Crime MS-13 gang member who raped and murdered austic girl in Maryland was allowed to enroll into high-school after arrest

[ssBaldy]

So you want to just do away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Sounds pretty un-American to me.

Concept of "innocent until proven guilty" here should be- his identity is not revealed to the public before he's found guilty, and he gets the case erased and a financial compensation if he's found innocent. You should not let loose murder/rape suspects as long as they are suspected, period.

 

[NoSmilez]

This story is crazy. Apparently the murderer is that woman’s roommate or rented a room in their mobile home.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

- not a student just trying to go to school

Just a poor innocent DREAMER trying to go to school lmao

Never change, liberals.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Yeah if they’re here illegally, in a gang, and the prime suspect in a murder. Are you fucking stupid or something?

Yes. Yes he is.

 

[Scerpi]

So you want to just do away with the concept of innocent until proven

Sending him into a school and not informing parents is going too far. What if he did it again

They could have kept home or something‍♂… anything

Not sure why the border patrol sent him to live in Maryland. He should have been out of the country. That young woman's life would have been saved.

Yes… agreed

 

[USA!USA!]

Just a poor innocent DREAMER trying to go to school lmao

Never change, liberals.

lol I never said he was innocent. I am also not a liberal. Keep making shit up

 

[USA!USA!]

Sending him into a school and not informing parents is going too far. What if he did it again

They could have kept home or something‍♂… anything

He wasn't charged with anything initially. Part of living in a free society is not allowing the state or police to hold people without charges for multiple days. I don't think we want to go down the road of letting them just hold people indefinitely. At that point, they didn't know that he did anything.

But yes agreed - he should have never been here to begin with.

 

[USA!USA!]

Concept of "innocent until proven guilty" here should be- his identity is not revealed to the public before he's found guilty, and he gets the case erased and a financial compensation if he's found innocent. You should not let loose murder/rape suspects as long as they are suspected, period.

You can't hold people who are not charged. I don't think you want that. They should have just held him for the full 6 months until they found something?

 

[USA!USA!]

What the fuck? You understand there's a lot of space between imprisoning someone and just tossing them into a school with apparently a lack of enough supervision to keep them from raping and murdering someone, right?

Innocent until proven guilty isn't a guarantee you get to live life completely unwatched and unfettered. This POS shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a large, vulnerable population like a school. Fine, don't put him in jail until you have real proof. But if he's the primary suspect, you take serious precautions until he's ruled out.

Let me be clear - I am not against the police making the school aware. They should probably take those precautions if the investigation is serious enough (e.g. murder). Let the school decide for itself then or provide a special program if they want to. It sounds like they didn't do that for whatever reason.

However, I do think that a person who has not been charged should be able to go to school, though. You can't just stop their entire life if there are no charges. What if they are innocent?

 

[ssBaldy]

You can't hold people who are not charged. I don't think you want that. They should have just held him for the full 6 months until they found something?

I did not get that there were no charges. He is said to have been a primary suspect with the evidence from surveilance systems in the article.
Then it is weird how they waited for the dna results to even charge him. Seems more like a condemning evidence enough for a judge to give verdict, than mere base for charges.

 

[mkess101]

Let me be clear - I am not against the police making the school aware. They should probably take those precautions if the investigation is serious enough (e.g. murder). Let the school decide for itself then or provide a special program if they want to. It sounds like they didn't do that for whatever reason.

However, I do think that a person who has not been charged should be able to go to school, though. You can't just stop their entire life if there are no charges. What if they are innocent?

There are ways they can continue their education without allowing a prime murder suspect into a population of a bunch of kids.

 

[Gotosleepho]

If he's found guilty he needs to be executed ASAP. But there's no trial...

 

[Michaelangelo]

6 months to get a DNA test back is wild

This is on top of detaining an illegal alien and letting them go

 

[Mack Yancy]

Was he only a suspect when he enrolled? I mean, I'm glad they eventually got proof and sent him away, but I am not outraged if he was only a suspect when he enrolled.

Of course @White Whale knew this but doesn't care.

These law and order republicans who scream innocent until proven guilty only care about due process when it suits them.

 

[GrantB13]

"Authorities did not alert the school of his status as a suspect"

Schools don't do background checks. If nobody told them he was a suspect, what were they supposed to do? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Murder trials aren't solved in 3 weeks. If a case takes a year or more to work through the system and they are ultimately declared innocent you just took away an entire year of a person's life. Thank god I don't work in the judicial system. It sounds like a damn mess regardless of which way you handled something like this.

 

[BFoe]

Common sense. If you're the prime suspect in a murder case, you don't attend school while it plays out. For EVERYONE'S safety.

Shit, imagine someone falsely accused gets cornered by a few guys that are sure he did it and they take matters into their own hands.

