Snodgrass has to take the position she has, irrespective of what information may be present.

 

I believe this woman was a victim of domestic abuse.

 

A pardon was the correct action.

 

She must answer for her actions one day to someone bigger than Michelle Snodgrass, but that's between Cheryl and God

From Fox19's FB page:

 

[ATTACH]53768[/ATTACH]

Beautiful Picture !

Snodgrass has to take the position she has, irrespective of what information may be present.

 

I believe this woman was a victim of domestic abuse.

 

A pardon was the correct action.

 

She must answer for her actions one day to someone bigger than Michelle Snodgrass, but that's between Cheryl and God

 

So just to hell with the court system and processes?

Snodgrass has to take the position she has, irrespective of what information may be present.

 

I believe this woman was a victim of domestic abuse.

 

A pardon was the correct action.

 

She must answer for her actions one day to someone bigger than Michelle Snodgrass, but that's between Cheryl and God

 

If you made me bet I'd say she was a victim of abuse to some degree. That's on one side of my brain.

 

On the other is the legal process and the requirements of proof and the concept of one person wiping out a jury's decision when the jury was not found to have done anything wrong.

 

That's the struggle.

Pardons and expungements are not a new thing in the American justice system. Outgoing governors and presidents have been doing this forever.

Pardons and expungements are not a new thing in the American justice system. Outgoing governors and presidents have been doing this forever.

 

Correct.

 

Still seems really odd.

So just to hell with the court system and processes?

 

Nope. Pardons are actually part of the court systems and process. If you believe that just because a case came through the courts that the end result was justice for either party then you do not live in the same United States I do.

 

There is not a shred of doubt this woman killed another person, it's the circumstances that everyone speculates about and whether or not there was reasonable justification for her to fear for her or her childrens' lives.

 

A pardon from a government official allows for another view / review of the circumstances and generally include cases with many extraneous variables. I believe that is the case here.

If you made me bet I'd say she was a victim of abuse to some degree. That's on one side of my brain.

 

On the other is the legal process and the requirements of proof and the concept of one person wiping out a jury's decision when the jury was not found to have done anything wrong.

That's the struggle.

 

Jury did nothing wrong in this case. They convicted her of the facts presented during the case. The pardon is essentially a similar process but that it takes into account the variables that the jury either couldn't or was unable to consider.

Jury did nothing wrong in this case. They convicted her of the facts presented during the case. The pardon is essentially a similar process but that it takes into account the variables that the jury either couldn't or was unable to consider.

 

But that still makes me uncomfortable even if they got it right. Too much room for abuse of power.

Any restrictions placed on her as a convicted felon are removed. So she can now vote as well as own a firearm.

 

Her murdered husband will never be able to vote or own a firearm.

 

Not saying he was or was not guilty of abuse, but his death was not the answer. She may be pardoned but she is still a murderer.

Her murdered husband will never be able to vote or own a firearm.

 

Not saying he was or was not guilty of abuse, but his death was not the answer. She may be pardoned but she is still a murderer.

 

And like BB said, that's between Cheryl and her God.

But that still makes me uncomfortable even if they got it right. Too much room for abuse of power.

 

True, however, pardons are typically not handed out willy / nilly. Typically, and as so in this case, a review team puts together information and presents what amounts to a brief of the case that is reviewed by the official. There is some level of substantiation put to the means test for these events, typically.

 

Blackstone's Ratio always should apply

True, however, pardons are typically not handed out willy / nilly. Typically, and as so in this case, a review team puts together information and presents what amounts to a brief of the case that is reviewed by the official. There is some level of substantiation put to the means test for these events, typically.

 

Blackstone's Ratio always should apply

 

Could a governor grand a pardon for no good reason? Does he/she have that much power?

Her murdered husband will never be able to vote or own a firearm.

 

Not saying he was or was not guilty of abuse, but his death was not the answer. She may be pardoned but she is still a murderer.

 

No one argues that, her trial date will be forthcoming...she has to close her eyes at night knowing what she did.

 

In this particular case, Michelle Snodgrass is putting up a stink because this was her capital trial and the rug was pulled from her.

True, however, pardons are typically not handed out willy / nilly. Typically, and as so in this case, a review team puts together information and presents what amounts to a brief of the case that is reviewed by the official. There is some level of substantiation put to the means test for these events, typically.

 

Blackstone's Ratio always should apply

 

And I am COMPLETELY down with the Blackstone concept.