Comment by JKCalhoun
9 months ago
Feels like their defense for some state incursion is an admission of a larger crime. I still don't get it.
I'm not going to murder someone, steal their car, then put out a statement that I was unaware the car had expired tags and I shouldn't be prosecuted for it.
Is this your first experience/exposure to the us legal system?
Defending yourself from an accusation using a hypothetical admission doesn't actually admit to it. e.g. I didn't murder anyone, and I didn't steal that car, but if even if I did murder them, and steal their car, the car's expired tags wouldn't apply to me because [reason].
If you care about justice, you want to enable every truth to come out, and be decided on. If you prohibit someone from making an argument, because it might imply something that is separate, you limit the the possible outcomes to something strictly less fair. If someone did murder a person them and took their car, they should be prosecuted for that, but just because you did commit crime a, and crime b, doesn't mean you should be convicted of crime c. Even if crime c is the least significant. That's still not just.
A YouTube video I saw talked about the charges faced by the accused killer of the United Healthcare CEO.
Aside from murder , he faced:
- criminal possession of a weapon
- illegal possession of a silencer
- illegal possession of an automatic weapon (it wasn't full auto, but somehow due to the large capacity magazine, NY state considers it an automatic weapon)
So had he used a hammer or a knife, he might be able to get out again because murderers in NYS can be out in as little as 20 years. But all the firearms charges can effectively double his sentence.
Of course you will if you've been caught and charges are being filed and there's evidence you were in the car.