Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

[King Kiwi]

If you were Tom or Harriet or Cole or whoever, would you try to "save" Chris?

I would try. At least a little.

I don't recall any instance where it was ever mentioned that they helped Chris with anything.

Nor have I heard of any of his half siblings helping him except for Cole who would only do it for a price.

When you ignore the problem, you can't be expected to be surprised by the results.

Admittedly Chris's endgame was a whopper, but even though his family really didn't owe Barbara or Bob anything, I feel like someone in that family owed Chris something.

He deserved better than the parents he got, spoiling and neglecting him into rottenness when the family intervening with a very least a wellness check if they're half brother or nephew was mal adapting.

Maybe they didn't really notice anything wrong during the brief visits, but none of these people came out of the woodwork at any point to see their parents or Chris.

They're not in any way, shape or form to blame for any of the things that have happened, but I'm not going to pretend like the unsung heroes in the story, either.

 

[Hepativore]

I'm fairly certain the prosecution has had their own psych evals.

I'm not certain all these psych evals are actually psych evals. You don't need months of continuances to do a psych evaluation.

I suspect they're actually placement interviews trying to find somewhere to stuff Chris.




Except a lot of the people who go to tard homes are the sort who don't (or can't) see it that way I mean if they could understand the fiscal ramifications of their situation, they likely would not have ended up in a tard home. So they wander off to sleep on the streets (and off their meds), while the tard home continues to collect their tugboats.



Most of the people who end up in them have already burned through all their relatives. If you were Tom or Harriet or Cole or whoever, would you try to "save" Chris?

Slight powerlevel, but in this case it is related to my example. I know somebody who has a severely autistic son whom signed him over to become a ward of the state of IL when he became a teenager as he was nonverbal, needed constant supervision, and needed several people to control him when he threw tantrums. She felt she had no choice. He was put in some sort of institution by the state, where they take care of severely retarded people who need constant supervision.

Now, as I am not sure if her son can theoretically leave as he is too retarded to understand anything more than a word or two, but I do know that nobody can take him out of the facility without the state's permission since he became a state ward.

Could something similar happen to Chris, or are there different levels of "tard" facilities?

 

[AnOminous]

Could something similar happen to Chris, or are there different levels of "tard" facilities?

It's hard to know. Virginia's new law hasn't actually been tried out much yet. It's very likely it benefits a semi-tard like Chris, at least if he doesn't end up in some worst case scenario like getting charged with rape and the prosecutor demanding life. The longer the case goes without that happening, the more likely I think a deal gets cut well before that.

 

[A-№1]

I don't recall any instance where it was ever mentioned that they helped Chris with anything.

Tom and Harriet offered Chris a place to stay while he was under the EPO against him living at 14BLC.

Then they learned what he'd done and said: "No."

Nor have I heard of any of his half siblings helping him except for Cole who would only do it for a price.

Cole's smarter than I thought. He is not his brother's keeper. Make him such and he has every right to be compensated.

When you ignore the problem, you can't be expected to be surprised by the results.

They're not ignoring the problem. They're making sure it doesn't become their problem.

I feel like someone in that family owed Chris something.

Owed him for what?

He deserved better than the parents he got,

Bob's other children turned out all right. More than all right.

Also: deserved?

spoiling and neglecting him into rottenness

And you are doing the exact same thing by blaming Chris' mistakes on his parents.

Chris is responsible for his own life.

They're not in any way, shape or form to blame for any of the things that have happened, but I'm not going to pretend like the unsung heroes in the story, either.

Nor should they be. They are not villains. They are not heroes. They are innocent bystanders. Chris is not their fault and not their problem.

You can't help Chris. You can only make his problems into your problems, paying for and shielding him from the consequences of his own choices so that he continues to make bad choices.

Could something similar happen to Chris, or are there different levels of "tard" facilities?

Levels is not quite the right word. It's more accurate to say there are different "flavors", based on the various conditions of their "clients". There are homes that specialize in addictives, others in schizophrenics, and so on. I'm unaware of any homes that specialize in selfish assholes like Chris, but they'll pigeonhole him somewhere.

Most of these homes look like any other residence except for the second front door, wheelchair accessibility, and the van out front (for the weekly errands trips).

