 1,300 Coloradans with marijuana convictions.
Rogel Aguilera-Mederos became a national news story in December when a judge sentenced him to 110 years in prison as punishment when the brakes of his truck failed and he killed four people in a highway crash. The brake failure was partly a result of some poor decisions on Aguilera-Mederos' part. Nevertheless, it certainly wasn't his intent to kill anybody.
The reason he received a sentence similar to what a murderer would get was because he insisted on a right to a trial, and the prosecutor essentially punished him for it by throwing 42 charges at him. He was ultimately convicted of 27 charges and his harsh sentence was a result of all of the mandatory minimums attached. Judge A. Bruce Jones said at the time he did not want to levy such a harsh sentence but had little say in the matter.
Subsequently First Judicial District Attorney Alexis King, who was responsible for filing all these charges against Aguilera-Mederos, started looking to have his sentence reduced. The trucker also submitted an application to have his sentence commuted, and on Thursday Polis agreed, reducing his sentence to 10 years in prison. In his commutation letter, Polis writes:
The length of your 110-year sentence is simply not commensurate with your actions, nor with penalties handed down to others for similar crimes. There is an urgency to remedy this unjust sentence and restore confidence in the uniformity and fairness of our criminal justice system, and consequently I have chosen to commute your sentence now. At the end of the day, this arbitrary and unjust sentence was the result of a law of Colorado passed by the legislature and signed by a prior Governor and is not the fault of the judge who handed down the mandatory sentence required by the law in this case. As such, it falls on me to take action to ensure that justice is served in this case, and I am doing so today with this limited commutation.
As for the mass marijuana pardons, in 2020, Colorado's legislature passed a bill that streamlined the pardon process for some convictions. State law normally requires a lengthy, individualized process for each pardon. H.B. 20-1424 grants the governor the power to provide mass pardons to those convicted of possession of up to 2 ounces of marijuana without having to deal with the whole process.
On Thursday, Polis announced that 1,351 such pardons. In a prepared statement he noted how these drug war convictions had deprived citizens of any number of rights:
Adults can legally possess marijuana in Colorado, just as they can beer or wine. It's unfair that 1,351 additional Coloradans had permanent blemishes on their record that interfered with employment, credit, and gun ownership, but today we have fixed that by pardoning their possession of small amounts of marijuana that occurred during the failed prohibition era.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good on Polis.
It is good, but hopefully he and the state legislature will follow up with the additional steps of:
1) Taking a good hard look at mandatory minimum sentences, especially on stacked charges (42 counts for one negligent act?!)
2) Taking a good hard look at the so-called 'Trial Penalty' where prosecutors can use their discretion to stack all of these charges when those accused of crimes assert their rights (42 counts for one negligent act?!)
3) Asking themselves why juries are not currently permitted to know the potential sentences for each charge, their potential cumulative effect, and whether or not that is justified.
One negligent act my ass. There were at least 5 separate negligent acts he performed in order to come to the point of ramming into traffic.
1. He was riding his brakes way too hard all the way down the mountain from his initial load pickup.
2. When he stopped to get out of the truck and check his brakes further up the mountain, he didn't decide to stop and call a repair truck and instead decided to continue in a vehicle that was probably faulty.
3. Upon restarting his way down the mountain, rather than keeping it in low gear and taking it really fucking slow he decided to try and go the speed limit, and then became unable to put the vehicle back into low gears as the speed outstripped the low gear ratios.
4. Before his brakes were completely shot but obviously failing he passed at least 2 emergency ramps that he could have ditched in, but because that would cost him money he decided not to.
5. After his brakes were completely shot he ignored the emergency off ramp.
Moreover, throughout this entire sequence of events, he was on the phone and radio asking for assistance which means plenty of people were telling him to ditch and he still chose not to.
OK, If I take your assertions as fact, and not merely mistakes based on youth or inexperience or inadequate training or poor maintenance by the owners of the truck or trailer -
You still have FIVE counts. Not FORTY-TWO.
Check the court case. This all is evidence from prosecution.
Libertarians for 'taking the prosecutor's word for it'. Wow.
