Archived version: https://archive.ph/iGl8S
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230807194307/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66429735

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LeadSoldier@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He is doing 57 months because he is serving for multiple crimes simultaneously.

Police who violate the law should not be allowed anything but the maximum sentence non-concurrent with other crimes.

But cops protect those who have power and those who have power. Don't want to piss off the cops so here we are.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't even understand why concurrent sentences exist. if you do multiple crimes you should serve time for them all, regardless of who you are.

[–] zaph@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It makes some sense when multiple crimes were committed but it was one event. Robbing a liquor store becomes several different crimes with their own max sentences. Sure there were multiple laws broken but they only did one thing. The issue is how grey that line becomes and how much authority a judge has over a crime's punishment and when you factor in things like if the robber shot the clerk.