Anonymous wrote:So there is a Raphael Mayorga on FB who looks just like the perp, from Frederick MD. As a non friend, all I can see is that he follows the Gaithersburg PD, MCPD and Frederick Co Fire and Rescue. Can’t see his posts, but I wonder if he was taunting them online too? Guy seems more than a little off. Also he was reported missing for a time when he was 17.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you drive 136 mph on a busy public highway (which he was arrested for previously) it should be treated the same from a legal standpoint as indiscriminately firing a gun in public place like a shopping mall. This piece of sh*t should have been in prison a long time ago for his recklessness.

Yes, it should be, but it isn't.

Another question is why it's legal to have cars that you can drive 136 mph. Why aren't cars speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph?

Because it’s rare that anyone actually drives like this.

First of all, it's not at all rare for people to drive at dangerous speeds on 270. There have been several times in just the past week where I was driving on 270 and someone zoomed past me and all the other cars on the road.

Second of all, so what? What would we lose, if cars were speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph? Compare to the police officer, who lost his legs.

I’ve often wondered this myself. I don’t believe there is a single road in America where one can lawfully drive 100+ mph, but somehow we have turned a blind eye to manufacturers selling muscle cars and sports cars capable of hitting nearly 200mph to any jackass who can afford the down payment.

I own a car that will easily exceed 200 mph, but on the infrequent occasions when I’m driving it on public roads, I’m not speeding. I own this car as a track toy to use at places like SPWV and VIR, where people like me with SCCA race licenses can drive as fast as they’re able to. The car is street legal, is insured, registered and tagged, and even has California emissions certification, so why shouldn’t I be able to drive on public roads? It’s a perfectly safe car, and I’m a safe driver. So what is the issue here? That someone misused a legal consumer product? How is that MY fault, and why do you think punishing ME will stop someone else?

Explain yourself.

The car should not be street legal. That's not punishing you. That's removing a dangerous object from public streets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you drive 136 mph on a busy public highway (which he was arrested for previously) it should be treated the same from a legal standpoint as indiscriminately firing a gun in public place like a shopping mall. This piece of sh*t should have been in prison a long time ago for his recklessness.

Yes, it should be, but it isn't.

Another question is why it's legal to have cars that you can drive 136 mph. Why aren't cars speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph?

Because it’s rare that anyone actually drives like this.

First of all, it's not at all rare for people to drive at dangerous speeds on 270. There have been several times in just the past week where I was driving on 270 and someone zoomed past me and all the other cars on the road.

Second of all, so what? What would we lose, if cars were speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph? Compare to the police officer, who lost his legs.

I’ve often wondered this myself. I don’t believe there is a single road in America where one can lawfully drive 100+ mph, but somehow we have turned a blind eye to manufacturers selling muscle cars and sports cars capable of hitting nearly 200mph to any jackass who can afford the down payment.

I own a car that will easily exceed 200 mph, but on the infrequent occasions when I’m driving it on public roads, I’m not speeding. I own this car as a track toy to use at places like SPWV and VIR, where people like me with SCCA race licenses can drive as fast as they’re able to. The car is street legal, is insured, registered and tagged, and even has California emissions certification, so why shouldn’t I be able to drive on public roads? It’s a perfectly safe car, and I’m a safe driver. So what is the issue here? That someone misused a legal consumer product? How is that MY fault, and why do you think punishing ME will stop someone else?

Explain yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Nope. I think everyone should remain in prison for the duration of a given sentence.

You mean that for the crimes that are important to you, prisoners should not be afforded the possibility of parole.

Do you know the meaning of what was written: "Everyone should remain?"

So no parole for anyone, ever? You sound like you are have the right mentality for being a dictator.

Perhaps you think the killer of one of your family members would appropriately serve only 5 years in prison. Many of us don't think that's a sufficient consequence for the taking of someone's life.