I've previously checked the case. I'm not arguing that the guy is innocent. He was clearly negligent in some aspects and probably reckless in others. But the entire episode is still one event of one guy making bad decisions.
He caused the death of 4 people and injuries to several others by his bad actions - but - not apparently on purpose. Not even the prosecutors alleged that.
How do you justify stacking 42 (FORTY TWO) charges on a guy who wouldn't accept a plea bargain? For the one event?
OK, now do a guy who has a few beers at several bars, gets into a big truck, and crashes into a line of cars at a red light, and kills four people--not on purpose.
He should clearly be charged for 42 crimes.
I have received dfy exactly $20845 last month from this and home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online nam by follow instruction
on the given website........... Visit Here
So now that you've checked it you're not taking anyone's word for it and know that this tragedy was wholly avoidable at multiple points?
Libertarians doing research +1
I never said the guy wasn't at fault, or at least partially responsible.
I object to the stacking of charges (AKA 'Trial Penalty') to a ridiculous amount, for one event. This was not a multiple incident crime spree or anything. One tragic event. Even the prosecutors belatedly repented of this.
I object to minimum mandatory sentences that give the judges in cases like this no discretion in sentencing. The judge in this case also lamented this.
I object to the jury not being allowed to be fully informed as to the potential sentencing implications of their decisions. They are actually legally barred from knowing this.
There was a string of bad decisions leading up to this, and bailing out at any of his numerous opportunities - including when he was fully stopped to observe the damage to his brakes - rather than trying to ride it out would have saved many lives.
110 is perhaps excessive. 10 is an overt insult.
Jesus you're a fucking moron. The 5, and really it was more than that those are only the most easily identifiable, negligent acts killed 4 people, seriously injured 6 more, and caused a bunch of minor injuries and millions in private and public property damage. Oh, and he attempted to flee the scene afterwards. So no, 42 counts charged were not too many for the depravity of his actions.
Often overlooked is that the trial occurred because he didn’t accept any responsibility, ever.
Even at sentencing, he denied intent, but never said he was sorry for causing people to die and causing injuries and destroying property and fleeing.
He’s a piece of shit deserving of 400 years in jail.
Thank you for going into detail where Shackford decided to skip the details... After I looked at this case a bit more, the 110 years almost became reasonable.
He had so many chances to not cause a tragedy and chose to ignore good advice and common sense.
Yes and he is already taking a lot of heat for it...and rightly so.
No comments ... Is this one of those "technical glitch" comment-free articles? I shall see.
Only comment I have about Colorado is my heart goes out to all the people who lost their homes to fire yesterday. Still waiting to hear if my friends who live in Lafayette are OK.
On the sixth day of Kwaanza Dr. Karenga gave them hos
soldering irons in their pieholes,
a toaster upside their domes,
detergent up their nose,
a vice to crush their toes,
karate baton blows,
and a whipping with electrical cords.
He negligence resulted in their deaths. 110 years seemed way harsh. But “totes ok” a but generous. Unless the dour dead were unvaccinated. In which case, he should receive a prize.
110 years was absolutely stupid, but commuting the whole thing is wrong too. 3 years would've been perfect and his bosses could've joined him.
That's why mandatory minimums are so retarded.
The governor commuted his sentence to 10 years. I don't think that's long enough. His extreme recklessness caused four deaths.
I don't know enough about his employer's actions or inactions to pass judgment, but they could very well be criminally as well as civilly liable, too.
I do give Polis kudos for pardoning those convicted of marijuana possession. About time.
No tin pot dictator he! A pipe dream come true! More joint action along these lines please!
He’s on a roll.
For now…. You know how these politicians zigzag…
Marijuana puns bowl me over.
Unless the wordplay is too blunt….
Is this a joint effort between you and Chumby?
What can I say? We’re BUDS!
The puns are multiplying like roaches.
Should have been 40. Let him get out of prison, but make him aged when he does. This shit of having him eligible for parole in 5 years is heinous considering what this asshole did.
