The opposition will try to tell you that this case is not a case of guilt. This is a case of constitutional law,
and therefore we should not care about whether the party is guilty or innocent or terrible human being in a
danger to himself and others. The opposition will try to tell you that this case is of the Constitution. The
Constitution itself. We say no.
The law is made to be guidelines for specific instances. The law is made so that we can guide ourselves
in deciding in each and every situation what is best without being forced into situations that don't take into
account details and background. And in this case, our descendant is a rapist and they kidnapped, birth
and an animal abuser and a danger to public safety.
The opposition might tell you that whether this is a cruel or neutral punishment should be determined just
by President. But we say no.
We say that this is the time to set a precedent for ourselves and to say that we will not let dangerous
individuals no regard for public safety for others to be a danger to society. We say that we are going to
take a stand that this punishment of life imprisoned route parole is not cruel or unusual punishment
because what he did to that girl, that was cruel and unusual.
Can you imagine walking around the streets some city in Orlando reading the news, hearing that
someone like that was walking around? What if you're the girl's best friend? Maybe you went to her
school? Would you feel safe? I wouldn't.
The law is about maintaining public safety. Law is not about specific minutiae. The law is not supposed to
be about how we can twist it. The law is about how we can defend the citizens of our great nation. And
this boy almost a man, but sure enough to know that what he is doing is wrong deserves life in prison
without parole not just deserves, but needs to be kept away so that he cannot do what he did to anyone
else.
Did you know that sexual assault or people convicted of sexual assault have almost twice the recidivism
rate as any other prisoners, 54% are sent back to prison for another crime?
10% rape. Again, these are just the 10% that we are aware of, of having reported, and we all know how
under reported and under persecuted rape cases are in the destination.
You might think 10% is a low number, or even if it is one that is affected by facts that we don't know the
amount of cases of rape in the United States, do, math, whatever. So that is, however many millions or
thousands of men each year who commit rape, do we let this happen?
The opposition will also try to argue that the way that this boy was arrested and found is unconstitutional
comparative to a case in which woman's home was broken into, in which the police, knowingly broke her
constitutional rights after being told by an attorney in a case where a fake warrant was presented and a
woman was abused and handcuffed in her house, ransacked her child's bedroom, ransacked comparison
fall to a case where the cops did everything that they thought they could to protect constitutional rights
where the cops feud the property from a public highway using a device available in public use according
to presidents and start precedents here.
Anything that is seen that a random member of the public just walking by someone who decided to go
birdwatching on the side of a highway.
They might have seen the boy fighting in the RV with another unnamed person coming out of the RV with
blood tripping out of his nose for goodness sakes. They have evidence to go in there immediately
because they had evidence to believe that a minor might be in danger. But they didn't because they
wanted to go get a warrant first, go through the law.
And whether or not the way they obtain the evidence is legal or not. The good faith exception holds that
when authority try their best and do what they think is constitutional, the evidence is invisible in court.
These lawyers did not provide a fake warrant and break into someone's home unprovoked. These
policemen policeman broke into an RV believing that a child 15 year old boy was staying in the same
place as marijuana was being illegally grown, exiting the RV with a bloody nose. They didn't know what a
terrible person he was. Then they had every right to want to search the RV to make sure that this boy in
this community would be safe.
And then they found a girl that he had kidnapped and then raped and assaulted. And you're telling me
that this evidence isn't admissible?
Why?
The Cyclops is in public use. According to this President, electronics in public use such as in this case are
allowed to be used by policemen in a manner that anyone of the public could have done. This evidence is
legally obtained in admissible in court. And this sentence is not cruel or unusual. It is just.
And this is a court of justice. Are we going to let a boy go free over Minutiae and the law arguing our way
out of a paper sack?
Are we really going to do this to that girl, to the girls of America? Tell them that what happens is okay
because, oh, the evidence is inadmissible.
Do we have to teach our girls that they are not safe? That we let men like this, boys like this walk around?
The opposition might also try to claim that we are trying to enact a three strike law.
They say in this case, Orlando does not have a three strikes law. And we agree. We are not arguing for a
mandatory sentencing. We are arguing for a legal one for just sentencing. And we believe that in this
case, this may be the actual third strike.
But it's much worse.