Quote:
|
Originally Posted by somerfrost
I'm not a close personal friend of the Hiltons so I don't know about their social life; you say it "doesn't sound like the actions of someone who needs medical attention" so tell me, what does it say in your rule book of human behavior about how people must act during periods of distress? Then you admit, "perhaps the judge wouldn't have gone to such lengths had she not been Paris"...Bingo! This is the point I've been arguing since the beginning...I've ALWAYS said that Paris broke the law and is responsible for her behavior, my issue is the judge's actions! To me, he is "the bad guy" if he misused his position to (a) impose a sentence disproportionate to the norm to "make an example" out of Paris...for decades, poor people in this country have been treated unfairly by the system, given harsher sentences, if you want the extreme...the KKK was "making an example" when they lynched folks without a trial. There is no moral justification for treating someone harshly to "make an example"...and if I'm gonna stand and speak out when it happens to poor folks, how can I be silent when it happens to a rich person?? Wrong is wrong, we don't need "examples" we need fairness and equal treatment. (b) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he gets into an obvious power struggle with the local sheriff (and the sheriff himself spoke to this in a news conference yesterday) and uses Ms Hilton as a pawn...ordering her picked up in a marked car and brought to him in handcuffs to flex his "muscles". (c) the judge is the "bad guy" to me when he refuses to consider Ms Hilton's alleged medical condition or any details pertaining to the decision by the Sheriff and prison authorities to release her to house arrest because, in his own words, it was their responsibility to send him the information and he hadn't received it. Wouldn't you want that information BEFORE you sent her back to jail? Why didn't he demand same and review it...what was the big hurry???
|
my point was that altho some (well, one) thinks that the judge went to such lengths because it was paris, yet somehow the sheriff gets a free pass, when his actions apparently had a lot to do with the fact it was paris. yet the sheriff gets a pass--why, because of how he handled it, and that if fits in with certain points of view? i guess the sheriff is the one thinking clearly, but not the judge? again, i guess it depends on what side you think is correct.
i don't have a 'rule book' about human behavior, but if someone is so sick they can't serve 45 days in jail, common sense might say they aren't up to having hundreds of their closest personal friends for a soiree either....
and if she was let out of jail due to a condition, you'd think that would have been settled BEFORE she was let out. it would be on the sheriff to show the reason, not the judge to find why he must return her to the jail she was released from.