re: Sentenced to Life for an Accident Miles Away

The facts as presented here make me think an appeal should yield a victory, however, I feel like we're probably not getting all the details we need. When the author describes things in this manner:

quote:

---

Sadik Baxter had searched five cars for stray cash

---

You know you're getting lied to.

Searched = breaking into, ransacked, damaged, lock punching, broken windows...there's a lot that could be going on here that the author is clearly trying to hide. If we're talking about five cars, this has to be done quickly, most likely, meaning smashing windows, tossing things, grabbing things, maybe bashing stuff or prying open the glove box etc.

Probably a ton of damage being done, and likely he was running from car to car with a crow bar or some other object being used as a weapon of sorts to break in quickly and get access - I can imagine a LEO rolling up to that and immediately having to unholster a weapon, get control of the scene, he's got multiple people to deal with, a bit of chaos, at least one armed person, probably two armed people.

There's a short chase or standoff moment, one guy drops his stuff and gives up, but this allows the other guy to get away. You can make a case, "but for your involvement and actions when the police showed up, there is no chase, no accident, no death." Side note, I don't like the phrase 'but for' but the law seems to love it.

Stray cash = stealing stuff that belongs to other people. When you store your property inside of your property, it's not "stray". It's yours and it's stored and it requires a violent, damaging act to get inside one piece of property in order to get at the other piece of property. So disingenuous to describe things in this manner.

When people write like this, all they're doing is lessening the sympathy for the person they are advocating for. This may indeed be an abusive prosecution, but with overt deception like this, no one is going to care or entertain the possibility.

This legal principle is pretty well established and it's a logical one, but there is a lot of room for abuse by prosecutors that want to make a name for being 'tough on crime'. iirc...There was a case in Texas where some men broke into a store to rob it. They emerged out the back and got into a gun fight and killed a police officer. They had a guy in a getaway car or something, that did not participate in the robbery or gun fight. He still got the death penalty with the others.

They were partners in a felony. Both are responsible for what follows.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Every hood rat in North America should be made aware of this case.

"But-For"

The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?"

Its a high burden.

They obviously proved their case and the author of the article doesn't understand the law.

Post less, you lib idiot.You're just here to waste valuable poster's time with your inane posts.

You may be book learned but you have no common sense; you offer nothing.

quote:

---

Being the victims doesn't give their opinions more validity

---

:
Of course it does!

quote:

---

You know you're getting lied to.

---

How? I found an article about the crime in a local newspaper and it lays out the same facts.

LINK

Why did you assume the author was lying?

quote:

---

Probably a ton of damage being done, and likely he was running from car to car with a crow bar or some other object being used as a weapon of sorts to break in quickly and get access - I can imagine a LEO rolling up to that and immediately having to unholster a weapon, get control of the scene, he's got multiple people to deal with, a bit of chaos, at least one armed person, probably two armed people.

---

This is pure fiction.

quote:

---

When people write like this, all they're doing is lessening the sympathy for the person they are advocating for. This may indeed be an abusive prosecution, but with overt deception like this, no one is going to care or entertain the possibility.

---

Overt deception? Based on a feeling you have?

It took me less than one minute to search for an article about the crime which corroborated what was written in the New Yorker.

I have read her work.

She posts at all hours of the day so she is either not a teacher or she is failing her students while in the classroom.

I sometimes read her post to see what she is up to but it is basic lib stupidity.

quote:

---

Everyone understands the law. No one is confused by the wording. It’s an irrational law and a government overreach. But apparently only “libs” care about the government crucifying it’s own citizens using the faultiest of logic.

---

I think this thread highlights quite nicely the cognitive dissonance of both political ideologies.

Small government republicans who typically loath inefficiencies inherent to the bureaucracy cannot admit that this is an obvious example of why government frequently fails.

Dems who think more government is always the solution to what ails us cannot admit this is a perfect example of why big government sucks arse.

quote:

---

Her posts come across as those of a 16 year old schoolgirl, not someone with a degree.

---

It’s a whole lot of setup for a big virtue signal.

She’s a better person than you are because she cares, don’t you see.

All of which she’ll vehemently deny when called on it.