This really isn't complicated and it's nuts it even needs to be discussed at all.

It shouldn’t need to be discussed: being charged with a crime means something in this scenario, merely being a suspect does not.

You’d like the government to be able to deny people things simply because they’re named as a suspect? That’s ludicrous. What else should they not be able to do? Go to work? Run a business?

The Constituion is clear that people can’t be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Simply being a suspect is not due process.

 

[mkess101]

It shouldn’t need to be discussed: being charged with a crime means something in this scenario, merely being a suspect does not.

You’d like the government to be able to deny people things simply because they’re named as a suspect? That’s ludicrous. What else should they not be able to do? Go to work? Run a business?

The Constituion is clear that people can’t be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Simply being a suspect is not due process.

I'd argue that separating the prime murder suspect from a student population isn't denying him "life, liberty, or property". He has a right to a public education. AFAIK, there are no specifics as to how he receives that education guaranteed to him in the constitution. (Which if he was not a US citizen I'm not sure even applies). The only one of those that could even potentially be applicable would be liberty, but again I don't think there are firm parameters on what constitutes "liberty".

I guess they could fight that out in court? Had he been forced to get his education privately, away from other students maybe a lawyer would argue he was being deprived due process and his right to liberty infringed on? And the other side would argue he was not.

 

[BFoe]

I'd argue that separating the prime murder suspect from a student population isn't denying him "life, liberty, or property". He has a right to a public education. AFAIK, there are no specifics as to how he receives that education guaranteed to him in the constitution. (Which if he was not a US citizen I'm not sure even applies). The only one of those that could even potentially be applicable would be liberty, but again I don't think there are firm parameters on what constitutes "liberty".

I guess they could fight that out in court? Had he been forced to get his education privately, away from other students maybe a lawyer would argue he was being deprived due process and his right to liberty infringed on? And the other side would argue he was not.

I’d say you are denying them liberty.
I’d also say you aren’t giving them equal treatment under the law.

I don’t think they could even fight that out in court, honestly. What’s the state going to say—“we think this dude did something but we don’t have evidence to charge him, but please order him not to ever be around people”? On what basis?

Think of a high profile case like the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Those parents were suspects for years and were never charged. Should they not be allowed to go to work because they’ll be around people? Should John Ramsey have been forced to resign from his own business he ran because he has to be around people?

Allowing the government to restrict the basic freedoms of people simply because they are suspected (allegedly) of something is a crazy abuse of power.

 

[mkess101]

I’d say you are denying them liberty.
I’d also say you aren’t giving them equal treatment under the law.

I don’t think they could even fight that out in court, honestly. What’s the state going to say—“we think this dude did something but we don’t have evidence to charge him, but please order him not to ever be around people”? On what basis?

Think of a high profile case like the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Those parents were suspects for years and were never charged. Should they not be allowed to go to work because they’ll be around people? Should John Ramsey have been forced to resign from his own business he ran because he has to be around people?

Allowing the government to restrict the basic freedoms of people simply because they are suspected (allegedly) of something is a crazy abuse of power.

In this case, does a lack of citizenship give the government an "out" when it comes to due process? I'm not sure.

But that aside (because the scenario could play out with a US citizen as well)--don't we have all sorts of situations where the government limits the movements etc of people prior to actually charging them? Every situation is different, but in the case of the state being fairly certain the person committed a heinous crime but still actively investigating and being in the process of collecting all the evidence to make sure the case is airtight--what do you suggest that doesn't put a very vulnerable group of people like a student body at grave risk? Just shrug and say "Well we know this dude killed some people. It's gonna take us a couple weeks to collect the evidence. Hope he doesn't murder some more classmates in the meantime!"

 

[nhbbear]

In this case, does a lack of citizenship give the government an "out" when it comes to due process? I'm not sure.

But that aside (because the scenario could play out with a US citizen as well)--don't we have all sorts of situations where the government limits the movements etc of people prior to actually charging them? Every situation is different, but in the case of the state being fairly certain the person committed a heinous crime but still actively investigating and being in the process of collecting all the evidence to make sure the case is airtight--what do you suggest that doesn't put a very vulnerable group of people like a student body at grave risk? Just shrug and say "Well we know this dude killed some people. It's gonna take us a couple weeks to collect the evidence. Hope he doesn't murder some more classmates in the meantime!"

No, even non citizens have due process. And they need to charge this dude and lock him up so he doesn’t harm anyone else. They just need enough evidence to charge him and they can continue to investigate and lock their case up.

Edit. I reread the op after thinking to myself that this guy was found guilty. He was charged and plead guilty and was sentenced to basically life if he isn’t paroled. If he ever gets out, they should immediately deport him as he would be in his sixties. If he got out after 3/4 of his sentence