I think there's that's kind of racist about this-people seem to think he couldn't have known the severity of his actions because he's an immigrant, and doesn't speak much English. Thinking some 23-year-old man isn't ready to face adult consequences for taking adult actions due to his demographics. I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into this, though.
I think I'm in agreement concerning what would be a just length of his sentence.
Polis doesn't point to anything specific for his choice of ten years and parole eligibility after five other than (a) the defendant did not intentionally cause the result, and (b) the original sentencing length wasn't commensurate with sentencing for similar crimes. It isn't clear from the commutation letter whether a 10-year-sentence-with-5-year-parole-eligibility is commensurate with sentencing for said similar crimes.
Polis also says the accident spurred changes in the way the state warns truck drivers of impending steep grades and access to runaway ramps to ensure this type of accident doesn't happen again. Of course, steep-grade warnings and access to runaway ramps were posted frequently and obviously, which was one of the very factors that led to his conviction. I don't see how these "changes" would have prevented him from being so reckless.
It all feels phony.
And if you've ever driven on mountain roads like this, it can nerve-wracking. It's even worse if you picture a truck driver who is blatantly ignoring everything he's supposed to do to avoid killing people who is driving those roads.
One of the survivors came out and said she thought he should have gotten 50 years. She claims this guy actually approached and asked to borrow her phone because he was trying to flee the scene.
This wasn't a freak accident, this was eminently foreseeable based on the driver's actions and choices.
It isn't clear from the commutation letter whether a 10-year-sentence-with-5-year-parole-eligibility is commensurate with sentencing for said similar crimes.
In Colorado, the penalty for vehicular homicide without a DUI attached is a class 4 felony. 2 to 6 years in prison and $2,000 to $500,000 in fines. With a DUI - a class 3 felony - 4 to 12 years in prison and $3,000 to $750,000 in fines.
It may be more than that in other states - but vehicular homicide in the US is almost everywhere a big who cares offense. Killing someone with a vehicle is - well - as American as driving.
And yeah there need to be huge changes both in how the state posts warnings/etc around the mountain highways and how truckers/companies train themselves in driving in mountains. But don't hold your breath on that. This driver had never driven in CO, lived in Houston, worked for a Houston trucking company (so probably had no knowledge of mountains either), and at least part of the route was interstate system.
I've driven that length of I-70 many times- possibly hundreds. The signs warning truckers occur with high frequency, with pictures for those who can't read English. The emergency off-ramps occur every few miles. This was definitely negligent homicide.
I have too - and the stretch of 40 north to Berthoud Pass where the trucker started. Not in a truck but even in a car/SUV you still have to learn the feel of when to downshift. It's not just numbers/instructions in a driving manual. This wouldn't have happened with a driver experienced on that road or in mountains.
But this driver had no driving experience in CO. Probably none in mountains. Was a new truck driver. Working for a Houston trucking company (no mountains, few CO trips, presumably very little training). The name of that trucking company is completely unreported - so the likelihood is that they simply declared bankruptcy to avoid liability.
So - how do you keep this sort of driver/truck/company from driving on CO mountain interstate?
Why was he behind the wheel of an 80,000lb. semi in the first place?!!! Doesn't read or speak English, obviously had very little training and knowledge and how the hell did he get his CDL? If he even had one.
His obvious lack of driving experience including driving in the mountains should never have allowed him to drive through that area.
The trucking company that hired him and then sent him out on the road might as well as handed him a loaded Ak 47 and sent out on the street. The company should be held just as culpable and responsible for this tragedy. They should have known better, either that or they just didn't give a shit.
I agree that 110 years is too much but reducing it to 10 years is an insult to all those who lost family members and those who were injured and some probably permanently disabled.
Unfortunately, because of this politicians are going to get more involved in this and as we all know when politicians get involved, nothing good come out of it.
He likely won’t serve anywhere near 10 years. Probably more like 7.
Obviously they're ashamed of these actions, think they're getting away with some corrupt practice by commuting sentences on the way out the door.
The reason he received a sentence similar to what murderers would get is because his depraved indifference to possible harm killed four people and injured 20 others, while destroying several vehicles, doing millions in damages to vehicles, the road, and the overpass.
