Michigan Cops, DA Wants To Ruin Black College Student's Life Just Because

DeJuawn Wallace being arrested in a February traffic
stop, from a police dash cam. He didn't pull
over immediately, but continued to drive
to a well-lit area, for safety. Cops
and a prosecutor object to this.  

UPDATE: 
As expected because of the negative publicity and the fact that even prosecuting the case made prosecutors a laughing stock, they dropped the charged Thursday agains DaJuawn Wallace.

His "crime," as you'll read below in the original post, was being cautious.

But as the Huffington Post points out, Prosecutor Christopher Boyd offered a plea deal for Wallace to plead guilty to a lesser charge, before the publicity over this stupidity blew up in Boyd's face, and he had to drop the charges.

However, Boyd and very many other prosecutors offer "plea deals" to people charged with crimes, even though many of these people might not have actually committed any crimes.

But, the defendents are often poor and don't have the resources to fight the bogus charges. Or, they've had previous run-ins with the law and realize nobody will believe they are innocent.

Prosecutors usually occupy elected positions. The prosecutors offer these bogus plea deals to innocent defendents because it gives them a higher conviction rate, making them more appealing next time they're up for re-election.

While there are some damn good, honest prosecutors out there, a large number of them, apparently, think their career and their bragging rights is worth ruining the lives of many innocent people by giving them bogus crime records.

One researcher estimates there might be as many as 20,000 people in jail serving time or crimes they did not commit. And some of those crimes actually happened, but were committed by someone else who is still out in the streets.

It's just easier for prosecutors to grab the low hanging fruit and win easy prosecutions against innocent people. Again, just to advance their careers.

Absolutely shameful.


PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

One dark early morning in February, DaJuawn Wallace, 24, was driving along a very poorly lit road in Kockville Township, Michigan.

Suddenly, the blue lights of a police car flashed in back of him.

Wallace knew that there had been incidents in the area in which people pretending to be cops, complete with blue lights pull people over and rob them or even worse.

Wallace said he signaled to the cop that he would keep driving - slowly - until he arrived at a safer, brightly lit area.

People are often advised to do this.  In and near Detroit, there have been recent cases of people impersonating police and stopping people to rob them.

A mile and half down the road, Wallace pulled into the glare of a brightly lit Sam's Club parking lot and stopped.

The cop decided to charge him with a felony count of fleeing and eluding police for not pulling over sooner, reports the Michigan news site MLive.com

This despite the explanation from Wallace. The DA "generously" offered a deal in which Wallace could plead guilty to a misdemeanor with a delayed sentence, meaning the charges would be dismissed if he completed a one-year probation.

But if he does that, he probably would lose his job and almost definitely his college financial aid.

Saginaw County Chief Prosecutor Christoher Boyd said when a police officer in a official police cruiser orders you to stop uou must. "You don't get a driver's license and get to pick what rules you are going to follow and what rules you are not going to follow," Boyd said, as reported at MLive.com.

Well, Wallace DID stop, once he got to a well-lit area, and he didn't try to speed off and outrun the cop. He just didn't know if he was about to be robbed or not. So I guess if you're a young black man in Michigan, you don't get the choice of trying not to be a victim of crime.

Nobody has come up with evidence so far that Wallace did anything other than seek a well lit, public place. The only reason why cops stopped him in the first place is because his car resembled one that had just driven on a sidewalk at a nearby college. It turns out, the sidewalk driver wasn't Wallace.

So what's Boyd's deal? Does he just never want to "lose" a case? Maybe his ego is too fragile to give up on a prosecution when facts present themselves?

Or is Wallace an uppity black kid. After all, he's pursuing a Master's degree in college. You don't want any n*****s being successful, right Prosecutor Boyd? God forbid a white guy like you lets a black guy find success.

The above paragraph might be an over the top accusation. I sure hope it is.

