Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Fair trials’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 5 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Monday, Aug. 4 2014 8:22 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
SharpHooks
Lake Sammamish, WA

@Anti Bush Obama--
These guys are almost flat broke now, and what they have left will soon disappear to their lawyers. No--they will NOT be buying their way out of this.

@Lost...I haven't convicted them. I was just naming evidence that is doing a fine job of that all by itself. Shurtleff protests to the point of exhaustion...and I don't think he's doing himself any favors--tweeting---that and parading his daughter out in front of him like a human shield.
Swallow--for his myriad faults--is keeping mum...not that THAT will save him.

This whole thing stinks...where there's smoke--this MUCH smoke-- there's usually fire.

I haven't convicted them, but I'm sure our legal system will.

ECR
Burke, VA

one old man - I can tell you feel strongly about the case. My point was that the public has been informed by the media with whatever information has been given them, in whatever method they obtained it and there is no guarantee that is the complete body of evidence.

I'm not sure you and I are having an argument, but regardless it has very little to do with the point of the letter to the editor. All he was doing was asking for the public to not judge anyone before they have their day in court.

I'm usually on your side arguing against the likes of Lost in DC, or Redshirt Whatever and all it gets us is a louder argument with no resolution. I'm just trying to say that if we expect those folks to be more fair minded (and I really don't expect it) when discussing the people we support - like the President - then we should be just as fair minded (regardless of whether or not they are) when discussing the politicians they support. Nobody has been convicted ...yet, and until they are we should keep an open mind.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sharphooks:
"These guys are almost flat broke now, and what they have left will soon disappear to their lawyers. No--they will NOT be buying their way out of this."

If only it were so. However, with their connections to loan sharks and Bank of America, I'm sure "arrangements" can be made. Maybe a little short sale (Mike Lee could tell them how it's done), maybe a reverse mortgage, who knows? If they have to sell their houses (and who knows what other properties they may have acquired), then maybe they could stay in a house boat at Lake Powell or a beach-side condo in Newport. What are friends for, after all? . . . . Well, maybe not those kinds of friends.

And can't they tap their campaign funds--you know, the ones that were so generously inflated by contributions aka bribes?

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

@ ECR

I think you should consider the very real and personal consequences of the crimes of these 2 men. We typically agree too, but not on this issue.

Why? Because I've been personally effected by these men.

My aunt who's 70 years old was booted out of her home by Bank of America. I remember how she was treated. She told me the details. I felt like there was something fishy. Did Shurtleff look after victims like my aunt? Nope. He was posing with a yellow Lamborghini in Los Angeles while my aunt lost her home.

In my church calling, I've heard a few stories of broken desperate people who have just been destroyed by these loan shark guys. Was our AG looking out for my poor church members? Nope. He was taking bribes from them.

I've seen personally the destruction these men have wrecked. I hope justice is served. The mere fact that they're still receiving a state pension is just so infuriating.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

understands math,
no legislation has been introduced

source please - DNC and huffingtonpost are not reliable and not acceptable.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Educator

Re: "Try telling that to the thousands of Utahns who lost their retirements".... "Did you know that thousands of Utahns lost their homes because of a bank committed fraud"... "Have you spoken to a single mother with children who lost everything because her payday shark "...

Not only are you convicting them before trial... You are convicting them of stuff THEY aren't even CHARGED with!

THEY aren't being tried for taking people's retirement!
THEY aren't being tried for bank fraud!
THEY aren't being tried for payday loan companies!

You seem to be trying them for EVERY grudge a good Democrat has been told they should have against Republicans now days!

Try to remember... they are being tried for specific crimes (not every Democrat grudge). And they haven't been found "guilty" of a single crime yet.

I know our legal system is hard for some to understand, but you don't get to heap every grudge you ever heard upon them (just because you are upset at Republicans).

You try them for things they have been legally charged with. Then a jury of their peers hears evidence and decides (not you Democrat hacks)...

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "FreedomFighter41" why blame the businesses? You do realize that in the case of your Aunt that she most likely was not paying her mortgage for at least 1 year before she was kicked out of her home. That means for a year she was essentially stealing from the bank. Who is the victim, the person who doesn't pay their debt or the debt holder that has so many legal hoops to jump through that they can't sell the property to recover their costs?

Also, who forces anybody to go to a "loan shark"? People choose to make bad decisions, so why punish either one. If you are dumb enough to go to a loan shark, then you should learn the hard way that it is a bad decision.

You want to save people from their bad decisions, which is nice, but it doesn't allow them to learn from their mistakes. What good is choice if you never have to suffer the consequences of bad choices?

If you keep rescuing people from the loan sharks, when will they learn not to go the loan sharks? All you have taught them is that they will be rescued.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Fair Trials are a partisan buzz-kill. Why have fair trials.... when all the partisan bickering and convicting them for every grudge we have against the other party is so fun???