Very few murderers cause the harm this guy did.
But intention matters. And should.
If I intend to fire a gun into a crowd of people without hitting anyone, should I get out in 5 years if I only kill four of them?
Because he did commit intentional acts here. He chose his route (he wasn't told where he had to drive). He recklessly operated his vehicle, riding his brakes until they melted free, instead driving a slope carefully, the way truck drivers are required by law. He stopped after his brakes had been smoking-other drivers saw his brakes smoking-got out, looked at his brakes, and then GOT BACK IN AND CONTINUED DRIVING. Then he kept riding those brakes he was concerned about down a steep downgrade, melted them away, then missed two run-away truck ramps, he missed one area he could have pulled off into the grass and perhaps stopped. He chose to stay on the road on the hope that there would be no traffic further downslope, recklessly disregarding the risk his 80,000 pound vehicle posed to other people.
He made several actions that proved his intent, and his intent was to BE RECKLESS. You don't get to say you didn't mean to hurt anyone when you get hammered and then decide to drive home and kill a busfull of children on the way.
And that's why he should be punished, and he is being punished.
It's not appropriate for the crime. It's way too light because people feel sorry for the driver. I feel sorry for his victims.
Ten years in prison is a very severe sentence. It might not seem so to Americans because we are the most incarcerating nation on Earth and punish criminals more severely than almost anywhere else, so we're inured.
Ten years in prison is a very severe sentence Yes, yes it is. And his actions were severely criminal, to the extent he deserves more than that.
That is just gross.
10 years for negligence is a huge number.
You want this guy to spend his entire adult life in prison for negligence?
Who does that protect? Are we pretending that he is going to rush out and negligently operate large machinery again? This isn't even a DUI where the guy could be a recidivist drunk.
Your ideas about crime and punishment and criminal culpability are hideously out of touch.
Negligence is not pressing the parking brake down all the way and putting a dent in the truck below when it slips. Oops.
This guy willfully chose to risk his life and all those around him in a failed gamble to get his rig down a steep hill with shot brakes, avoiding numerous opportunities to not kill people. Sorry does not bring the dead back.
Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what criminal negligence is.
Getting back into his vehicle when he knew there was something wrong with the brakes easily rises to legal recklessness. Not negligence, what Kim Potter was actually guilty of and what the prosecution in her case managed to conflate with recklessness in closing arguments on rebuttal which insanely, the judge allowed.
Ten years to how many decades ahead of the dead and maimed as a result of his indifference to others?
It's an insult to the victims.
I will readily agree that throwing people to rot in prison is a waste of money, and he should spend the next 40 years paying a portion of any income to the bereaved to better serve society.
More severely than al oat anyplace else? More severe than, Russia, China, Thailand, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most other Muslim majority countries?
Or do you mean more severely than Europe?
It's always easy to know what I mean: read what I wrote. If you don't see it written there, it's not what I meant. What is written there is what I did mean.
And how much time would you impose on a drunk driver who killed four people with a big truck?
A drunk or criminally impaired driver deserves 100 years per death and 50 years per injury.
When you're clearly and unarguably guilty of killing multiple people through a combination of incredible recklessness, gross negligence, and blatant cowardice, sure, you have a legal right to a trial. But by gambling on convincing the jury to acquit you, you've also demonstrated that you refuse to take responsibility for your actions even after you've produced a pile of corpses.
Life in prison is not excessive for being a remorseless killer. And ever letting this asshole out of prison, in a world full of things like automobiles that he cannot be practically prevented from ever operating, is depraved indifference to public safety.
But being punished for asserting one's right to a trial is unjust.
No, it isn't unjust.
There is a sensible argument for a procedural rule of "the state shouldn't punish people for demanding a trial, because that undermines the procedural safeguard that a trial is." But that doesn't tell you what justice is in a particular case, it just tells you how it would be prudent to make the state act.
Just like it is prudent and useful to have the exclusionary rule, or to have a rule against double jeopardy. You don't want the state to engage in warrantless searches, or to try people over and over again -- but it would not in fact be remotely unjust to execute an actual serial killer for his crimes based on illegally-obtained evidence in a trial after a previous acquittal on the charges.