Nonetheless, Mother Jones reported today that the vast majority of prosecutors in the nation are white men. Obviously, most of them aren't racist. Still, when 79 percent of prosecutors are white men, and 14 states have an all white male prosecuting lineup, you do want to see a little more diversity.

This week, the Michigan case has suddenly gotten lots of publicity. When bad PR  happens, the prosecutor will try to find a face saving way out in which Wallace doesn't end up with problems concerning his job or school financial assistance.   He'll just got some sort of toothless warning.

One sign that things might work out in Wallace's favor is public support. MLive.com has an update saying there will be a rally in his behalf tomorrow.

But who knows how many other people get in trouble like Wallace did? For doing something innocent, or at least benign, I bet a lot of people have their lives ruined by the occasional overzealous cop or prosecutor.

Time to fix this problem, maybe?

Judge Tells Prosecutor That Writing Rap Lyrics About Gangs Is Not A Crime, Duh!

San Diego rapper Tiny Doo faced up to life in prison
because prosecutors said he profited from gang
activity by writing lyrics about gangs.
A California court tossed the charges recently.  

Last November, I told you about the rapper named Tiny Doo, who was jailed and charged with, as prosecutors put it, fitting the legal definition of a gang member who 'willfully promotes, furthers, assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.'

Prosecutors were applying a law that says if somebody personally profits from gang activity they can be charged with a felony.

So yeah, if Tiny Doo was gunrunning to make a profit and supply the gangs, that would be a problem. It would also be a problem if the gangs paid him to tell them the location of somebody they wanted to kill.

As I noted a few months ago, Tiny Doo did none of these things.

He released a rap album called "No Safety" which had cover art showing a gun and bullets. Plus some of the lyrics dealt with the things gang members do.

Because he made money rapping about the things gangs do, he profited from gang activity, said prosecutors.

Thankfully, a judge just said, Uh, No. The First Amendment wins after all. Just because gang members like your music, doesn't mean you should be charged with the crime of profiting from gangs.

Says 7NBC in San Diego:

"(Prosecutors) claimed his homegrown music helped inspire the violence, even though there is no evidence connecting him to the actual shootings."

The prosecutors' logic, it seems, is akin to somebody listening to the old song "I Don't Like Mondays," which is about a school shooting, and then claiming a real school shooting arose because the assailant happened to hear that song.

Or as Tiny Doo's defense attorney, Brian Watkins said, "I think the whole world was watching because when they put our First Amendment here in America on trial, to say that Brandon Duncan's rap music encouraged these shootings."

That's why I'm making such a big deal out of this one case. Slippery slopes don't always happen, of course, but what's to stop some prosecutor from making a crime out of producing any kind of art the prosecutor thinks is distasteful.

I happen to like the song, "I Don't Like Mondays" so should I be arrested as a potential school shooter even though the last thing I ever want to do is bring a gun near a school. (I don't even have a gun, for crissakes. )  

 7NBC in San Diego says San Diego County District Attorney spokeswoman Tanya Sierra released a statement saying the office would respect the court's decision but added this:

"While a debate over the law can be constructive and educational, combatting the scourge of deadly gang violence remains our focus. Instead of waiting for ore shootings and murders to victimize the community we used this law to cripple the organization."

I'm all for stopping violence and putting gangs out of business, but maybe prosecutors should have went after gangs without getting creative with the First Amendment. I'm sure they can pin a lot of evidence on gang members who shot or threatened people.

The District Attorney's office said all the people they charged in connection with the Tiny Doo case are gang members. So, prove it. Is Tiny Doo a gang member or not?  If he is, you'd think there'd be evidence beyond the fact he made rap music.

The statement from Sierra's office said court records show that everybody's a gang member in this case and the media is being manipulated.

I would think that somebody in the media would find the supposed evidence that Tiny is a gang member and report it.

If so, charge him. With real evidence. Until then, I'm totally writing this off as prosecutorial overreach. And I'm offended the prosecutor has such little regard for the First Amendment.