Chris is "high functioning", verbal, and not on any psych meds (that I am aware of). He's mostly just lazy, selfish, stupid (because lazy), and utterly unprincipled. He does not need to be confined for his own protection, lest he be devoured by the Werewolves of Ruckersville, so they'll probably try him out at an open group home for autists (at first) and rely on his lack of transportation to keep him contained. Chris will hate it.

This is assuming they find such a placement available, of course. It's possible they'll simply dump him in the first placement that agrees to accept him.

Virginia's new law hasn't actually been tried out much yet.

This is probably why things are taking so long. Most tard homes are privately run and mostly deal with welfare and social services, not criminal justice. Virginia simply doesn't have the procedures worked out yet. In fact, that may be why they're keeping Chris in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court: J&DR likely has at least a little experience placing people on tard homes. More experience than the circuit court at least.

 

[Asdfgunman81]

Chances are he'll likely be thrown into a home at this point. I can't imagine any of his family members wanting to deal with this lunatic anymore.

 

[JULAY]

It will be funny if this is the way Chris finally gets his wish of escaping one-horse Ruckersville. A real monkey's paw.

Yah. That would be fucking hilarious if he has to leave his toy-filled happy place and then go out of his comfort zone, and be in a big welcoming LGBT community, but he hates it, because it's not what he knows or is used to... I made myself feel bad for Chris, goddamn...

 

[Hepativore]

Yah. That would be fucking hilarious if he has to leave his toy-filled happy place and then go out of his comfort zone, and be in a big welcoming LGBT community, but he hates it, because it's not what he knows or is used to... I made myself feel bad for Chris, goddamn...

I would feel bad for whoever gets stuck with cleaning up Chris' shit (often literally) if he goes to a tard center. Also, I doubt that even the Alphabet people would welcome somebody like Chris with open arms, except for maybe the troons.

 

[Michael Janke]

Most of the people who end up in them have already burned through all their relatives. If you were Tom or Harriet or Cole or whoever, would you try to "save" Chris?

if i were Cole, probably not either way.
if chris hadnt raped his elderly mother, one of the other 2 might have helped him

 

[I swear she's 18]

Yah. That would be fucking hilarious if he has to leave his toy-filled happy place and then go out of his comfort zone, and be in a big welcoming LGBT community, but he hates it, because it's not what he knows or is used to... I made myself feel bad for Chris, goddamn...

Cwcki sums it up nicely why Chris never moved to someplace like San Fran or Portland. It's easy being a big fish in a small pond.

Portland or any "liberal" shithole is filled with troons and other retards. You know what that means? That means he's not special. Not only that, but the fact that he'll be around other "slow in the minds" who are productive in society. Or even achieved feats chris fantasies about.

If Chris had gone to special Ed and not mainstream. He would've been humbled by witnessing the accomplishments of others like him. But no, being probably the only retard in mainstream and graduate stroke his already massive ego.

 

[JULAY]

Cwcki sums it up nicely why Chris never moved to someplace like San Fran or Portland. It's easy being a big fish in a small pond.

Portland or any "liberal" shithole is filled with troons and other retards. You know what that means? That means he's not special. Not only that, but the fact that he'll be around other "slow in the minds" who are productive in society. Or even achieved feats chris fantasies about.

If Chris had gone to special Ed and not mainstream. He would've been humbled by witnessing the accomplishments of others like him. But no, being probably the only retard in mainstream and graduate stroke his already massive ego.

One of my favorite CWC stories is when someone told him that San Francisco was more LGBT friendly than Bumblefuck Virginia and he then said, "But there's no San Francisco in Virginia..."

 

[King Kiwi]

"But there's no San Francisco in Virginia..."

That's what he said, what he meant was,

"There's no Babschu to soulbond with."

...

That disgusted me just typing that out.

 

[AnOminous]

Most of the people who end up in them have already burned through all their relatives. If you were Tom or Harriet or Cole or whoever, would you try to "save" Chris?

Maybe before Barbrape. After that, I'd be fuck this loser, may he burn in Hell. I might even be sympathetic enough to Barb to help her, which is why that particular rumor seems plausible.