It is, in fact, entirely just ("the giving of what is deserved") to punish someone who is guilty of a serious crime more because he has demonstrated that he refuses to accept guilt for his gross misconduct, and such a demonstration in this case included his demand for a trial.
Justice in this particular case would be the asshole realizing the full gravity of what he did and his responsibility for it, and committing suicide in expiation before he could even have been brought to trial. Anything the state does short of a clean execution cannot be an injustice to him.
You want to make the prudential argument that we don't want prosecutors acting the way they did in this case, I'll give you an entirely respectful hearing. It is not prudent to give the state unlimited leeway to enforce justice, because that will tend to injustice and tyranny in actual practice. So you can probably convince me that the law should be reformed so that a ten-year sentence is the prudential maximum the state should have been allowed to seek in prospect.
But, you tell me that 110 years was unjust in his particular case, and I will forthrightly say that you are entirely and completely wrong.
So, if an unjust process results in an outcome you like, then it wasn't unjust. That's retarded.
DRM is right.
And it's not like this guy hit a patch of ice. It's not like he suffered sudden brake failure. It's not like he hit some road debris that blew out his tires and caused him to roll over. Those are accidents, things he can't avoid.
He made multiple decisions to continue being reckless throughout this. He was a ticking time bomb. If he had somehow avoided an accident back then, he would still have killed someone somewhere along the way because his behavior was insane and reckless.
So, you want to punish people for future crimes? Wasn't there a movie about that?
I want him to be punished for depraved recklessness. Because he committed the act, was tried, and was found guilty of it, and because his depraved criminal recklessness injured several people and killed four.
He is being punished.
Not sufficiently, which is the issue. The reprieve he's getting is not earned nor deserved. If the governor had decided this was worth 40 years instead of 110 I wouldn't have any complaints.
^+1, see below. And thank you for providing the details you have.
DA is the lowest form of human life.
I think we can all agree on that.
Woodchipper, you are preetching to the choir.
I have no problem with sentencing him to LWOP (which is basically what the 110 year sentence would have been) or executing him for what he did.
"The brake failure was partly a result of some poor decisions on Aguilera-Mederos' part. Nevertheless, it certainly wasn't his intent to kill anybody."
Living as a responsible adult means claiming a lack of intent for something that causes harm is no excuse.
Rejecting responsibility might be the credo of progressives, but the world they want to create will fuck all us.
Yeah!!!
Mens Rea isn't even a thing....
He pulled over and checked his brakes farther up the mountain because he knew something was wrong. He then chose to continue down the mountain knowing just how dangerous that was.
Can you tell the difference between "I didn't intend for that to happen" and "I intended for that not to happen"?
You guys have no clue what criminal negligence versus not-criminal -negligence versus intentional criminal act even means.
Criminal negligence: I am in a hurry and I blow through a stop light because I think I can get away with it, hitting a minivan and killing people.
Common (civil, not criminal) negligence, I am distracted or blinded by something and I blow through a stop light that I am unaware of, hitting a minivan and killing people.
First degree murder intentional act version: I see the minivan and decide to ram it, killing people.
The same act. 3 different states of mind. 3 different criminal and civil liabilities.
You guys have them completely conflated.
I don't know every detail of this incident but I am a truck driver so I'll just make a couple of points. Carriers pay drivers per mile by the shortest legal route. As a practical matter the driver would end up spending many more hours driving state and county roads than simply taking the interstate if available rather than choosing the shortest miles. The driver always chooses the route which usually requires more miles but less time. If the carrier were to route the driver they would have to pay for the additional miles. They don't want to pay for those miles but they want the load delivered ASAP so they are reluctant to route the driver knowing he'll pick the shortest time not the shortest miles. Miles they won't pay for. The fact that he chose the route is meaningless. Every OTR driver chooses the route every day. The business has worked that way for a century.