You’re very melodramatic. If the rule was no parole, then what would happen is that sentences would be lighter and/or prisons would become extremely dangerous places. A maximum sentence with the opportunity for parole provides an incentive for a prisoner to behave while in custody while also affording the justice system maximum flexibility to consider whether or not that individual deserves freedom at multiple decision points over time. If no one in prison has incentives for good behavior, you can guess the result.

Anonymous wrote:So there is a Raphael Mayorga on FB who looks just like the perp, from Frederick MD. As a non friend, all I can see is that he follows the Gaithersburg PD, MCPD and Frederick Co Fire and Rescue. Can’t see his posts, but I wonder if he was taunting them online too? Guy seems more than a little off. Also he was reported missing for a time when he was 17.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Nope. I think everyone should remain in prison for the duration of a given sentence.

You mean that for the crimes that are important to you, prisoners should not be afforded the possibility of parole.

Do you know the meaning of what was written: "Everyone should remain?"

So no parole for anyone, ever? You sound like you are have the right mentality for being a dictator.

Perhaps you think the killer of one of your family members would appropriately serve only 5 years in prison. Many of us don't think that's a sufficient consequence for the taking of someone's life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Nope. I think everyone should remain in prison for the duration of a given sentence.

You mean that for the crimes that are important to you, prisoners should not be afforded the possibility of parole.

Do you know the meaning of what was written: "Everyone should remain?"

So no parole for anyone, ever? You sound like you are have the right mentality for being a dictator.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Nope. I think everyone should remain in prison for the duration of a given sentence.

You mean that for the crimes that are important to you, prisoners should not be afforded the possibility of parole.

Do you know the meaning of what was written: "Everyone should remain?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Nope. I think everyone should remain in prison for the duration of a given sentence.

You mean that for the crimes that are important to you, prisoners should not be afforded the possibility of parole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Nope. I think everyone should remain in prison for the duration of a given sentence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!

Go tell the parole board. He was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the judge sentenced him to the maximum sentence.

It seems to me that you just want to put your thumb on the scales of in specific cases that pique your fancy. I cannot think of anything more antithetical to the rule of law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you drive 136 mph on a busy public highway (which he was arrested for previously) it should be treated the same from a legal standpoint as indiscriminately firing a gun in public place like a shopping mall. This piece of sh*t should have been in prison a long time ago for his recklessness.

Yes, it should be, but it isn't.

Another question is why it's legal to have cars that you can drive 136 mph. Why aren't cars speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph?

Because it’s rare that anyone actually drives like this.

First of all, it's not at all rare for people to drive at dangerous speeds on 270. There have been several times in just the past week where I was driving on 270 and someone zoomed past me and all the other cars on the road.

Second of all, so what? What would we lose, if cars were speed-limited to a maximum of 80 mph? Compare to the police officer, who lost his legs.

I’ve often wondered this myself. I don’t believe there is a single road in America where one can lawfully drive 100+ mph, but somehow we have turned a blind eye to manufacturers selling muscle cars and sports cars capable of hitting nearly 200mph to any jackass who can afford the down payment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

With so many repeat offenders, our justice system is not working well for victims. Supervision is too lax.

There is no information that person who killed the cop was a repeat offender. So I’m not sure what you’re referring to. But a maximum sentence is a maximum sentence. The maximum criminal penalty for manslaughter in MD, whether with a gun or car, is 10 years. Not sure what else you want.

What would you want if your spouse or child lost both legs due to someone speeding excessively? His victim would still have two legs if this guy had been given appropriate consequences earlier this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point of reference - the drunk driver who hit and killed Officer Noah Leotta in 2015 was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but released after serving 4.5 years (plus credit for time served immediate after the accident = 5 years total).

https://wjla.com/news/local/drunk-driver-who-killed-officer-noah-leotta-set-to-be-freed-from-prison-five-years-early

Yes. This is how the law works. He was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter due to his gross negligence and was given the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison. Most people serve only half of their prison terms, that’s common. However, he was not exactly just released and let go. He was released with supervision and if he violated the terms of that supervision, which can be quite onerous, he would be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. This is how our justice system works.

He should have served his entire sentence. 5 years in prison for killing someone?!