 

[Smleman303]

Maybe before Barbrape. After that, I'd be fuck this loser, may he burn in Hell. I might even be sympathetic enough to Barb to help her, which is why that particular rumor seems plausible.

That's another thing apart from those redditors who saw lights and fans on... Do we have anymore barb updates?

 

[Tennis-Ball-Tony]

If you were Tom or Harriet or Cole or whoever, would you try to "save" Chris?

I often wonder if it was Chris's behavior that made his family ban the Chandlers from their homes, but it was probably Barb. These days? With Chris being Jesus? I doubt a nearly 80 year old couple would want even to talk to Chris, let alone try to salvage a middle aged autistic man's nonsense. I'm fairly certain they've completely given up on Chris.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Could something similar happen to Chris, or are there different levels of "tard" facilities?

Chris can't be sent to a facility that actually can control his actions unless he is ruled incapacitated. It is very, very hard to be ruled as incapacitated. It varies by state, but the Virginia law specifically mentions that consistently making bad decisions does not count. You have to be incapable of performing the actions you need to survive. Chris falls into the gap between sanity and insanity, where he has all the tools to function as a slow-in-the-mind, but his various psychological problems won't let him. He is the king of bad decisions.

Any tard home Chris will be sent to will be voluntary. Chris will be able to leave it at any time, which he will probably want to because he will want to go back to the Sonichu Temple. The only thing that will keep him in the facility is his own laziness and ineptitude, and how difficult it is to leave.

In terms of "levels", there's no formalized standard. Every facility is unique, and has different specializations. It's a matter of matching the client to a facility.

Portland or any "liberal" shithole is filled with troons and other retards. You know what that means? That means he's not special. Not only that, but the fact that he'll be around other "slow in the minds" who are productive in society. Or even achieved feats chris fantasies about.

If Chris lived in an actual major liberal city he would get the living shit kicked out of him by the wrong person he pissed off on the street. It's a good thing for him he did not wander around Richmond much. Charlottesville is a smallish liberal college town, so the worst elements of society aren't as well represented.

One of my favorite CWC stories is when someone told him that San Francisco was more LGBT friendly than Bumblefuck Virginia and he then said, "But there's no San Francisco in Virginia..."

Because Virginia is basically 99% of the world to Chris. He'd be too scared to move. Hell, he's never been to most places in Virginia outside of the Charlottesville area, and the only other area he knows reasonably is Richmond. Chris lives in a tiny, tiny universe.

 

[Second-Hand Boat Supplies]

Does accepting a plea deal as a defendant require any sort of detailed admission to the crime in question or does it only involve signing to say "I do not wish to contest this particular sentence." I'm aware that allocution exists and may be required in some circumstances but I have no idea what cases that would apply to. I ask because I genuinely wonder if Chris would refuse to admit to intercourse and maintain that he 'soul bonded' if faced with that situation.

Edit: Adding on to expand the question a little after brief googling about it. The American Bar Association says about plea deals:

"From the court’s perspective, judges cannot simply accept a defendant’s guilty plea. They must determine that there is an “adequate factual basis to support the charge and the plea” and that the plea was “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.”

Now, I'm well aware that Chris isn't an exceptional case as far as the types of people courts have dealt with and that much stupider and much more delusional people have been through this process. What is the standard for these conditions? Chris is not legally insane, he knows what he did, but what if he refuses to drop the LARP? Would the court accept it as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent if Chris stated, "Yes, I, Jesus Christ, engaged in incest and accept the charges and have been informed of my rights in my spare times between my arduous work in CWCville?"

TLDR: How much does Chris have to cooperate with his attorney and the courts to accept a plea deal?

 

[Ophelia]

... I made myself feel bad for Chris, goddamn...

Chris raped his elderly mother and doesn’t think it was wrong. I hope that makes your conscience feel better.

 

[draggs]

Does accepting a plea deal as a defendant require any sort of detailed admission to the crime in question or does it only involve signing to say "I do not wish to contest this particular sentence." I'm aware that allocution exists and may be required in some circumstances but I have no idea what cases that would apply to. I ask because I genuinely wonder if Chris would refuse to admit to intercourse and maintain that he 'soul bonded' if faced with that situation.