I've read various descriptions of the brake failure always making the claim that he burned up the shoes riding them down the hill. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Assuming this was a 6 percent grade even in ninth gear with a ten speed transmission with 100psi on the primary air and a functional engine brake, he should have been able to make it to the shoulder even with metal on metal shoes to drums. I suspect that one or both of two other factors are at play here. I suspect he was geared up too high or more likely freewheeling in neutral. Shifting gears in a big truck is more art than science and it ain't easy. The gear must match the road speed and the engine RPMs. The driving schools teach double clutching. Most experienced drivers don't use the clutch at all to shift but either way you get the gear from neutral. If you don't get the gear you're stuck in neutral until you slow down enough to grab a lower gear. If you're flying down a six percent grade at 85mph you aren't going to get a gear period. End of story. Without a gear, your engine brake ain't doing shit. I also suspect he had a significant air leak either in the primary braking system or a secondary leak that the compressor couldn't keep up with under the circumstances. In these circumstances the most likely primary leak would be a blown brake chamber which can happen at any time but usually during hard braking. This wouldn't cause a complete brake failure on flat ground but going down the hill you're gonna run out of air.
In any case the whole crazy Mexican decides to make up time by running down the mountain at 90 mph and he don't care how many bodies he leaves in his wake doesn't fit the facts. The truck was obviously out of control and he was obviously in a state of pure panic. Yes he is liable for the death and damage. He was poorly trained, he made bad decisions and the people responsible for maintaining the truck and trailer were negligent. But not even the prosecutors who got a 110 year sentence claim he was acting with malice. Ten years is enough.
I can appreciate the difficulties he dealt with, but am not willing to grant that much lenience.
Most all of us got our driver's licenses around our 16th birthday, and regardless of whether you got Mom or Dad or a school instructor, if that party didn't impress upon you the dangers and possible harms resulting from an out-of-control vehicle, shame on they (gender neutral); that is basic stuff. BASIC! And that level of license in most states permits you to pilot a vehicle weighing ~1 to 2 tons.
Dunno about you, but in my case it was further impressed upon me that it was the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of the driver to maintain control of that vehicle, even in icy conditions (where I grew up); violate that rule and you (me) own the result(s).
I neither know all of the facts involved, nor do I claim any expertise in awarding prison sentences, but from what has come to light so far, the number looks far closer to 110 than to 10.
That man, regardless of intent, by *gross* negligence, caused 4 families to celebrate Christmas absent someone who should have been there.
Had he not avoided sound advice and common sense multiple times, I'd be more forgiving. But the driver compounded arrogance on mistakes with reckless disregard for the lives of anyone else.
He KNEW his brakes were going yet he still did it. While it's not willful murder, this is a bit past being called a tragic accident.
10 years is a joke to the bereaved.
10 years is a joke to the bereaved.
And, as indicated by the article, is an absolute injustice to every black, white, and red person who accidentally or knowingly killed 3, 2, 1, or nobody at all and got more than 10 yrs.
They didn't get publicised. If public pressure can alter a verdict, something went terribly wrong somewhere.
Other than I-70, there aren't a whole lot of other routes across the Rockies that make sense for loads crossing the US.
Ten years isn’t enough.
His truck’s system didn’t fail until he went too fast and rode the brakes. Multiple times. And he sped. And he made bad choices. And he fled the scene. And he failed to take responsibility. And he forced them to go through a trial. And he never admitted guilt, even before sentencing.
He is garbage. He deserves a life sentence for each that he took.
Good. If anything in the last few years we have seen that an outraged public can make a difference in the justice system. Not a perfect system but a good check on the system.
Sure, if you prefer "social" justice to legal justice.
This. One wonders how loud the outcry would be if he was a 23-year old kid from Grand Junction.
Correction: 23-year old *white* kid from Grand Junction.
No. Mob rule is a bad idea.
Why did it take Polis this long to pardon marijuana sentences? Should that not have been the first thing done once Colorado legalized pot?
Better late than never but adoration Polis has been receiving in the press as of late is a bit much.
The press needs a Democratic presidential candidate for 2024, and Polis is seen as a centrist from a purple state.
The other half of the looter Kleptocracy would have them burned at the stake over plant leaves if they thought they could pull it off. The Dems at least are learning from the Libertarian spoiler votes that defeated Hillary Harridan.
reducing his sentence to 10 years in prison.
