Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "" video.

@docjohnson1 That's ridiculous. It's been challenged several times, even at the Supreme Court level and upheld. If you don't like the law, work to change it. Calling someone a boot licker for understanding the law is just pathetic and only shows your own ignorance. At no point did they claim to agree with that law or disagree. They simply explained the law and the reasons used for it to be upheld by the courts. You're the boot licker for not wanting people to understand how the law works so they can avoid the charge. You'd rather they remain ignorant and continue to be prosecuted for an easily avoidable crime. Only the state benefits from people's ignorance of the law. Edit: It's really simple. Comply, keep your mouth shut, and demand a lawyer no matter innocence or guilt. You'd rather people resist and run their mouth making it much easier for the state. Brilliant.
8
@PrezVeto Not really. You can't be charged with subsequent crimes if not convicted of the first crime. The main problem with your point is that under US law a person is innocent of a crime until convicted. Declining to prosecute vs stating no crime was committed is irrelevant. Even if charged, but you haven't been to trial yet, you can't be tried on crimes related until the first is settled due to presumed innocence. That's why even in a trial in the same jurisdiction with multiple related crimes, the major crime is the first read and decided by the jury. If you're not found guilty of it, all related charges are due facto not guilty.
6
That first allowance of the extension of the statute of limitations, if upheld in this case, basically will eliminate it for anyone that lives outside the city of NY and commits a crime. It would mean that if you get in a fight in NYC and live in another state, they can choose not to extradite you for 20 years, then decide to and there's nothing you can do. That's a massive violation of our rights. That why rules like that have to be strictly defined by the law or the courts. If it's too ambiguous and hasn't been defined by the courts previously, that entire law can be found unconstitutional and stricken.
1