California Prosecutor Thinks The First Amendment Is Annoying, Can Be Ignored

A rapper named Tiny Doo faces a possible long
prison sentence because a whack job prosecutor says
he's profiting from gangs, what with the images
in guns and bullets and all on this album cover. 

Let's face it. Few people like gang members.

Given all the murders, the thefts, the drugs, the violence and whatever else they're up to, it's always awesome to prosecute when they start committing crimes.

So it's good that the district attorney in San Diego is going after a dozen or so gang members implicated in a string of shootings.

That's the slight glimmer of positivity.

Here's why I think the district attorney is a creep arguably worse than the gang members:

 One of those charged is a rapper named Tiny Doo.  (His real name is Brian Duncan, but his moniker "Tiny Doo" is more interesting.)

According to the Los Angeles Times, Tiny Doo faces up to 25 years in prison. Why?

As the Times explains it, "Prosecutors say..... Duncan fits the legal definition of a gang member who 'willfully promotes, furthers, assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.'"

Oh, Tiny Doo must have provided guns to the gang members so they could commit their crimes?  Or maybe drove them to them to the crime scene? Or told the gang members where they could find their victims to kill?

Um, no.  None of those things. He's clean.

It turns out Tiny Doo released a rap album. It's called "No Safety" and it has a picture of a gun and bullets on the cover.

Oooh! A picture of a scary gun! And bullets! Yup, that supposedly makes Tiny Doo a mass murderer or something.

This rapper, named Tiny Doo, faces a long prison sentence
for rapping about gang violence. First Amendment, Smirst
Amendment, apparently.  

Yeah, I'm sure the album is not my cup of tea, and I'm sure it's not the prosecutor's either. Everybody's a critic.

There's a little known California law that hasn't been challenged yet, that says people can't profit off gang activity. That's fine.

But prosecutors say Tiny Doo is profiting off gang activity because he raps about gang activity, which supposedly helps album sales, which means he's profiting from gang activity.

That is quite the little stretch isn't it, Mr. Prosecutor Man!

But last I checked, the government, under the First Amendment, can't suppress free speech, in this case in the form of a rap album, because somebody who listens to it might subsequently decide to commit a crime.

Oh sure, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, but rapping about gangs and violence? It's distasteful to some of us, but not illegal.

At least it wasn't illegal.

Apparently, though, the prosecutor wants to repeal the First Amendment. By his logic we're all criminals. At least most of us.

This morning, I listened to, and enjoyed the song "I Don't Like Mondays," which is about a school shooting. (Though for the record, I hate and am distressed by real school shootings.)

So should I be arrested for promoting school shootings? Or should the band who sings it, The Boomtown Rats, be prosecuted, even though the song is something like 30 years old?

Maybe we should arrest the members of Guns N' Roses. The rapper 50 Cent is seen holding a gun on his album "Guess Who's Back." Arrest him, too?

Did you watch NCIS on TV this week? There was probably a murder involved in the plot? So are you promoting violence by watching this show?

Tiny Doo's attorney, Brian Watkins, makes the same point, says the L.A. Times.

"If we're trying to criminalize artistic expression, what's next, Brian De Palma and Al Pacino?" Watkins said after visiting his client in jail. 

"Every drug gangster loves 'Scarface.' Does it encourage violence." asked Watkins, a reference to the 1983 movie directed by De Palma and starring Pacino." 

Prosecutors said that they have photos of Tiny Doo with the other gang members. OK. He has lousy friends. Maybe he's a lousy person himself, I don't know. It should be noted that Tiny Doo has no criminal record before this. 

The district attorney wouldn't comment. Probably hiding from the Big, Bad Reporter who wrote the article.

I'm hoping all the publicity building virally about this stupid prosecutor will make him back down. I wonder if this kind of thing goes on elsewhere, though.

I obviously want no harm to come to the district attorney, but I think he is going to come after me, anyway.

After all, I'm criticizing him pretty harshly. So he'll probably want to charge me with hindering a law enforcement official.

All because I'm probably hurting his Widdle Feelings.