Edit: Adding on to expand the question a little after brief googling about it. The American Bar Association says about plea deals:

"From the court’s perspective, judges cannot simply accept a defendant’s guilty plea. They must determine that there is an “adequate factual basis to support the charge and the plea” and that the plea was “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.”

Now, I'm well aware that Chris isn't an exceptional case as far as the types of people courts have dealt with and that much stupider and much more delusional people have been through this process. What is the standard for these conditions? Chris is not legally insane, he knows what he did, but what if he refuses to drop the LARP? Would the court accept it as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent if Chris stated, "Yes, I, Jesus Christ, engaged in incest and accept the charges and have been informed of my rights in my spare times between my arduous work in CWCville?"

TLDR: How much does Chris have to cooperate with his attorney and the courts to accept a plea deal?

Depends. Sometimes the deal (and/or the court) requires a detailed verbal confession to the court, sometimes you gotta sign a detailed written admission of guilt, sometimes all you gotta do is sign a single sheet of paper saying you admit to/are not contesting the charges.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Does accepting a plea deal as a defendant require any sort of detailed admission to the crime in question or does it only involve signing to say "I do not wish to contest this particular sentence." I'm aware that allocution exists and may be required in some circumstances but I have no idea what cases that would apply to. I ask because I genuinely wonder if Chris would refuse to admit to intercourse and maintain that he 'soul bonded' if faced with that situation.

Edit: Adding on to expand the question a little after brief googling about it. The American Bar Association says about plea deals:

"From the court’s perspective, judges cannot simply accept a defendant’s guilty plea. They must determine that there is an “adequate factual basis to support the charge and the plea” and that the plea was “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.”

Now, I'm well aware that Chris isn't an exceptional case as far as the types of people courts have dealt with and that much stupider and much more delusional people have been through this process. What is the standard for these conditions? Chris is not legally insane, he knows what he did, but what if he refuses to drop the LARP? Would the court accept it as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent if Chris stated, "Yes, I, Jesus Christ, engaged in incest and accept the charges and have been informed of my rights in my spare times between my arduous work in CWCville?"

TLDR: How much does Chris have to cooperate with his attorney and the courts to accept a plea deal?

Generally the attorney is expected to make the determination if the plea is made with understanding of what it means, and the court will accept it because presumably the attorney is working in the defendant's best interests.

Also you can only plead guilty to something you're charged with in the first place, so you can't just plead guilty to random stuff. If the charges are amended, some sort of probable cause has to be presented for that amendment.

The situation you're describing where an implausible guilty plea could happen would only really come up if the prosecutor was doing something shady. The judge is supposed to catch that and ask for more information.

Regarding "no contest" pleas, yes, you can make those. They're functionally similar to a guilty plea except you don't go on record as having admitted to it. It means you're not going to argue with the evidence, just with the likely verdict from it. It's a mostly unimportant distinction, legally, but it can come into play later if there's a civil lawsuit. However, in Virginia, a no contest plea is still admissible as evidence in a civil suit.

A similar plea is an "Alford plea" where you essentially state that you don't think you can win, but still don't agree with the facts of the case. There's really little difference functionally, you're just morally professing your innocence more strongly.

 

[Hogar Grupal]

Generally the attorney is expected to make the determination if the plea is made with understanding of what it means, and the court will accept it because presumably the attorney is working in the defendant's best interests.

Also you can only plead guilty to something you're charged with in the first place, so you can't just plead guilty to random stuff. If the charges are amended, some sort of probable cause has to be presented for that amendment.

The situation you're describing where an implausible guilty plea could happen would only really come up if the prosecutor was doing something shady. The judge is supposed to catch that and ask for more information.

Regarding "no contest" pleas, yes, you can make those. They're functionally similar to a guilty plea except you don't go on record as having admitted to it. It means you're not going to argue with the evidence, just with the likely verdict from it. It's a mostly unimportant distinction, legally, but it can come into play later if there's a civil lawsuit. However, in Virginia, a no contest plea is still admissible as evidence in a civil suit.

A similar plea is an "Alford plea" where you essentially state that you don't think you can win, but still don't agree with the facts of the case. There's really little difference functionally, you're just morally professing your innocence more strongly.

I could see Chris going with an Alford plea, just to justify his 'healing' of Barb.