Unfortunately, the problem here seems to be they needed to make a certain amount of arrests to make this "undercover operation" appear to bear fruit.
In my opinion, it seems this poor woman was randomly targeted because: 1) They were running out of time and needed a certain amount of defendants, or: 2) They couldn't find that many people doing it and had to take what they could get to make the agreed upon number of arrests.
I think there may be a discrimination case here as well. I say this because I live in an apartment complex with a heavy Latin American population, and cooking food at home and selling it to family and friends and other customers in the complex seems to be commonplace, like part of their culture. It's a way for a female to earn extra money and contribute to the household. Depending on a person's financial situation, it could mean money to feed their children.
While I admit that yes, Ms. Ruelas was in fact breaking the law(s), but I believe that the punishment certainly does not fit the crime. The response was extremely heavy. This is a woman who was selling a couple of pounds of a classic Latin seafood dish here and there. I sincerely doubt that she was running an "illegal ceviche factory." It's likely she didn't even realize she was breaking the law (although ignorance is certainly no excuse).
The point is that this is not a proper use of criminal justice resources. It's going to cost thousands if this case were to go to trial. And if I was the defendant, I would certainly retain an attorney or simply exercise my right to have a public defender and take it to trial. I would definitely NOT accept a plea. I think that the State will be hard pressed to make it's case. You have a single mother of 6 children who cooked and sold a little bit of seafood to help feed her family. I doubt any jury of her peers will want to find her guilty. While the jury is only supposed to deliberate on the evidence presented in court, let's face it -- that's not really the way it works.
Heck, some of the jurors may be in the exact same financial position as the defendant and completely identify with her.
I'll bet if she gets a decent enough public defender who pushes hard for a trial the State may even drop the charges or lower them so that it's just a fine and will not appear on her criminal record.
Honestly, this is completely ridiculous. Prosecuting single mothers of six children for selling two pounds of ceviche on Facebook? Is that what it's really come to?
Not exactly the crime of the century.
Thanks @contentking for such a brilliant response. You outlined my thoughts better than I did. Yes it seems she is being scapegoated and there may well be racial issues or simply the fact that people think she is poor and would cave in easily to the pressure. I think for normal law abiding citizens anything involving the law is very scary, lawyers are expensive and there is tremendous pressure to just do what the authorities ask.
I agree 100% with everything you just said.
Let's hope she or her lawyer don't lose their nerve.
The article said she was chosen at random, which, if true, discounts any racism. But it's still about power and control. Under the banner of saving us from ourselves, we are no longer a free society. Raw Milk providers are raided by jackbooted, armed men, lemonade stands are shut down, they even want to stop homes from using firewood for heat. Authoritarianism is rife, and the recent election, while not making it as bad as it could have been, hasn't made it any better.
True and it seems to be gradually getting worse. There was the case of that guy who was choked to death for selling single cigarettes.
Exactly. That's why the tax stamps on tobacco can get you thrown in jail.
Except he wasn't choked to death, the choke hold was really a headlock and if you watch the video you can see it was only used for about 7 seconds. He died because he was laid on his belly, which pushed his fat into his diaphragm, blocking his ability to breathe. The same thing would happen to me right now.
Still a horrible result, but as a life-long Martial Arts instructor, I have to point out the difference between techniques. He wasn't choked to death for selling cigarettes, he died because officers don't receive full training on how to safely restrain obese prisoners. They would have much rather put him in those profitable jails, that's what they get paid to do.
The police officer is still responsible either way. It is unbelievable that it would happen over a cigarette.
and how is that even illegal?
Well, it was over a history of similar complaints and resisting arrest with violence. But yes, the various officers should still be held responsible for negligent manslaughter. I believe the city should be held responsible for poor training of the people we pay to go out and do the jobs we don't want to do. There were several officers and a supervising officer there, that man should not have died.
Actually ,everybody in that city is partly responsible, they vote in the laws and the mayor who runs the copshop.
All good suppositions, however, they are irrelevant to THE LAW.
She did not break a law, she violated a code. Else, the state would be doing wrong by selling the privilege to break the law.
If she goes to court, with a lawyer, she will lose. (unless something else happened like the police didn't follow procedure, or do not actually have evidence.)
Let me make this clear, IF SHE GOES TO COURT, WITH A LAWYER, SHE WILL LOSE!!
The reason anyone would not agree with me is because they do not know what COURT or LAWYER means.
(but then again, she could get lucky and have a jury that knows jury nullification)
Read _Gulag Archepeligo_ to understand what jack booted thugs do. It is not about crime, it is about rounding up people.
which I am slogging through right now.You can also read http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm
Arrest Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson is a much lighter read and will give you an overview of the corruption involved in the system. This book is a must read for anyone in the USSA.
http://www.dirtycopperstopper.com/docs/Arrest%20Proof%20Yourself.pdf
Actually, I have a pretty good idea of how the and the courts work, as I hold a college degree in Criminal Justice.
In today's climate, I absolute disagree that she would lose if she opted for a jury trial.
As I stated earlier, we all know that the jury is supposed to consider only the evidence allowed in by the court.
HOWEVER, I also know that juries consist of human beings, and if she truly gets a jury of her peers, NOT 12 rich white people, she has a really good shot at being found not guilty.
Just as most people who read this article believe that it's a complete waste of taxpayer funds and public safety resources, the jury will also realize this.
If I were her lawyer, I would push for a trial because I don't believe the state would actually allow this to go to trial. In other words, keep pushing for a trial until they offer a suitable deal.
A suitable deal, in my opinion, means that the charge is dropped from a misdemeanor to a violation, and that a small fine is paid, let's say $100 + court costs. In fact, even better than a fine, since the poor woman has 6 children to feed, maybe 8-10 hours of community service + court costs ($25-$50 in most states).
It's bad enough that the actual arrest will probably hinder her from finding decent employment for the rest of her life, whether she is found guilty or not, since that type of information is made public and readily available for free on the internet.
All in all this is just a HUGE misappropriation of funds and resources. Those cops could have used all of that time they used to conduct this "investigation" on going after REAL criminals like killers, rapists, drug dealers, pedophiles, burglars, etc.
Also, I don't fall for this "random" bullshit, either. I still say this investigation had racial undertones.
Seriously, I don't know what this country is coming to.
Anyone who believes that the United States is actually a "free" country is either deluded or has been asleep for the last 20 years.
Well I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the difference between codes and laws. Thanks for the links:)
nothing is ever certain. everything is always in constant flux; change is the only constant.
you say she will loose the case but there are possible probabilities that she will win the case....as nothing is impossible
I think she could win. Sometimes good and common sense does prevail.