Bullshit. If the guy had an 'accidental discharge', killed 4 people and injured a dozen more, he would've gotten more time.
For reference, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two, in self defense and was staring down a 12.5-60 yr. sentence.
You really don't understand anything at all about criminal law.
Rittenhouse was charged with murder.... Intentionally shooting people in order to kill them. Prosecutors claim he went to Kenosha to hunt and kill people. Not "accidental discharge". Not negligent homicide.
Prosecutors lied. He was acquitted. The acts he committed were ruled to be justified homicide in self defense.
This guy was accused of a crime that amounts to negligent homicide. It is pretty much dictionary definition negligent homicide, if you take the worst possible interpretation of the prosecution case.
You don't get life for that. Normally you would get anything from probation and community service to a handful of years in jail, particularly with no priors. You should pretty much be able to figure that out intuitively by knowing the general lay of the land in the usa. There are about 35k fatal car crashes every year in the usa. About half are single vehicle incidents. About 10k Deaths are due to speeding. about 10k deaths are due to drunk driving. Both of those would be prima facial negligent homicide.
So you should see about 10 to 15 thousand cases of negligent vehicular homicide every year. Most would be younger, since fatal accidents are more often caused by younger drivers.
So... Do we see ten thousand people getting alive sentences every year? That would far and away be the biggest chunk of lifers, one would think. With an average 50 years of life left, we should see a half a million people serving life sentences for negligent vehicular homicide. That would be a major chunk of the entire prison population.
That doesn't even count the non fatal accidents which have similar criminal liabilities... There are 3 million injuries in auto accidents every year. A major chunk of those are also going to involve negligence.
The criminal justice system draws distinctions based on mens rea. There is a difference between "I meant to do that" and "I didn't mean to hurt anyone but I knew what I was doing was dangerous" and "I didn't realize I was doing something dangerous.".
You really don't understand anything at all about criminal law.
"If someone accidentally kills a hundred people, they shouldn't be punished as severely as someone who intentionally kills one." - Cyto's Conception of Morality and Justice.
That Colorado Democrat could teach God's Officious Prohibitionists something. Already their ayatollah in Texas attacks women, whose fraction of the population is increasing. And their platform is riddled with Prohibition Party fascism. Germany's nationalsocialist platform ended in death sacrifice. Germany's Trump ended his testament with calls for death, then shot his wife and self. Here's hoping the Republican Party gets its wish soon so Libertarians can occupy the niche.
https://b2n.ir/y45456
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P316-Select-stone-suitable-for-flooring-building.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P315-selction-stone-step.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P314-Stone-Faced-Buildings.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P313-Selection-Building-stons.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P312-Travertine-stone.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P310-Property-stons-building.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P308-Where-to-buy-slab-stone.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P306-export.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P303-gray_stons.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P302-attractive-suggestions-for-choosing-a-cabinet-stone.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P295-green-marble.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P292-sang-divar.html
https://atisang.com/blog/Persian-Newsletter/P289-STONE-FACED.html
https://atisang.com/article/slab/
https://atisang.com/Granite/
https://atisang.com/building-stone/
https://atisang.com/onyx-stone
https://b2n.ir/r95360
https://b2n.ir/b96510
https://atisang.com/crystal
https://b2n.ir/s19365
https://b2n.ir/m54371
https://b2n.ir/759577
https://atisang.com/shop/3269-night-marble/
https://b2n.ir/m74650
https://b2n.ir/d71987
https://b2n.ir/a59071
https://b2n.ir/t46186
https://b2n.ir/h07263
https://b2n.ir/m39488
https://b2n.ir/t91812
Polis is already taking heat for this.
https://neonnettle.com/news/17917-democrat-gov-trashed-as-despicable-human-being-for-reducing-killer-s-sentence
Welcome to the Resume Inventor! Unlimited Download! 500+ Professional and high-quality Resume Templates with multiple file formats. You are welcome to download Resume Templates.
This is right from one level as well, I liked this blog. But I am making freeuse reddit and finding out some tips on it also liked it.