This legal stuff it no fun...

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

"should still be accorded the respect that we all desire"

Right.

Even though a recording that can only be demonstrating Shurtleff's venality and his willingness to profit by committing crimes is now publicly available, we should just ignore it.

Sure we should.

We should just pretend it doesn't exist.

They are guilty . . . just not officially guilty yet.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey Lost in DC -

"but BO himself was quoted as saying, “my muslim faith”,"

WRONG.

Don't "Conservatives" ever get tired of telling lies about our President? Have they no pride? . . . no morals?

Snopes refutes your FALSE contention. Look it up.

Obama was referring to false allegations that he was a Muslim.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@lost in DC wrote: "understands math,
no legislation has been introduced"

Moving the goalposts, are we? You asked who was talking about impeachment and I supplied you a list of Republicans who have been talking about impeachment.

"source please - DNC and huffingtonpost are not reliable and not acceptable"

So in a comment that I cannot post hyperlinks in, and when I am limited to four comments per article and no more than 200 words per comment, you are expecting, what, MLA-style citations?

I respectfully decline.

I will make one correction however: I did make a typo on one of the names: it should be Rep. Ted Yoho.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@MaxPower
I'd add Josh Powell to your list. He wasn't ever even charged with a crime, but he was convicted from day one.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Noodlekaboodle

I thought of him right after I submitted my comment. Thank you!

Tenn12
Orem, UT

2bits- "We also need to keep the severity of the crimes in mind while we talk about it. Some people act like they committed murder... What is the penalty for using a client's house boat? Death???

IF they are found guilty... THEN the punishment needs to fit the crime. How many years do you get for using somebody's house boat???"

I mentioned before that clearly you did not read up on their charges. Simply using someone's houseboat was an ignorant statement regarding their situation. Again 2bits, are felonies not serious? You have yet to answer. Or are felonies only serious when someone from a different party is accused of them?

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

MaxPower and Noodlekaboodle:

I suppose we should declare Josh Powell not guilty of torching his house with his two little boys inside because he was not tried and convicted in a court of law, right? Presumption of innocence and all . . . .

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey 2 bits –

“We also need to keep the severity of the crimes in mind while we talk about it.”

We also need to keep in mind who committed the crimes, while we talk about it.

We’re talking about the Utah’s Attorneys General here . . . Two men who actively sought to convict others of crimes, by hook or by crook . . . Two men who gauged their personal SUCCESS by the number of Convictions they could get and by the SEVERITY of the sentencing.

These men are NOT like other citizens.

Should they be treated differently from other citizens?

ABSOLUTELY.

These men are SYMBOLS of Utah’s justice system.

If their crimes are overlooked, and if they get a slap on the wrist, then EVERYONE will know there really is NO justice in Utah.

And we wouldn’t want that, would we?

The Educator
Orem, UT

I think having a corrupt at has led to confusion and anarchy.

We the people of Utah demand and deserve clarification, just like governor Herbert.
We want clarification on what an AG can and cannot do and what happens if he breaks the law... Repeatedly.

Anything else, would just be anarchy.

Cincinnatus
Kearns, UT

What the letter writer fails to differentiate is that the LEGAL system is required to see them as innocent until proven guilty, not public opinion.

My opinion is that they are guilty- I wouldn't hire them, or even be their friend. So what? My opinion does absolutely nothing to remove any constitutional rights from either of them.

The legal system, on the other hand, must look at them as innocent until a preponderance of the evidence convicts them of any crimes. Why? Because if the legal system finds them guilty, they are in danger of having constitutional rights taken away and being incarcerated.

That's the beauty of our system- I'm able to freely express my opinion. They don't lose rights unless convicted by a court of law, not a court of public opinion.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Curmudgeon
MaxPower and Noodlekaboodle:

I suppose we should declare Josh Powell not guilty of torching his house with his two little boys inside because he was not tried and convicted in a court of law, right? Presumption of innocence and all . . . .

-----------

I fear you misunderstood my argument. There have been plenty of trials in our past where the public had already condemned the accused. Not saying they did not deserve it, nor that in cases of trial it had been unfair. No one is trying to take away the right to a fair trial.

I just find it interesting not a single letter to the editor was published about these individuals trying to hush the discourse of the Court of Public opinion.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@GaryO,

Re "These men are NOT like other citizens. Should they be treated differently from other citizens? ABSOLUTELY"...

Now that's just not right. ALL citizens have the same inalienable rights. You don't loose them once you accept a government job.

We don't have 2 Constitutions (one for regular citizens... and another for government workers).

We ALL have the same rights. They may have "responsibilities" we don't have, and them doing something that would be OK for you and me (I have borrowed a friend's house boat, and other people have paid for me to stay in a hotel) would not be a crime for me, where it could be for them. But they do NOT in fact lose ANY of their legal "Rights" because they are government officials.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments