>>>He sounds like a scumbag who cleaned up nice for the picture in the article.<<<
Uh he didn’t even live near the gang anymore. He had no criminal record. And from the info presented in the article, the man was busy trying to get a legit career started.
His charge was a crime for being in a gang. At best if the state is correct, he is a former gang member who has turned his back on his former life. At worst, he’s just a guy from the hood who knew gang members. Should we start to jail the tens of thousands of gang members and possibly the hundreds of thousands of men who might be friends with them?
It’s embarrassing to come to FR and see wingnut comments like this so frequently. And FWIW, the presumption of innocence is something I’ll extend to this man since the circumstances of his arrest are so damn weak. If the state can prove something more substantial so be it. I won’t judge him guilty now.
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.