SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-many-wrongs-does-it-take-to-make-a-right dept.
Common Dreams reports
In a much-hailed, if modestly problematic, act of righteous revenge, [on Thursday August 4,] an African-American inmate allegedly sucker-punched [...] Dylann Roof--an act that sparked much online praise for the "vigilante hero", a fundraiser for donations to his commissary account, and, finally, the posting of his $100,000 bond by a supporter.
Roof is in protective custody at the Charleston County Detention Center for killing nine African-American churchgoers in South Carolina in 2015. He was in the shower when Dwayne Stafford, a 26-year-old inmate reportedly doing time for either weed violations or strong arm burglary, allegedly got out of his cell, reached Roof, and landed a couple of punches to his face. The sheriff said Roof was attacked "for no reason", which many would argue was less than accurate.
Roof suffered only minor injuries, and his lawyer declined to press charges.
[...] The next day, 18 months after he'd originally been arrested, an anonymous supporter posted [Stafford's] bond, and on Friday he was reportedly freed.
I find that heavy.com typically has the facts quickly on violent crimes.
Previous: [Racially-Motivated Mass Murder in] Charleston, SC
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:08PM
Anyone is allowed to praise this man, but anyone who donated or posted that bond needs to go to jail and the vigilante needs to get slapped with a further "profiting from a crime" charge.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:40PM
Anyone is allowed to praise this man, but anyone who donated or posted that bond needs to go to jail and the vigilante needs to get slapped with a further "profiting from a crime" charge.
On what grounds? Have you really thought through your assertions? What crime did they commit?
Expressing their opinion? That's firmly in free speech. On spending their money for something? The courts generally consider money to be analogous to speech (which I dislike, but is generally better than the alternative). The closest crime I can think of is something like "incitement to violence," but it's hard to justify that for an action taken after the violent offense.
As for the vigilante, I don't think "profiting from a crime" is a specific criminal charge. Even if it is, I assume you would need to prove that the person reasonably expected to profit from his criminal act, which would be hard to prove. Who assumes they'll earn money from strangers from doing an act of vigilante justice? You would also need to prove that the person did earn a profit (they just posted bail, none of the money went to the vigilante).
These "that should be illegal" kneejerk reactions really annoy me. How do you think we ended up with things like the TSA?
Incidentally, I assume whatever crime you would want to stick against these donators to his bail would also apply to Trump and his offering to defend the man who attacked another man at one of his rallies... By the way, did he actually follow-through on that promise? I don't see anything since March 13 saying whether he did or not.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:54PM
You cannot pay someone to commit a crime. In this the court has been very clear.
"reasonably expected to profit from his criminal act", No, you do not need to expect payment. Criminals are generally not allowed to profit from their past crimes. No criminal expected to be able to write a memoirs after their chime and make money, they are still breaking the law when they profit from their past crimes (Son of Sam laws).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:03AM
The money should go to Roof. I'm not joking either. Unintended consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @03:43PM
You cannot pay someone to commit a crime. In this the court has been very clear.
"reasonably expected to profit from his criminal act", No, you do not need to expect payment. Criminals are generally not allowed to profit from their past crimes. No criminal expected to be able to write a memoirs after their chime and make money, they are still breaking the law when they profit from their past crimes (Son of Sam laws).
Let's take your legal theory to its natural conclusion. You do some crime, say... jaywalking. You get a fine or whatever. I then, on my own volition, send you $100 and claim it is because you did that crime. Now the authorities can charge you with another crime of profiting from a criminal act?
Is that really what you are proposing?