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.
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.
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?