Woke Judge in San Francisco Lets Violent Killer of GrandPa Vicha Walk Free
It has happened in a Californian court again and so nothing surprising that a violent thug got away with murder because a certain judge decided that the public was better off with him on the streets than locked behind the bars.
Last week, the story of 24-year-old Antonine Watson released on probation for his brutal killing of an 84-yeear-old man in early 2021 in San Francisco made news. The senior citizen named Vicha Ratanapakdee, an immigrant from Thailand, was on his usual walk in his neighborhood when he was assaulted and thrown down on the ground by the thug. The injuries led to Ratanapakdee’s death and outraged the Stop Asian Hate advocates.
Now Watson walks free, thanks to the leftist jury and judge – the former concluding that Watson was not a danger to society despite killing the old man in an unprovoked assault that was caught on camera. So Judge Linda Colfax readily agreed and sentenced him to eight years and but suspending his three remaining years and releasing him on probation.
Crime-friendly judges predominantly, if not exclusively, belong on the leftist side of the political divide. Was it the killer’s race (African-American) that helped him earn a friendly ruling from the judge? Was it the judge’s own leftist worldview in which criminals from certain minorities get special (sympathetic) consideration regardless of how much harm their crimes bring to the victims and their families? On Real America Voices, the conservative panel of commentators criticized Judge Linda Colfax’s soft sentencing with Kevin Downey Jr. calling it out as a racial ruling favoring the criminals and part of the leftist plan to keep these “animals” on the street, letting them victimize more people.
On March 31, The American Tribune cited Monthanus Ratanapakdee, daughter of Watson’s victim, who called out Judge Colfax’s sentencing “deeply disappointing” that denied justice to her deceased father and her family. In her words:
“Our community is very heartbroken. My mom, 73 years old, feels uncomfortable even to walk out on the street right now.”
Fox News talked to Monthanus Ratanapakdee and her husband Eric about the ruling. They agreed that Judge Colfax’s sentencing reflected the leftist political agenda of “criminals first and victims last.”
It is relevant to consider the personal ideology and values of Linda Colfax through the years in relation to her service as an elected judge. Since winning the 2010 election for San Francisco County Superior Court, Colfax has been re-elected mostly unopposed or just by winning a primary vote but without a general election as happened in 2022. She has run as a “non-partisan” candidate in these elections, which seems a politically clever way to appear independent. But at least until 2010, she was a registered Democrat as recorded in her profile on legal websites like Trellis.law.
Judge Colfax is also a member of the LGBT community. She was included as “an IALGBTQ+ board member for over 10 years” and former Vice President” of the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association’s Nuts & Bolts Academy for Judicial Candidates. Her bio reads:
Judge Colfax and her wife have 2 adult children, 2 dogs, and 2 chickens.
So the dots are easy to connect, and they make a dark sketch.
There is no doubt that the family desires a heftier punishment as does the new prosecutor. My sympathies to the family. And I was going down that “what you mean, woke” path until I glimpsed the pic. I don’t want to judge, but I’m judging the judge…..
There is no doubt that the author is a biased, hate-filled Pakistani immigrant who does not play fair when he makes wild-assed assumptions that everything he finds distasteful is caused by “leftists.”
He faults the judge, who ran on their own merits, not party, and appears trans, was a democrat, but like most elected judges, does not run on party. Does Ernie really think a trans, liberal, judge in San Francisco needs to hide party? FYI: Ernie, most local officials do not run on party either. Both parties, across the land. Welcome to America.
Ernie claims the “thug” got away with murder because it’s CA; that is a lie. He even claims the entire jury is leftist, a fact impossible for him to know except it’s CA. He claims most of the crime-friendly and minorities-deserve-special-treatment, judges are leftist, facts impossible for him to prove except he knows you like it, so it makes him money.
He claims to have the goods on this judge being crime-friendly but offers no evaluation of rulings.
He is a fraud as a journalist, and totally biased and unfair as an opinion influencer.
While the family will always be upset, if Ernie wanted more time for this crime, Ernie would need to go to the original case, the original prosecutor, and why they didn’t go for a higher charge. Perhaps they were just a right-wing incompetent lawyer like those Republicans making false charges and indictments in the DOJ or maybe those Congressional witch hunters that score in FOX but not in court; how many years now Ernie: 6? How many scores? Any? Only scores Comer and Jordan can get are in the locker room.
The real crime in this story is that Ernie can’t report the truth, his influencer-anecdotes add no value to the original story. Let’s try the real facts of the verdict.
Fact: supposedly, based on the evidence, the original prosecutor didn’t go for higher charges. The fact is the first prosector found him guilty of assault and involuntary manslaughter, but acquitted of murder and elder abuse. The case (or prosecutor) were shaky and this is the root cause of the punishment. The family wanted the crime classified as a hate crime, but the first prosecutor did not feel they had the evidence. This occurred during a covid clash as the “Chinese flu” smear emanated from the White House, Asian hate crimes by Republicans escalated, and this case fueled the movement to protest this, small rewards. The perpetrator testified that the victim had a cap and mask on, seemed clear race was not a factor. But his reasoning that the victim was “staring at him” does not help and neither did the other charges that the prosecutor did not convince the jury of.
Fact: this charge has a 4-year jail sentence, maximum. The biased, hate-filled author missed that one.
Fact: In this case, Judge Colfax chose to sentence the defendant for assault with great bodily harm because it gave her greater authority for a longer sentence than for the manslaughter charge. A judge can add five more years to an “assault with great bodily harm” sentence, but not for a manslaughter one, based on the severity of the offense, age of the victim, and other factors. The biased, hate-filled author missed this one too.
Fact: on the judges ruling, he got 8 out of a possible 9 year maximum.
Fact: in his latest hearing, the perpetrator showed remorse; you can vomit, but he judge did not. He’s mostly been in solitary due to threats for five years. That’s pretty harsh, IMO. The judge ruled he was not a public safety risk, that’s the key, and thus probation. He served 5 years on an 8 year punishment for “good behavior,” and not deemed a public safety risk, given he follows probationary rules. He served 5 years for a involuntary murder charge that has a 4 year maximum punishment. The biased, hate-filled author forgot to mention that.
Fact: the judge ruled that being in prison, in solitary, for another three years was less safe to the public, than letting him go with strict probation requiring the defendant to meet behavioral standards, get psychological help, and mandatory reports and answers to the judge. He can own no firearms, cannot return to the victim’s neighborhood, and must see the judge frequently and regularly; the judge’s ass is in the fire if this guy falters before probation is over.
So, the judge upped the prosecutor’s charge punishment by four years, the guy served one of those, gets probation for 3 years having served 5 years in good behavior (ie solitary) for a 4-year involuntary manslaughter charge while showing remorse that the judge believed. His was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
It is what it is, but it is not out of bounds with maximum penalties that the law provides. He did not skate on his crime. The author lies. Until you sit in the court, listen to this young man, look into his eyes, pretty hard for us to really judge the judge. Ernie can, but he’s a biased, hate-filled immigrant.
The probation period will be the proof of the pudding. I am sure Ernie will follow up and keep us apprised if his social media sleuths don’t let him down.
Dunger is rooting for the criminal
Harold Whitesheeple: You cannot prove you lie from your previous comment. And Norma you double down and lie again.
Reckless and feckless is your formula of useless.
Either prove your previous lie or apologize. Be a man rather than the worm you show with your lies.
I support no criminals; have said it and proved it often.
I do support the rule of law as I have indicated here. You just spew but can’t step up and support what you accuse.
Weak.