Minnesota Teen Not Charged by Progressive DA in Deadly Crash Accused in Stabbing

[Slant Eyed Polack]

Link: Minnesota Teen Not Charged by Progressive Prosecutor in Deadly Crash Accused in Stabbing

Executive Summary: A Minnesota 19-yr old has an impressive rap sheet, including cops using spike strips to end a high speed chase back in December. After which the prosecutor told him 'silly boy, please don't do that again.' Last month the choirboy was minding his own business when he blew through a stop sign & t-boned a family of 6 and killed 11 year old Lily Loycano. But hey, accidents happen and the choirboy walked free. Because as Hennepin County D.A. Mary Moriarty is fond of noting, "...It is really expensive to hold somebody in prison." We can be sure the Loycano family is deeply grateful for all the money Mary saved them. Totally worth it.

On Friday - just a few days after he turned Lily into roadkill - the choirboy stabbed a dude in his 50s before going on a burglary spree and stealing an ebike as his getaway ride. When the cops found him, he was covered in his victim's blood. He's currently being held on a 50k bond. No word yet from the douchebag DA if the incarceration is worth the expense.

The perfect cherry on top would be Boston Mayor Witless Wu extending her sympathies to the choirboy's family for locking him up.

 

[Melensdad]

Different state, same bullcrap…

Up to 85% of VIOLENT criminal offenders are set free onto the streets of New York by sympathetic judges. The article lays out some of the most egregious examples of miscarriages of justice.

Exclusive | Woke NYC judges are cutting ‘dangerous’ perps loose at an alarming rate

The worst of the worst Big Apple criminal court judges are setting loose violent offenders at an astounding rate ahead of their trial, with some springing perps more than 80%

nypost.com

 

[Patriot]

Unfortunately this is the downside to decentralized government. Some states, or cities, will decide to be soft on crime. However, it is my belief that when things get bad enough because of those flawed policies, the people who live there will wake up, eventually, and change things. It's just painful to watch the learning curve, and the victims pile up, in the meantime.

 

[Melensdad]

Unfortunately this is the downside to decentralized government. Some states, or cities, will decide to be soft on crime. However, it is my belief that when things get bad enough because of those flawed policies, the people who live there will wake up, eventually, and change things. It's just painful to watch the learning curve, and the victims pile up, in the meantime.

Actually I think it is the UPSIDE of a decentralized government. People can vote with their feet and leave places were policies are harmful.

Some states, or cities, will decide to be soft on crime. Others will follow a more just approach to protecting victims from criminal predators. My belief is that a centralized government would probably swing back and forth under different administrations and probably err to the "softer" side of criminal enforcement.

I sat on a federal grand jury for 1.5 years. I was in the federal courthouse in Hammond, IN, which is literally on the state line with Illinois and borders the extreme southern tip of the city of Chicago. I could probably count on my fingers how many criminals we sent to trial that were from Indiana, but I'd need a thick ledger book to count up all the Illinois criminals, released by soft on crime Illinois prosecutors and eventually caught on the Indiana side of the state line, usually for silly things like traffic stops or other minor offenses . . . and then tossed in jail and charged with federal offenses and then sent to federal prisons.

So I say it is actually a bonus. The citizens of Illinois who are fed up with the B.S. crime they face are fleeing the state. Something like 100,000 'refugees' from Illinois have resettled into Indiana, often bringing businesses and jobs with them, but the ones who move here seem to be favor leaving "blue" leaders and "blue" policies on the Illinois side of the state line. If anything, they are making Indiana more of a "red" state.

 

[Patriot]

Actually I think it is the UPSIDE of a decentralized government. People can vote with their feet and leave places were policies are harmful.

Some states, or cities, will decide to be soft on crime. Others will follow a more just approach to protecting victims from criminal predators. My belief is that a centralized government would probably swing back and forth under different administrations and probably err to the "softer" side of criminal enforcement.

I sat on a federal grand jury for 1.5 years. I was in the federal courthouse in Hammond, IN, which is literally on the state line with Illinois and borders the extreme southern tip of the city of Chicago. I could probably count on my fingers how many criminals we sent to trial that were from Indiana, but I'd need a thick ledger book to count up all the Illinois criminals, released by soft on crime Illinois prosecutors and eventually caught on the Indiana side of the state line, usually for silly things like traffic stops or other minor offenses . . . and then tossed in jail and charged with federal offenses and then sent to federal prisons.

So I say it is actually a bonus. The citizens of Illinois who are fed up with the B.S. crime they face are fleeing the state. Something like 100,000 'refugees' from Illinois have resettled into Indiana, often bringing businesses and jobs with them, but the ones who move here seem to be favor leaving "blue" leaders and "blue" policies on the Illinois side of the state line. If anything, they are making Indiana more of a "red" state.

You make some great points. The "voting with your feet" is happening to a lot of places, like California, which is also an incentive for those places to fix their policies if they don't want to lose more population and the tax base that goes with it. What I really mean by the downside is that the residents who haven't moved away, or can't for some reason, are stuck in those places, and they suffer for it, until they can either get away or enough of them vote in changes. It will happen eventually, but it's just a shame to watch what most Americans can see is the result of bad policies.

 

[Melensdad]

. . . What I really mean by the downside is that the residents who haven't moved away, or can't for some reason, are stuck in those places, and they suffer for it, until they can either get away or enough of them vote in changes. It will happen eventually, but it's just a shame to watch what most Americans can see is the result of bad policies.

I do agree with you that there are some who can't/haven't moved. And they are sometimes stuck. BUT, the reality is when they actually do decide to VOTE OUT THE CRAP then what happens is empowering.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, having 50 states that can each "experiment" with somewhat different approaches to similar problems gives us voters a way to judge the success and failures of each type of policy. This to me, exposes the politicians to both the desires of the voters and the wrath of voters. Often times the voters actually get what they voted for and then regret their choices. But they got what they deserved. And similarly, the rest of us can look at those failures and revel in our choices, or, conversely, look at the success in other states and see when we are wrong.

 

[Patriot]

I do agree with you that there are some who can't/haven't moved. And they are sometimes stuck. BUT, the reality is when they actually do decide to VOTE OUT THE CRAP then what happens is empowering.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, having 50 states that can each "experiment" with somewhat different approaches to similar problems gives us voters a way to judge the success and failures of each type of policy. This to me, exposes the politicians to both the desires of the voters and the wrath of voters. Often times the voters actually get what they voted for and then regret their choices. But they got what they deserved. And similarly, the rest of us can look at those failures and revel in our choices, or, conversely, look at the success in other states and see when we are wrong.

I agree. Decentralized government is better than centralized government, for many reasons. But let me ask you this: Should so-called sanctuary cities and states be allowed to exist? Or should federal law trump state law regarding the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants?