"Morgan Stanley financial adviser escapes felony charges for hit-and-run 'because it could jeopardise his job'" »
Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, was set to face felony charges for running over a doctor who he hit from behind in his 2010 Mercedes Benz, and then speeding off.
But now he will simply face two misdemeanour traffic charges from the July 3 incident in Eagle, Colorado.
This is appalling. I can’t believe how many chances the criminal justice system will throw at people if they’re privileged enough. This doesn’t just apply to prosecutors, either, or the way they decide to charge crimes (which is the reason for the egregious difference in the charged offenses here). The entire criminal justice system is stacked against those who are unfortunate enough to either be working class, or without a college degree, or of color, or any combination of the above.
“Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession, and that entered into it,” [] said [the prosecutor].
How is this something that can impact your decision? Doesn’t the criminal justice system currently labor under the legal fiction that there are direct and indirect (read as: civil) consequences, only the latter of which can be held to affect a criminal charge?
It’d be great if prosecutors would put more thought into whether charging and convicting someone with a felony could negatively impact their employment options, but that sort of calculus doesn’t seem to enter the equation when you’re dealing with a guy that cleans bathrooms at McDonald’s and has financial dependents.
You can’t have it both ways! ahhhh so much outrage.
"U.S. lawsuit targets Philly's 'stop-and-frisk' policy" »
The plaintiffs are seeking class status and rulings to prevent the police from conducting pedestrian stops based on race or national origin.
The suit also asks the court to order more police training, supervision, and monitoring to ensure that “stops, frisks, searches, and detentions comport with constitutional requirements.”
Oh, you. The idea that Terry stops are actually anything more than vehicles for legitimizing racial profiling is sort of funny* to me! I am seriously curious as to what the ACLU’s strategy is, though, given that courts all over the nation have upheld thinly veiled instances of racial profiling as constitutional, pursuant to the low, low bar set by Terry v. Ohio.
The Terry standard is the oft-quoted “reasonable suspicion.” If this sounds familiar, it might be because the same language is used in SB1070. Proponents of that bill have been quick to state that a “reasonable suspicion” is something substantial enough to protect against totally arbitrary police action… but case law demonstrates that almost anything can qualify as “reasonable suspicion.”
A broken headlight, for example. That is really all it takes for a cop to justify pulling someone over. And then people are surprised to hear that instances of racial profiling are alive and well amongst police enforcement! Funny.*
*And by funny, I mean incredibly sad.
