Rush Limbaugh Arrested On Drug Charges!!!

"Kewl.....But Limbaugh is still a drug addict. He's still filthy rich. And, a poor person may or may not have received the same "penalty" that Limbaugh received. But, I think we all know why Rush was able to avoid any jail time.
"

as the EVIDENCE shows, vs. your opinion, he got a VERY standard sentence for this offense.

poor person or not.

unless you have evidence otherwise, that first time offenders charged with dr. shopping do not get such a deal, you are just making unfounded assertions, vs. mine which is supported by evidence

he was able to"avoid" jail time because his offense almost NEVER warrants jail time for a first offender, famous, rich, or not

that is a fact

a fact

why can't u accept that? bias?


"There's lots of indigent inmates locked up today, who otherwise would not be, if they had happened to have had an extra $30,000 laying around. (And being a Republican radio puppet didn't hurt his defense either.)"

there is NO doubt that having money helps in the defense process.

there is also no doubt that in the CASE OF THIS OFFENSE< he received a standard sentence. that is a fact you can't seem to grasp

his fame/wealth were irrelevant to the fact that he received a standard sentence


"I really don't understand what seems to be your defense of this guy. Are you a lawyer who deals in these type cases or have you had some other reason to empathize? In my books, he's no better than those indigent druggies who will watch T.V. until 10 o'clock tonight, then hop onto their bunk."

i'm not "defending" him.

i am pointing out (and i did this BEFORE this deal was struck) that the STANDARD SENTENCE for dr. shopping is no jail time

and just like i predicted, he received a standard deal. an abeyance of charges

this isn't about whether he's "no better" or not vs. somebody else.

it's not a moral judgment. it's a legal analysis, based on experience, and schooling

i have readily admitted -1 ) yes, he is a drug addict

duh

that is not an issue, it's never been an issue
 
Whitster.....

Read this slowly:

A poor/unknown person may or may not have received the same sentence that Limbaugh got. But, we all know why Rush got the sentence he got.

Your use of the term "standard sentence" is exaggerated. For example; do you believe that a person convicted in Orlando for possession of 5 oz. of marijuana gets exactly the same sentence as a person convicted in Miami for possession of 5 oz. of marijuana? (Both are first time offenders.)

Bro, you need to get a job on Fox.

Edit: The reason Limbaugh and those like him (i.e. first time offenders) are not resting in jail today is because our prisons are full. Whether they should be in jail is for another thread. The fact is, they are in violation of state laws and could otherwise be resting comfortably via our state prisons.
 
bro, you need to get some experience in the court system, knowledge of sentencing grids, and some EVIDENCE< not just assertions

you still have provided no evidence.

i will say again - he received a STANDARD sentence

that is not opinion, that is fact

he received the same type of deal that most dr. shopping cases get

most people never even HEARD of dr. shopping before this case. that's because it's RARELY prosecuted, and is viewd as (to use the court vernacular) a "chippy offense:

if you have some evidence, that first time offenders in a dr shopping case routinely get anything but this kind of deal , then BRING ON THE EVIDENCE

the fact that he is rich and could afford the richest lawyers is irrelevant

it's similar ot the winona ryder case. a simple shoplift

yes, she's rich. yes, she's famous. but her sentence for this MINOR offense was totally in line for what others usually get with similar criminal backgrounds.

this case is no different

again, i suggest you, like most people, never even HEARD of dr. shopping before this case, but now because it is the big bad rich and evil rush limbaugh, somehow he got a special deal

that's great rhetoric, but it's not supported by evidence, since he got a VERY routine deal for this type of offense

it is not excusing his behavior. assuming he did break the law (whichis a reasonable assumption considering he went along with the deal, ALTHOUGH i haven't reviewed the charging documents, so i don't have all the facts - i may check lexis-nexis if i get a chance), he BROKE THE LAW

and given the assumption that he broke the law by dr. shopping, he received a completely reasonable plea deal, and one that is consistent with those received by other people with similar backgrounds (ie no criminal record, and specifically no DRUG OFFENSES or felonies)...

again, if u have some evidence, that he received a deal inconsistent with filing grid standards, then please bring it.

all i have seen/heard is rhetoric. not evidence
 
Whitster......

Reread my post above, answer the question, then tell me a little more about what you call a "standard sentence".
 
a standard sentence for DR SHOPPING?

rarely even prosecuted

here's a question? in the ENTIRE HISTORY of Palm Beach County, how many prior cases of Dr. Shopping had EVER been prosecuted.

EVER

answer: 1

lol

again. i realize you are averse to evidence, but here's the cite:
"But not in Palm Beach County. In county history, there apparently has been only one prosecution for doctor shopping—ever"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWM4MDQ5YWY3NTZjZGRkZTdmMTJiYmNiNjUzYmI4MGI=

the saga continues.

i provide evidence, you provide rhetoric

the fact is that he received a completely consistent deal, that if anything was HARSHER than that generally received for the same offense.

again
me: evidence and fact based discussion
you": rhetoric
 
Quote from whitster:

.....the fact is that he received a completely consistent deal, that if anything was HARSHER than that generally received for the same offense.
More...

Oooooh.....".....if anything was HARSHER than that generally received for the same offense."

I'm glad we finally agree on your misuse of the term "standard sentence".

Now, does this equal: Me/evidence You/Rhetoric?

Enjoyed it Whitster.....I gotta go eat. Have a good evening!
 
fwiw, let me give you some bona fides here...

i have testified over 200 times, as witness for both defense and prosecution, in drug type cases

i have been certified as an "expert witness" and have survived rather intense voir dire to maintain that designation vis a vis drugs, and drug offenses

i have testified before grand juries.

i have filed affidavits

and in my personal experience, while i have been familiar with dr. shopping statutes (basically, a form of prescription fraud), i have never seen a case prosecuted

chances are more likely than not, that if rush happened ot be just some Joe Blow (no pun intended) lol, it never would have gotten as far as it did

especially considering he voluntary went through treatment
 
Of course Rush was targeted because he was, like Tom DeLay, a Republican in a Democrat hack prosecutor's domain. They considered him fair game. Ask yourself if Ted Kennedy or any of his crowd would have been similarly prosecuted and subjected to humiliating invasions of privacy?
 
yes, ted kennedy would have

if it was a republican-leaning prosecutor that was similarly ideologically motivated

unethical political motivation among prosecutors is (as far as i can tell) no more likely among dems or repubs

it is an equal opportunity disease
 
Exactly how was Rush himiliated?

He seems as pompous as he always does, I detect no humility in him whatsoever....

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Of course Rush was targeted because he was, like Tom DeLay, a Republican in a Democrat hack prosecutor's domain. They considered him fair game. Ask yourself if Ted Kennedy or any of his crowd would have been similarly prosecuted and subjected to humiliating invasions of privacy?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top