Posted on 03/06/2015 10:01:35 AM PST by Theoria
Aaron Harvey was leaving his Las Vegas apartment to get some food one day in July 2014, when, suddenly, “man, Seal Team 6 came out of nowhere, pretty much. Guns drawn, dogs, helicopters.”
It was the U.S. Marshals, who’d come to take Harvey back to San Diego.
“They told me that I was wanted for murders in the state of California,” Harvey said. “I laughed. I started laughing. I told ‘em, ‘You’ve got the wrong guy.'”
Harvey isn’t charged with murder, though. That’s precisely why his case is so controversial.
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is using an obscure criminal statute, Penal Code section 182.5, for what appears to be the first time ever in California to prosecute a group of 15 San Diego men, including Harvey. The DA has admitted that some of the men had nothing to do with the underlying crimes at the heart of the case – a series of shootings by Lincoln Park gang members in 2013. Rather, they’re charged with conspiracy for belonging to the same gang as the shooters. For that, they could go to prison for life.
It’s guilt by association, basically, and if federal law is any guide, it’s perfectly constitutional.
The law says a person who “willfully promotes, furthers, assists, or benefits” from a gang crime can be charged with conspiracy. The benefit Harvey received out of the shootings, according to the DA, is street cred. If someone in the gang commits a crime, the reasoning goes, the whole gang gets a boost to its reputation.
“They’re saying I benefited because my stature, my respect, went up. I didn’t even know I had any stature. I don’t understand how someone can benefit from something they don’t even know exists,” said Harvey.
(Excerpt) Read more at voiceofsandiego.org ...
They can be protection rackets — are you going to massacre everyone who got coerced into their clutches, especially when the fear was of a rival racket?
The biggest most violent gang of criminals are the Democrats... Sounds like a conspiracy to me....
although i’m not sure they have the necessary evidence to prove this guy’s was actively involved in the gang so I think this case is really a stretch
It sounds like (at worst) he put himself on Facebook showing gang signs. This is stupid, but not always malicious. Then the actual gang committed a murder. So now they are going to charge him with benefiting from the murder.
If this is all that exists, how this can possibly pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” criterion is beyond my ken.
my scenario is modeled more after the plot in “clear and present danger” by tom Clancy. if youre not familiar...in it the drug gangs are identified as a threat to national security (think cartels) and the cia/special forces start taking them out. im not really talking about your small time local wanna be thug pretenders but... ya know a lot of innocent people get shot in the cross fire between these “protection rackets” as you called them so I suppose I wouldn’t get too upset if some guy whose heart wasn’t really in it but joined anyway got mowed down in the process. until these guys see there is no future in being in a gang and that being in one will result in you disappearing in a sudden fashion they will continue to terrorize their neighborhoods.
But that is not real life, so argument dismissed.
yeah I know....my version of how the world should be (in so many ways) is never going to happen so there isn’t any point in nit-picking the details:)
I thought we were supposed to be Constitutional Conservatives here. My Constitution says something about the government not being permitted to deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. It does NOT say that there are exceptions to be made if one is accused of being a gang member, or otherwise being some form of scumbag. Even scumbags are entitled to due process under the Constitution.
In this case, it certainly appears that this individual is being charged with a crime based solely upon who he is associated with. A member of his group of associates, ie his gang, committed a crime. He was innocent of that crime. He is being charged solely on the basis of his gang membership. My Constitution also permits freedom of association. It does not allow the government to arrest me simply because I choose to associate with known criminals. I can only be arrested for committing crimes myself or for assisting others in the commission of crimes. I cannot be arrested for being friends with someone who’s a criminal. I would be interested; what does YOUR Constitution say? Could you please give me a link to your Constitution that allows the government to arrest someone based only upon the crimes committed by their friends?
1. Actually, the charge is conspiracy to commit murder, not “being in a gang.”
2. Not having a criminal record doesn’t mean he may not be guilty of committing a crime. *All* first time criminals have no criminal record, so that’s not a defense for the specific charges.
3. Not living near the gang anymore is also irrelevant. If I commit a murder in East Bumscrew, but then move away before they catch me, is that a defense against the crime?
4. Trying to get a legit life started is also not a defense. If I rape a dozen 12 year old girls, but then go off and try to get a job somewhere, does that absolve me of my past crimes?
So, I return to the original point: the charge is serious. It’s conspiracy to commit murder. According to state’s evidence, he was a member of a gang that killed people. The law was written because his membership in that gang helps enable the crime.
Like you, I also believe in the presumption of innocence. From the details of the article, though, I’m guessing he’s just a scumbag that cleaned up nice for the article. I’m not the jury, so I won’t be responsible for finding guilt or innocence, but if he *was* a member of the gang, then - by law - he could very well be guilty.
I also believe in the First Amendment and all I did was indicate what I thought the case “sounded like” to me in my comment. I suppose you can call that “wingnut” if you wnat.
Some noted gangs made it big because local authorities proved treacherous or undependable.
This is probably true - look at what they just did with that secessionist group in Texas.
That is a dumb law. I hope a jury can see past this. Guilty by association, what a stupid concept. This guy’s an idiot who hangs around the wrong people. I would be pissed to pay taxes to have this man in prison for life when he doesn’t even have a bit of criminal history. I think the DA should have to pay back every bit of salary she’s been paid trying to get the man thrown in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.
Fry’em? You mean pay taxes to have this man spend life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Get a clue Regal.
They did not find any evidence of a conspiracy however, other than that he published affirmations of association with the gang in a context that did not reference the murder.
Most sane people would call that a tall order. All this other stuff is character reference, that we are not dealing with anyone documented to be a menace.
If I am understanding the case right, the government is not claiming that the defendant had anything to do personally with the crime. He is being charged based on his past gang membership and the fact that he purportedly benefited from the criminal action of a fellow gang member.
Conspiracy has a very specific legal definition, and this case does not meet that definition. Conspiracy involves providing material assistance to someone in their commission of a crime. In this case, there is no claim that this defendant helped the murderer in the commission of the crime. It is only claimed that the defendant benefited from the commission of the crime and from his membership in the gang. That seems to be an awfully dangerous precedent to me. As others have stated, what happens when the government defines the NRA, the Tea Party, or FR to be a gang? What happens if some unhinged member of one of those organizations commits a crime? Are you okay with being prosecuted because a fellow Freeper kills someone?
BTW, I am not defending this person’s life choices or trying to portray him as an innocent victim here. He probably did commit crimes as a gang member, but that’s irrelevant to this case. He is being charged with a crime for something that should not be criminal. In fact it’s pretty hard to even speak of this person COMMITTING a crime since he’s not actually be charged with taking ANY action. He didn’t actually DO anything regarding the murder that took place. He is being charged solely based on the people with whom he chooses to associate.
They’ll have to build a lot more prisons to lock up all the union members.
Being in a gang is not, and should not be illegal. Committing crimes is and should be illegal. Obviously, members of gangs commit crimes at a much higher rate than the general population. However, it still is incumbent on the government to PROOVE that a gang member actually committed a crime before punishing that gang member. In this case, the government is essentially prosecuting a gang member for nothing more than being a gang member.
If he did in fact commit crimes, then go after him for the crimes he actually committed. In this case, I find it hard to maintain that he committed a crime because, in relation to the murder in question, he did not actually DO anything. The government is not claiming that he had anything to do with the murder. The government is not claiming that he helped anyone else in the commission of the murder. It is claiming that he is friends with a group that is known to commit crimes, and that the murder was committed by a fellow member of this group. Would you be okay with being charged for conspiracy to commit murder if another Freeper killed someone, simply because you are a member of FR?
OK, granted. I’m not thrilled with the nature of the law either, but my original comment still stands - he sounds like a scumbag who cleaned up nice for the picture in the article. We would be hard pressed comparing this guy’s life choices to those at FR.
The FBI says there are 1.4 million gang members. A google search shows another estimate of nearly 800,000. This man is charged with the logic that when one gang member murders somebody, the other gang members are guilty of conspiracy to commit. With somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 gang related homicides per year, how many other gang members could be treated like man was? And how many really are? Just about zero? I think this is an unequal enforcement of the law. That strikes me as very unfair. And then this man can go possibly go to jail for the rest of his life? You really want to defend that type of justice system?
Even if they had iron-clad evidence that he was a member of this gang, that’s not sufficient to convict him in this case, or at least it shouldn’t be. Joining a gang is NOT illegal. Selling drugs is illegal. Robbing people is illegal. Committing rape is illegal. Killing people is illegal. Joining a gang is not. True, gang members do all of those things that I listed, but the mere act of joining a gang is not illegal. One is not a criminal by virtue of being in a gang; one must also commit a crime to be a criminal.
Admittedly, it seems likely that this defendant committed some crime at some point during his time as a gang member. I won’t dispute that. However, if that’s the case, prosecute him for the crime or crimes he actually committed, not for this murder. It is readily admitted by the government that he had nothing to do with this particular crime, other than that he benefitted from it because of his membership in the gang.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.